Peaceful protest works-- where's our Department of Peace?

[no name no slogan]

I just ran across this column over at Working for Change this morning. IMHO, it does a good job of dispelling the notion that the only way to regime change is through war, by citing a number of recent peaceful regime changes brought about using nonviolent means.

http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=16073

Here's an excerpt:

Given that noncombatants pay a disproportionate price in modern war, characterized as it is by escalating levels of terrorism, pure power moves wrapped in a veil of public relations and state propaganda, and a deepening sense of hopelessness, I take some comfort in the fact that nonviolent social change shines forth, even in these dark times.

I'm speaking of recent developments in Georgia (not the Georgia down South but the Georgia that was once part of the Soviet Union, a.k.a. the "evil empire"), which led to the resignation of President Eduard Sheverdnadze.

"Shevardnadze had vowed not to resign after protesters chased him out of Parliament, three weeks after disrupted legislative elections. But by yesterday evening the army and police had deserted him and his closest aides had defected," the Washington Post reports.

The 75-year-old former Soviet foreign minister said he chose to step down from power to avoid bloodshed. But knowing what we all know about power and human nature, I suspect Shevardnadze's resignation had something to do with the fact that he lost the ability to coerce the rabble into accepting his legitimacy.

This is just more evidence to suggest that a cabinet-level Department of Peace is not just some "crazy" notion by a few "fringe" cases, but a viable and realistic solution to provide alternatives to war.

[Vikingking66]

1. the thing is

Plenty of non-violent revolutions have been crushed
by the police or the army. Non-violent revolutions
only win when the police or the army stay out of it,
which rarely happens.

[no name no slogan]

2. Not necessarily

Look at what happened in the Soviet Union, Georgia, the Phillipines, India, or the "Velvet Revolution" in Czechoslovakia. These countries all had an army (the Soviet Union one of the largest in the world at the time), but they too saw the writing on the wall when the mass populace rose up against the powers-that-be-- they realized that they'd be on the losing end of a fight with the entire population of the nation.

It CAN happen nonviolently, and it can be sucessful. The problem is that, in our rush to conflict, we immediately rule out all non-violent means of social change, and head right for the weapons. This leads to unbelievable hardships for non-combatants (not to mention the troops) and many unnecessary deaths and disfigurements.

Maybe, if this country tried to be the world's #1 exporter of peaceinstead of its #1 exporter of weapons, we'd actually have a safer, more peaceful world than what we have now. It certainly wouldn't hurt to try.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

4. Add the Baltic States of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia

to that list.

[Matt04]

8. You've got to be kidding

"It certainly wouldn't hurt to try."

So, we should spend a lot of time trying to persuade Osama bin Laden and his followers to abandon their objective of destruction of the U.S. and the people who live here. What do you suppose he would be doing during this time? It is a safe bet that he would be laughing his beard off at us, building his stockpile of weapons, and planning exactly how to take us down. Do you really think bin Laden would take a Department of Peace seriously?

A whole lot of Americans will get hurt with your approach.

[no name no slogan]

11. You ignore our history with OBL

The REASON OBL is pissed off at America can be traced directly back to our treatment of him and other Arab and Muslim countries.

OBL turned against the US after Desert Storm, when we insisted on keeping US soldiers in Saudi. OBL and many other Muslims saw this as an affront to Islam-- non-believers guarding the land of the two holiest shrines in Islam was an outrage to many.

Because we didn't clear out of Saudi (AND started an unnecessary war with Iraq that was close to being settled before the invasion), OBL turned against us and began attacking US targets: two embassies in Africa in the 90s, the 9/11 attacks, and many other smaller attacks.

Had we negotiated an end to Iraq's occupation of Kuwait (which we almost had 24 hours before Desert Storm), it's quite likely OBL would not have turned against us-- and killed +3000 Americans.

[Vikingking66]

41. the question is whether they use the army

In every situation where you have had a non-violent revolution, you've had a military that in the end lost its nerve, a government that's lost its will, or a public that is opposed to violence. In India, the British public was shocked at the massacres of Indian troops, in Czechoslovakia and Poland in '89, you had a Soviet system that couldn't summon the will to stop them.

Non-violence didn't help the Hungarians in '56, because the Soviets were willing to put tanks into the streets and shoot protestors. In '68, the Prague Spring movement was brutally crushed when the Red Army was used to quell it. Here you had a military willing to use force, a government that was united in its approach, and a public kept in the dark.

