The Dept of State is not acting like a Dept in favor of Peace and sadly Condy Rice, the head of that Dept is not a Peace and "soft" Diplomacy advocate. Everybody at the top in the Bush43 cabinet reflects the swaggering arrogant temperament of the President and the silent but deadly war hawk advocacy of Dick Cheney.
2007-09-26 05:35:21 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Government
Who is for Peace anymore in the US Gov't? Please no funny jokes or clever repartees, just real positions with reasons. This Q is intended to make us think!
2007-09-26 05:46:20 · update #1
I said nothing about eliminating the DOD and the DOS is not doing its job. My Q asked for those who can read intelligently: Should we add a DOP (which is as necessary as a DOD)?
2007-09-26 06:31:41 · update #2
Wars don't solve real problems. At best they are temporary partial solutions. Also we are not, and should not be at War with every country that doesn't like the US.
2007-09-26 06:34:42 · update #3
You can find exceptions to any rule, but exceptions do not invalidate the general rule that wars are bad solutions and always leave behind bad feelings. I have run into Southerners still bitter over losing the Civil War and some consider it unfinished business. Good point nonetheless. The wars comment is my take and it motivated me asking the Q which you have not answered. It's bad form to retort with Q's to a Q bec the Q&A format forbids dialogue which I am stretching to do at risk to my YA A/C.
2007-09-26 07:35:20 · update #4
That would be the Department of State. They are in charge of negotiations and foreign relations... the things that keep peace if possible. There are some situations (like the bombing of Pearl Harbor) where peace is impossible because we have been attacked and a response is justified and essential.
2007-09-26 05:52:24 · answer #1 · answered by Leah 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
How was the American Civil War a partial solution? It was fought over states could leave the Union and it was decided that they can't. None have tried since and if one or a group ever does they won't be allowed.
I do like your Dept of Peace idea! Wouldn't they always be fighting with DoD though? Would they have a chance to win?
2007-09-26 07:20:09 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Peace is over-rated, and essentially unattainable. There will always be thugs, dictators, and other malcontents out there sturring up trouble in the world. It is only ignorant people that have no sense of history that talk about peace as though if we all just talk nicely to each other that we can live peacefully. May I remind you that we were at peace when 9/11 happened, we were at peace when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. And much of the world was at peace when Hitler tried to take over the world.
Peace happens when those who would do you harm recognise that the cost to them would be too great to be worth it.
2007-09-26 05:53:41 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Department of Peace? Isn't that what the UN Delegation and all those Ambassadors,Emissary, and Consulates are for?
2007-09-26 05:41:28 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
No, a Department of Offense. Offense, Offense, Offense......goooooo, Offense.
2007-09-26 06:19:02 · answer #5 · answered by Steel Rain 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No, following your logic, we should have a "Dept. of Offense"...
2007-09-26 05:41:22 · answer #6 · answered by Cookies Anyone? 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