A Department of Peace?
This all started a few days ago on Facebook. I posted in reply to this video about General Petraeus. It got started with this comment.
“The general wants more war. Gee whiz.” …which underlines the need for civilian CONTROL of the military, not handing control over to those who want more war, the way the previous, corrupt, criminal mis-administration did (and this administration is doing now)!
Civilian control? You mean like it is now with the President in charge? What more were you really expecting? In which I got my answer.
…When there is a Secretary of Peace advising the President at NSA briefings, I would think the civilian control is adequate to balance a Department that funnels billions of dollars to the war industry, which funnels enough of it to Congress to keep it in the war business.
You mean the department of the Federal Government and Congress? The ones that approve all of the military’s budget? Also before you just view this as a joke there have been several attempts for a bill that would create such a position. It has been submitted in 2005, 2007 and 2009. All as of this posting date have not gotten past Committee. The sponsor of the bill, Rep. Dennis Kucinich has not made any noticeable changes to the bill each time he has submitted it.
Here is the full Bill, and from what I have read so far most of it if not all is based on the assumption that this will be enforceable outside of conventional methods. But that is not stopping people from trying to raise support for this bill once again.
Category: Antiwar crowd, Foreign Policy
What would make more sense, is changing the name from the Department of Defense to the Department of WAR. We don’t make defense on people, we make war.
Which would change what besides perception of the that Department? Also considering that the world is getting smaller and smaller that the day and age of waiting to be attacked is over. That what affects our neighbors and allies can/does affect us as well.
Okay, so what they want to do is provide another layer of bureaucracy. Well, we already do many of the things listed on their site. I’ve answered in CAPS
— Provide much-needed assistance to efforts by city, county, and state governments in coordinating existing programs; as well as develop new programs based on best practices nationally
—HOW ABOUT JUST GIVING THE STATES MORE OF THE TAX DOLLARS IT ALREADY SPENDS?
— Teach violence prevention and mediation to America’s school children ALREADY DONE IN MOST SCHOOLS and CHURCHES. SHOULD BE DONE IN MOST HOMES IN BETWEEN PAINTING THE HOUSE AND MUGS OF BEER.
— Effectively treat and dismantle gang psychology DONE BY POLICE, COMMUNITY GROUPS AND CITY GOVERNMENTS
— Rehabilitate the prison population
DONE BY EITHER THE STATE OR FEDS
— Build peace-making efforts among conflicting cultures both here and abroad DONE IN MANY COUNTIES, STATES and NON PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS
— Support our military with complementary approaches to peace-building. GUESS THEY HAVEN”T BEEN KEEPING UP WITH THE TIMES.
— Create and administer a U.S. Peace Academy, acting as a sister organization to the U.S. Military Academy. NOT POSSIBLE. I DO NOT WANT TO IMAGINE THE UNIFORMS THEY WILL HAVE. BUT I’M SURE IT WILL INVOLVE SPANDEX AND BIG T SHIRTS.
We already have four Federal U.S. Peace Academies.
Hey Anonymous,
If everything included in the bill is already in effect as you claim in the real world, how’s that working out?
When my son was home on leave from one of the 4 previously metioned Federal US Peace Academies he ran into his High School English teacher. She wanted to know if she had prepared him for college – yes, she was a good teacher. And what had he been reading in Freshman English? After he told her the titles of the books that he was required to read at that lovely spot on the Hudson River north of New York City; her response was “Almost all of those books have a main or secondary theme of PEACE.” His response – “Well yeah, we need to know what we are fighting to preserve”. He’s still in the PEACE preserving field.
#5
Are you assuming that if all these things were truly already existent in the real world that the real world would be different than it currently is?
If not, why the question to #3?