I'm not saying non-violence doesn't work. I know that it does and that it has. I'm just saying that it takes a certain set of circumstances that isn't always there. That's why a department of peace is a nice idea, but isn't very practical.

A counter situation: How would a Department of Peace have handled Rwanda or Bosnia?

[LuminousX]

3. How exactly would the Dept. of Peace helped in the case of Georgia?

Or would U.S. interference just mucked things up?

If we want to produce velvet revolutions in areas of the country that we dislike, wouldn't it be better to do it with the State Department? The Dept. of Peace would bureaucratize something that can't and shouldn't be bureaucratized.

[Desertrose]

5. seems to me that "intent/intentions" is a key factor

Our State Dept...what is their intent? for the US to come out on top in every aspect probably...

Wouldn't it be a nice change to have something/someone whose top priorty is actually PEACE...is actually the best for all people...for a win/win for all involved and not just for the special interests of money & war?

I'd like to hear reasons why we shouldn't have a Dept of Peace ...I think it can be done...or at least give it a try before we all say it can't be done...how do we know if we never try???

Peace
DR

[LuminousX]

6. Peace, administered by a bureaucracy, will become vile

And I guess there is a fundamental split here. I want the U.S. to come out on top each and every time. I just want the rising tide to lift all ships together.

[no name no slogan]

9. You assume it will become "vile"

and you also assume it will be "administered" by a bureaucracy.

The peace can only be maintained by the participants in the peace itself. Generally speaking, the common people want peace-- nobody wants a war, unless they are in power and stand to gain directly from it. And the powers-that-be know this is true.

Think about what Goering said at Nuremburg:
...the people can always be brought to do the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.

This statement applies to us today. Look what happened when the people protested against the Iraq invasion: they were decried as traitors (and worse), oftentimes by even those on the "left".

And why do you assume that what's "best" for the US is for it to always come out on top? Why do you think that the US always coming out "on top" will bring peace and stability? Over the past 60 years, the US has been one of the major destablizing forces in global politics. If anything, the US coming out "on top" does more to inhibit peace than to promote it.

Peace is a zero-sum game. There are no "winners" or "losers" if you have true Peace. You only have winners.

[LuminousX]

12. Bureaucracy

The lesson of bureaucracy is as soon as someone's job is tied to 'creating peace' they won't ever want to accomplish peace because it means they will be out of a job.

Peace is best when it truly ascends from the people because that is a true and honest peace.

BTW, I don't believe in world peace. It won't ever happen. It is a utopian ideal that if it existed could only be enforced through harsh draconian measures. The only true and lasting peace is a peace where people are invested in the system. Since there will always be those who are cut out, they will have nothing to lose through violent means.

Are best bet is making the cost of war too great, but every nation has a George Bush lurking in the shadows who see War as Profit.

[no name no slogan]

13. The fallacy of your argument

The lesson of bureaucracy is as soon as someone's job is tied to 'creating peace' they won't ever want to accomplish peace because it means they will be out of a job.

Well, we sucessfully defended our country from the communist "threat" during the Cold War, and we still have a Defense Department (which was created with the merger of the Depts. of War & the Navy to cut down on bureaucracy).

You are also making the assumption that once Peace is accomplished, it will remain that way forever.

Peace is like any other thing in this world: you have to work to maintain it. Nobody is saying that we'll ever have total world peace. What we're saying is that it's a better idea to resolve conflict via peaceful means FIRST, rather than calling in the Marines at the first sign of a perceived "threat". Peace is like a good marriage, or a garden: it requires continuous vigilance on the behalf of its participants to maintain it.

BTW, I don't believe in world peace. It won't ever happen. It is a utopian ideal that if it existed could only be enforced through harsh draconian measures. The only true and lasting peace is a peace where people are invested in the system. Since there will always be those who are cut out, they will have nothing to lose through violent means.

Who ever said we'd achieve world peace? And why do you insist that only draconian measures and an "imposed" peace is the only kind that works?

If anything, the events in the world have shown that an imposed "peace" inevitably does not last. Look at the popular revolutions in the ex-communist countries-- some violent, but most not. "Peace" was imposed by the totalitarian government, but the PEOPLE overthrew these governments through peaceful and democratic means.

And we do have a participatory democracy in this country, after all. Sure, some people are more "participatory" than others, but at its core it's still all about "one person, one vote"-- even hardcore Repubs still think this way. If anything, this country's relatively peaceful existence for the last 225 years shows that democracy promotes peace, and peace promotes democracy.

