Are you willing to support the inclusion of a Department of Peace as part of our government?

Question

How many know about and support the efforts of grassroots organization to develop a Department of Peace within the US Cabinet? the mission described below:

"Participate in an historic citizen lobbying effort to create a U.S. Department of Peace. There is currently a bill before both Houses of Congress (House Resolution 3760 and Senate 1756). This historic measure will augment our current problem-solving modalities, providing practical, nonviolent solutions to the problems of domestic and international conflict." If you have not heard of this then here is the link to FAQ's : http://www.thepeacealliance.org/content/view/53/

I am interested in knowing your view on the idea.

For those with a negative view that it would never work anyway, please think of Ghandi and his example which has inspired many others such as MLK and Aung San Suu Kyi. Doesn't change begin with a belief in the possibility?

For those of you who did not read the link I provided, this is not an anti-war, feel good agency. Here is a more detailed explanation:

Q: Can the Department of Peace be construed as anti-war, considering the controversy surrounding the United States' involvement in the recent war in Iraq?

A: The Department of Peace is not anti-military. If anything, it is an aid to our military, providing ideas and techniques to make its work easier. Peace-building techniques are not substitutes for war-making techniques. The two are not opposites but complements. What could be a greater aid to our military than a sophisticated effort to make active duty on the battlefield less necessary?

Cliffpotts2005 has put a great link into his/her answer. It is an overview by Wikipedia on the Department of Peace. Check it out.

Answer 1

You know, after this next war, the global war that is coming, we might be willing to reconsider who we are in regards to war. Once we lose 7 or 8 cities, and some 14 to 15 million citizens, not even counting the loss to the military. I have a feeling we just might take this seriously.

Answer 2

I think it is a silly idea. Everyone with a brain wants peace. Cabinet positions have to be staffed. You have to pay, through taxes, for the army of bureaucrats that would staff such a department.
In the US, we are up to our eyebrows in Cabinet departments. There are several we can do without. Example: How many people in the Department of Education teach anything to anyone? You should know the answer: None!
How much energy does the Department of Energy create? Again, None.
Ours is a world governed by the aggressive use of force. This is a reality you cannot deny, and cannot hide from. If you were Cabinet head, what would you do to persuade Islamo-fascists to give peace a chance? Answer: Nothing. No one has been able, for the last 1700 years to change the religiously perverted.

Answer 3

No offense, but it sounds like one of those feel-good useless wastes of time like the UN has become.

Peace is already the occupation of the Depts of State and Defense.

As for practical, non-violent solutions to conflict, there is no such thing. There is nothing you can do to deter a terrorist or a madman. There is nothing you can do to stop a nation in a blood frenzy.

Until somebody shows me that they can resolve the bloody civil war in Congo and stop the terrorists in Gaza and Lebanon and make the leaders of Iran and North Korea seek peace, then this is nothing but a waste of time, money and effort.

Conflict has always been resolved by either victory, or when both sides are so tired of the death and destruction they mutually sue for peace.

Look at the Rape of Nanking, the Nazi concentration camps, the Soviet purges and gulags or the killing fields of Cambodia and tell me that these could have been resolved without violence, without war.

Answer 4

I believe the best defence is a good offence! So I prefer a Department of Offence, we strike first and hit with the full measure of US military fire power. I think doing this once would scare the sh*t out of our enemies. Then they would all say " What ever you do don't piss off those crazy Americans! They will kill us all with the push of a button, and we will just be " Dust in the Wind "!

This is how it's done :

We can blow away entire nations, without Nuclear weapons, we have MOABs. 22,000lb conventional smart bombs with nuke blast power but NO radiation.

M…..Mother
O…..of
A…..all
B…..bombs

WE have Tomahawks with fuel-air explosive war heads. The big Tomahawks can carry 10 war heads. They can burn entire cities with fuel-air explosive.

First the MOAB, when the shock wave clears, in comes the Tomahawk. The entire city is flattened and then burned with fuel-air explosive. The fuel-air explosive burns everything left and it burns off all the oxygen. There is no way to survive!

With our satellites we can target every city in any terrorist nation, and then lock them all into a firing solution. Then at 3am any morning the order was given, every city targeted could be blown clean off the face of the Earth, all at the same time.

We could land our troops 30 minutes later and own the entire nation. There wouldn’t even be anyone left to shoot at our soldiers. The only thing that would be left are giant smoking holes in the Earth.
Maybe then the other nations would say “ What ever you do don’t piss off the Americans! They can blow away our whole nation with the push of a button, just like they did to those stupid A$$ holes!” Maybe being “ Dust in the Wind” would stop all stupid BS America bashing. At least to our face, what they to themselves behind our backs doesn’t matter.

Answer 5

i'm sorry, but did you say practical noviolent solutions to problems of international conflict? because that is by far the stupidest thing i have ever heard. if you are refering to the middle eastern conflict, then let me tell you this. countries like iraq and iran are not centralized. that means that the government has little power beyond major cities. even if this "peace council" were to solve problems with the government, there are still radical factions that dont care about the law, and as soon as we leave the country, theyll just storm the capital, and take over again. unless we take out the extremists, its going to be like putting a bandaid on a gash that hasnt been disinfected, youll just have to go back to it later.

Answer 6

i'm not an impatient guy or woman yet am desirous to pay attention something.. for it quite is clean that there is greater to be revealed.. as such i visit withhold my opinion.. for a manner can all people critique unfinished undertaking? I certainly have basically to assert that i got here across it very not user-friendly hitting top from "Granddad grew to become into" and that i've got a feeling i comprehend the place this is going because of the fact i'm probable analyzing too lots "between" the strains.. (-: properly written (((Bri))) I shall look ahead to something happilly with baited breath. playstation .. i commend your respond to the responses you have had. it quite is a genuine guy that would save a civil tongue in his head whilst all approximately you're dropping theirs (-:

Answer 7

No thank you. How would you like to peacefully handle terrorists? Put them in time out? Good grief! Sometimes violence is the only language people will understand.

Plus, I've never understood why it's the US's job to go around making sure other countries don't beat each other up. It's none of our business!

Answer 8

Basically, it is good for solving domestic US problems. As far as international problems are concerned-let others do it, because they are likely to do it better.

Answer 9

Just another governemet created department to suck up more tax dollars.

Answer 10

Sure,but it won't pass. There is too much profit to be made from war and weapons.