<p>We should have a U.S. Department of Peace, it only makes sense.</p>
<p>Go to this web site to see more:<a href=“http://www.thepeacealliance.org%5B/url%5D”>www.thepeacealliance.org</a></p>
<p>Does this remind anyone else of 1984?</p>
<p>How?</p>
<p>jhkjhdsjhfs</p>
<p>A nation having a Department of Peace and the world’s largest military by many times over? Farce.</p>
<p>Because things labeled “Department of (Positive Term)” usually turn out poorly, or are named in such a way to mask the true nature of the department.</p>
<p>Case in point: the US government used to have a Department of War. In the wake of WWII, the Truman administration decided to rename it the “Department of Defense”, a name that is still in use today. </p>
<p>I’m all for an agency that purports to do what this Department of Peace hopes to accomplish; I’m just wary of government agencies that try to make themselves sound saintly and above criticism.</p>
<p>I would say it’s a step in the right direction.</p>
<p>and an overdue balance. The US is all about checks and balances</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah, but we don’t want too many of them. I fail to see why we couldn’t include some extra bureaucrats in the Department of Defense that could accomplish some of the stated goals of the proposed Department of Peace.</p>
<p>fine, you can call it the department of global and domestic safekeeping.</p>
<p>I mean, obviously idealistic proposals like this sound great, but you have to consider the realities of it. The government already does a lot of the things the DoP wants to do through other departments. Assuming we’re doing a bad job through the existing means, is it really the best policy option to make a new department? How would we pay for this? Would it be cheaper to just go into each existing department and put more money into the current framework we use for reducing gang violence, etc?</p>
<p>Angljc, I’m not specifically asking you these questions (but feel free to answer if you want), I’m just posing them as general things to consider.</p>
<p>
From the summary blurb I read on the DoP website, this Department of Peace sounds entirely focused on internal affairs. </p>
<p>An American Department of Peace focused on global affairs - now that sounds like a disaster waiting to happen.</p>
<p>The department would be worth more than a few bureaucrats, it would have a totally different view of defense.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s what we, as a hegemonic nation, should accomplish.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We don’t want 2 departments conflicting on how we should use our defense forces. Terrible idea.</p>
<p>Well I encourage anyone to sign the petition or make a few phone calls to your rep or senator. The DoP would be a good thing for us.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is so goofy. We have a Department of the Interior, so what the hell is the problem? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No kidding.</p>
<p>“We don’t want 2 departments conflicting on how we should use our defense forces. Terrible idea.”</p>
<p>Isn’t that exactly what our government’s 2-party system does?? Every aspect of the political system involves conflict, and takes a resolution for it to deem effective. If most of the country believes a DoP is needed, then it will be achieving exactly what our political system does, and that is offer a different view. </p>
<p>I really don’t think the Department of Transportation needs any resolutions on issues. But, for something so detrimental as defense, or homeland security, there should be more than a single action.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s bad enough that we have two political parties clashing over how to use our defense forces, but the political turmoil would only be doubled by conflicting defense departments. Less multiplicity = more simplicity = less conflict.</p>
<p>For one, there are many branches that coordinate on issues of defense: State, CIA, DIA, FBI on some issues, and of course the DoD.</p>
<p>However, the notion that there should be “checks and balances” in the civil service is woefully out of touch with what the actual function of the DoD and other branches of the bureaucracy serve. They are, essentially, the tools of the executive for carrying out his orders. What would a DoP accomplish? It would be just another bureaucratic black hole to justify hiring people to act as envoys to other nations.</p>
<p>No thanks, State already does that.</p>
<p>yea, i havent been actually thinking at 1am, and I rescind my post. </p>
<p>I think it would be a cool organization/interest group to have, not necessarily for the government.</p>
<p>Pardon moi!</p>
<p>Isn’t that what the State Department is supposed to be? It’s not really, but it ought to be. Funny how it gets about a millionth of the budget that Defense gets. </p>
<p>There’s a button that says “We need a Department of Peace”. I think it’s more of a statement than a proposal.</p>
<p>More appropriate: U.S. Department of 1337 Pwnage.</p>
<p>So, will you guys be first in line to pay for this? Unless it’s like a giant community service project with people volunteering a few hours or so every week; in that case, knock yourselves out.</p>