[Matt04]

22. At what point do you decide "peaceful means" have failed?

Obviously the current conflict resolution issue is Iraq. At what point would you (and I mean you, personally) have come to the conclusion that peaceful means failed to obtain Saddam Hussein's compliance with U.N. resolutions? I'm guessing here but, I suspect that 12 years and 17 U.N. resolutions were not enough evidence for you that Hussein had no intention of ever complying. For words to have any meaning there must be no doubt that failure to comply will result in action. Without the certainty of action you just get played as a sucker and a chump.

[Desertrose]

23. there is always more than one course of action....

there is more than one way to go about getting results....

I would not call the sanctions and the way the US proceeded as necessarily
"conflict resolution"...the term "strong-arming" comes to mind.....

when someone goes into a situation only focused on what they want to achieve...they can't see any other options...seems to me that a Dept of Peace would bring more options to the process.....its just a whole different mindset than what we are used to....what we have been doing so far has obviously not been working for everyone.....

Peace
DR

[Dragonfly]

14. My thought is that if you had read

the actual conceptual framework of DK's Dept. of Peace, you
would have quickly learned that your statement: "Peace is best when it truly ascends from the people because that is a true and honest peace" describes exactly what is happening in front of our very eyes and souls.

As well, realizing that re-calibrating your focus onto postive energy/actions toward a merged spiritual-political countercoup could really aid the globally allied quest to vanquish increasingly oppressive tyranny.

The Department of Peace comprehensive strategies that I've studied for the past 3 years cover all the main bases to change our violent culture. No, it's not an attempt to create pseudo-Utopia, just a very timely and implementable societal project emphasizing win/win across-the-board.

Don't worry...many of us won't ever want to see the DOP get corrupted (once underway) so are watching developments quite closely.

[Matt04]

19. You are correct - almost

I was in full agreement with you right up to the "...George Bush lurking in the shadows who see War as Profit" part.

I particularly like your line, "The only true and lasting peace is a peace where people are invested in the system." Is this not what Bush is doing - on two fronts: 1) trying to prevent another 9/11 (or worse) which had a devastating affect on the American economy (a.k.a. "people invested in the system"); and 2) trying to establish a viable economic and political system in the heart of the, to use your word, "draconian" regimes of the Middle East? It remains to be seen if our efforts in Iraq will succeed.

I acnowledge the possibility that Bush is motivated by profit although I consider this highly unlikely. Given the alternative (that is, hunker down behind our borders and wait for another massive terrorist attack), I am willing to give Bush the benefit of the doubt and enough time to see if it works. Time will tell.

[redqueen]

20. A few points

"Is this not what Bush is doing - on two fronts: 1) trying to prevent another 9/11 (or worse) which had a devastating affect on the American economy (a.k.a. "people invested in the system")"

No, that's not what he is doing. Were he interested in that, there would be a full and thorough investigation of WHY 9/11 HAPPENED in the first place. But no, THAT is being stonewalled and covered up.

"and 2) trying to establish a viable economic and political system in the heart of the, to use your word, "draconian" regimes of the Middle East?"

No, because privatizing Iraq's oil supply and handing the profits mainly to American and French companies is not going to do much at all to aid the people of Iraq.

For God's sake, we won't even let Iraqi companies get the damned TELECOM contracts! If Bush were truly interested in helping to stem the flow of terrorists, we would see honest efforts made to lift those people out of misery.

But instead, what we have seen is a poorly planned, ill concieved exit strategy, which only considered such things as returning the basic services (such as water and electricity, not to mention the rule of law) to the people of Iraq AFTER they had secured the oil fields.

How could it be any more clear what the real motivations were?????

"I acnowledge the possibility that Bush is motivated by profit although I consider this highly unlikely. Given the alternative (that is, hunker down behind our borders and wait for another massive terrorist attack), I am willing to give Bush the benefit of the doubt and enough time to see if it works. Time will tell."

Yeah.

Did you know that there were OPEN INVESTIGATIONS on some of the 9/11 terrorists?

Did you know that despite the high level of warnings and alert known by the FAA and this administration, that there were NO JETS on standby near the DC area on that day? None. At least that's the excuse they use to explain why they had to scramble jets to intercept from bases much further away.

Give him the benefit of the doubt if that suits you. Most of us are waking up, though.

[Matt04]

28. Is there a better idea in there somewhere?

What you have written is a lot of criticisms of things that you believe to be bungled or selfishly-motivated actions by the Administration. I do not have any hard evidence that any of your statements are true and I doubt if you do either.

