2006-10-25 07:43:26 · 12 answers · asked by bigbearquest 2 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
That wouldn't work. It makes too much sense!
2006-10-25 07:51:35 · answer #1 · answered by Jack430 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I tend to agree with Cochise. The Dept. of Defense acts to deter other powers from starting direct conflict with us (by us, I mean Americans). In this way, it promotes peace with our foreign neighbors. The problem is when we act preemptively, and our military is deployed to fight for our interests overseas, even when the United States is not directly threatened. Sometimes preemption is a good thing and can actually impose or enforce peace. A lot depends on execution. Bush and America would not be in so much trouble had the Iraqi war been prosecuted more successfully.
Besides, what the hell would a Dept. of Peace do? Other than cost a bunch of money we don't have?
2006-10-25 15:33:17 · answer #2 · answered by Dark Prince of Pomp 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because if you have a Department of Peace, then you have to dump money into it, and the voters will expect it to produce results. Those results would run counter to the results expected of the Dept. of War, the Pentagon, and the Dept. of Homeland Security.
2006-10-25 14:49:28 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Interesting idea. However the politicians on both sides would fight over who should be in charge. The hearings would be long and tedius and be filled with all kinds of name calling. Congressmen would want to establish and office of peace in each state and staff it so people could visit it. Then there would have to be a Million dollar statute to eximplify its imprtance. It could start a war in the US for sure.
2006-10-25 15:08:33 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
We do, and I am not being flip with your question - it is called "The Department of Defense."
Serious political and philosophical writers have stated, to paraphrase T.J. O'Rourke for one example, that the US Marine Corps has done more to preserve world peace than all the well intentioned peace efforts in world history.
2006-10-25 14:48:06 · answer #5 · answered by Prof. Cochise 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because there would be no reason to dump money into it. No research, no grants, no ideas. Look at all the things research into war has brought us, velcro, microwaves, atomic energy, almost every modern convenience. There's just no money in peace.
Sorry.
2006-10-25 15:04:00 · answer #6 · answered by AdamKadmon 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It would simply raise our taxes again and it would become just another bureaucracy. Like the UN which takes more than a billion of our tax dollars every year and solves nothing.
2006-10-25 14:57:43 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because war is a force that give human life meaning.
2006-10-25 15:10:10 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
don't give them any ideas, they will create it appropriate taxes to support it and it will not work - we can't win a war we won't win a peace either
2006-10-25 14:51:49 · answer #9 · answered by worldstiti 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That's why:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Peace
2006-10-25 15:29:18 · answer #10 · answered by hq3 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