More importantly, what I do not see from you, or any of the Democrat candidates, is a better idea of what the U.S. should do instead. Here are the only Democrat ideas I have seen: Get out of Iraq immediately (or at least soon); create a Department of Peace; turn Iraq over to the U.N. Sorry, but none of those look like particularly viable options to me.

It seems to me if Democrats really wanted to unseat Bush, they would go after his spending habits. He is at least as big a spender (maybe bigger) than any Democrat president I can think of.

[redqueen]

31. Yes, there is.

The 'better idea' is regaining our credibility in the world.

Regarding 9/11, the first thing to do is establish accountability. It’s a big buzzword with this administration, but apparently nothing more than that. You claim that you don’t know of any hard evidence regarding these events. Well I can't say that I’m surprised. Most of this is kept very quiet. Might not the people who were responsible for keeping the US secure during one of the most damaging attacks in our nation’s history not be expected to be held accountable for not doing their jobs? If it’s a big issue to hold people accountable, why isn’t it news that there were open investigations?

Here’s a hint. Look up Kristen Breitweiser. She’s the widow of one of the victims of the 9/11 attack, and she and her group of fellow widows have done more to seek out justice for those victims than anyone in this administration.

Here’s a bit of what she and her group have had to do in order to bring about even an INVESTIGATION of the events leading up to the attack:

Kristen then asked the agent how the F.B.I. had known exactly which A.T.M. in Portland, Me., would yield a videotape of Mohammed Atta, the leader of the attacks. The agent got some facts confused, then changed his story. When Kristen wouldn’t be pacified by evasive answers, the senior agent parried, "What are you getting at?"

"I think you had open investigations before Sept. 11 on some of the people responsible for the terrorist attacks," she said.

"We did not," the agent said unequivocally.

A month later, on the morning of July 24, before the scathing Congressional report on intelligence failures was released, Kristen and the three other moms from New Jersey with whom she’d been in league sat impassively at a briefing by staff director Eleanor Hill: In fact, they learned, the F.B.I. had open investigations on 14 individuals who had contact with the hijackers while they were in the United States. The flush of pride in their own research passed quickly. This was just another confirmation that the federal government continued to obscure the facts about its handling of suspected terrorists leading up to the Sept. 11 attacks.

You claim not to be able to see any solutions. What you’re doing is not looking at them. You rattle off the proposals for returning Iraq to her citizens as if it’s unrealistic. To me, your characterization of returning Iraq to Iraqis as ‘not viable’ is utterly ridiculous and borders on the indefensible. Tell me, why should we not return Iraq to the Iraqis, and the sooner the better? We have brought terrorists there, we have provided the stage for nascent fundamentalism there, we have nurtured the hearts of future terrorists with our thoughtless actions.

What else do you need proof of? That we guarded only oil fields, and left their universities and museums to be looted? That we left the electric and water services with no attention for weeks if not months? Do you read the news?

"It seems to me if Democrats really wanted to unseat Bush, they would go after his spending habits. He is at least as big a spender (maybe bigger) than any Democrat president I can think of."

Bush’s reckless spending is indeed an important subject. However, it is by no means more important than getting a full accounting of what steps this administration took in the months leading up to 9/11 to stop an attack from happening. Nor is it more important than rebuilding the good relationships we used to have with our allies.

[OhioStateProgressive]

21. sounds pretty right wing to me

by any chance, are you a Joe Lieberman supporter?

[Matt04]

29. Not right wing - just looking for true leadership

No, I can't get excited about any of these guys. I don't trust a single one them to stand up to our enemies. What ever happened to the FDRs, Trumans, and Kennedys of the Democratic Party - people who recognized evil when it reared its ugly head against this country and were unafraid to confront it and do whatever it took to defeat it. Show me a Democrat with some steel in their spine and maybe they'll get my vote.

[OhioStateProgressive]

37. we have no enemies that we didn't make ourselves

as we made our own enemies, we can change that and hold out the hand of friendship and bring them back

the arabs "hate" us because we are in their view, that last part of the crusades (thanks Europe)

we have to be the ones to prove that wrong...we have to be the ones to prove we are not after their oil, their religion...running around calling people "evil" just reminds me of something from Monty Python

[Zomby Woof]

25. rising tide lifting all ships?

Reagan LOVED that line - he used it to justify his economic policies. What happens is the little ships get the crap from the big ships dumped on them. Personally, I like being on land myself.

Now isn't the time for weak nautical metaphors. The State Department abdicated its role as a peace negotiator many decades ago. It is nothing more than the civilian arm of the War Department.

Could the Peace Department be bureaucratized? Maybe so. But with a clear and distinct mission from the dual State/War departments, it could do some good, and if it saved one life, made one more nation free and hospitable (including our own), then why the hell not?

No one ridicules the Peace Corps, yet wanting to expand that idea to its logical macro-ideal seems "kooky" to self-professed liberals.

[Matt04]

7. Here are some reasons

1. Cost. I don't care to have any more of my pay taken to support another bureaucracy.
2. If this Dept. of Peace got established and it doesn't work, what do you think the chances are that it would get abolished? To put it another way, when was the last time you heard of a government agency/program being eliminated.
3. To achieve win/win results requires all parties to desire such an outcome. How often do you think that happens in international relations? It should come as no surprise that all parties in a conflict are trying to achieve a result that is in THEIR best interest.

By the way, since when is money a "special interest"? We are ALL interested in money for that is the only means of relationship we have with most people with whom we come in contact.

[no name no slogan]

10. Welcome to DU

In answer to your points:

1. Cost. I don't care to have any more of my pay taken to support another bureaucracy.

Kucinich's Department of Peace would be funded by the 15% cut in the bloated military budget. Your taxes would not increase under DK's plan.

2. If this Dept. of Peace got established and it doesn't work, what do you think the chances are that it would get abolished? To put it another way, when was the last time you heard of a government agency/program being eliminated.

That's a common myth perpetuated by the right wing that no government programs are ever abolished or eliminated. Programs and even entire departments come and go all the time. Remember the Department of War and the Department of the Navy? Or the Department of Health, Education and Welfare? War and Navy were combined into the Department of Defense after WWII, and Health, Education and Welfare was split into the Dept. of Health & Human Services and the Dept. of Education.

3. To achieve win/win results requires all parties to desire such an outcome. How often do you think that happens in international relations? It should come as no surprise that all parties in a conflict are trying to achieve a result that is in THEIR best interest.

Why would continuing war be in the best interest of ANY party? Wars are expensive in materiel and in lives lost. It is much cheaper to everyone involved to either avoid war altogether or to end it as soon as possible. Despite what the war profiteers preach, PEACE has always been more beneficial to the economy and to the lives of the citizens of ANY nation. If we were to focus even a FRACTION of the $$$ we spend on "national defense", we could solve many problems that have faced this nation for decades.

By the way, since when is money a "special interest"? We are ALL interested in money for that is the only means of relationship we have with most people with whom we come in contact.

Sorry, but most of my relationships with people don't revolve around money. I certainly didn't marry my wife for her money (she has less than me), and I don't keep my friends around because of their money, either. IMHO that's a very simplistic view of the human relationships and the world in general-- we as people are much more complex than that.

[Matt04]

15. Response

We can argue till we're blue in the face over the appropriate size of the military budget. Let me just say that I don't want this country to be in a weaker position militarily that we currently are.

I'm sorry but renaming, combining, and/or splitting agencies doesn't constitute elimination. Forget, for the moment, about what this or that agency is called. Tell me where the reduction in government spending is.

I agree with you that war is an ugly, expensive enterprise. I also agree that it would be cheaper for everyone if there was no war. The problem is people like Osama bin Laden and his followers are not the kind of people to be swayed by reason. Do you really think those who see glory in their own death as long as it kills as many Americans (or Turks, or Iraqis, or Israelis, or anyone else who oppose them) as possible can be talked into abandoning their goal of the destruction of this country?!

You miss my point regarding money. Of course the relationship with your spouse and close friends is not necessarily based on money. There is (or at least should be) an emotional component to such relationships. But these relationships are also not necessarily exempt from money either. Suppose your wife ran up $100,000 worth of debt on your credit cards or your friends started borrowing significant sums from you and never paid you back. How long do you think those relationships would last under those conditions? But what I was actually referring to is everyone else you come in contact with in your life. How about your employer, your grocer, the people you bought or rent your home from, the guy who fixes your car, the people who provide your electricty, the folks you bought your computer from, the people who sold you your clothes? (Need I go on?). EVERY one of those relationships is based solely on money since money represents the value they provide to you and you to them (most particularly with regard to your employer).

[OhioStateProgressive]

16. war is wrong, Always...and money is evil, Always (nt)

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OhioStateProgressive]

18. oh, we need it...but it is still evil

what is mostly evil is people getting mroe than they ened...and people living just toe arn more

and I will not get into a practical argument about it, yes our society is run with it, but that doesn't mean it is right...money is the most artificial construct of humankind

[Matt04]

26. So I should only get what I "need"?

Exactly how much is that? More importantly, whose DECISION is that? Are you willing to let me, or the crack addict on the street, or your next door neighbor decide how much you "need"? Or would you rather have some bureaucrat who has never met you make that decision for you? Call me old-fashioned but I think that decision is best made by each of us for ourselves.

So you believe that "money is the most artificial construct of humankind". In my opinion, money is probably the best thing humankind has ever invented. I could elaborate at length on this concept but, for brevity's sake, let me provide a quotation that is far better written than anything I could produce. Perhaps one day you will track down the source of this excerpt and read the whole work for yourself.

"To trade by means of money is the code of the men of good will. Money rests on the axiom that every man is the owner of his mind and his effort. Money allows no power to prescribe the value of your effort except the voluntary choice of the man who is willing to trade you his effort in return. Money permits you to obtain for your goods and your labor that which they are worth to the men who buy them, but no more. Money permits no deals except those to mutual benefit by the unforced judgment of the traders. Money demands of you the recognition that men must work for their own benefit, not for their own injury, for their gain, not their loss—the recognition that they are not beasts of burden, born to carry the weight of your misery—that you must offer them values, not wounds—that the common bond among men is not the exchange of suffering, but the exchange of goods. Money demands that you sell, not your weakness to men's stupidity, but your talent to their reason; it demands that you buy, not the shoddiest they offer, but the best that your money can find. And when men live by trade—with reason, not force, as their final arbiter—it is the best product that wins, the best performance, the man of best judgment and highest ability—and the degree of a man's productiveness is the degree of his reward. This is the code of existence whose tool and symbol is money."

[OhioStateProgressive]

33. what political party are you?

i don't really feel the need to argue this...you propose the love of money

how sad


"for want of the price, od tea and a slice, the old man died"

[no name no slogan]

27. Money is good nor evil, but the worship of it is

To base the worth of everything around money is very bad-- it's what people like Dubya do. And don't get me started on that assclown!

Despite your insistence, "force" is not the language the world speaks. I would argue that "diplomacy" has accomplished much more than "force" ever has.

Yes, you will get some "criminals" who want to use "force" to solve their problems. They'll destroy infrastructure, kill innocent civilians, subvert the will of the people and ally themselves with despots just so they can force their beliefs upon the masses. It makes me very angry when our government behaves this way.

And then we've got to deal with the aftermath: the creation of more "criminals" like Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, deaths of innocents, an ever-spiraling circle of violence that will continue until we eventually destroy ourselves. Maybe if we would not have funded and armed these men at first we would not have created these monsters, huh?

Yes, we need to be able to defend our country. But do we really need the ability to destroy the world a thousand times over? That is at the very least 999 times too many for most people.

But to say we cannot afford to cut our defense budget in this day and age of spiraling deficits is ludicrous. We have the largest military budget in the world-- one that's larger than the next four countries COMBINED. We are also the world's largest weapons dealer-- far ahead of Russia, our closest competitor. We have made the world more violent by these actions, and we have a responsibility to make it less violent, too.

Much of this budget is spent not only on weapons systems that we don't need, but on systems that DO NOT WORK-- usually ones added by legislators on the take from the Boeings, Lockheed Martins, and Alliant Techsystems of the world.

That's not even mentioning the <b>$1 TRILLION the pentagon can't account for</b>. Yes, that's right, the pentagon has effectively "lost" $1 trillion of our hard-earned tax money. If it were any other government agency, it would have been subpoenad and investigated and "special prosecuted" to death by now.

We CAN afford a cabinet-level Department of Peace. We CAN afford to rebuild our public education system and provide a free public preschool--postsecondary education for every American. We CAN afford to give everyone a job who wants one. We CAN afford to provide free universal health care to all.

It's only a matter of priorities.

[Matt04]

30. Oh, its the WORSHIP of money that concerns you

Would it be fair to say that, in this case, to "worship" is to "love"? To love a thing is to know and love its nature. To love money is to know and love the fact that money is the creation of the best power within you, and your passkey to trade your effort for the effort of the best among men. It's the person who would sell his soul for a nickel, who is loudest in proclaiming his hatred of money—and he has good reason to hate it. The lovers of money are willing to work for it. They know they are able to deserve it.

I, for one, am not willing to hand over more and more of MY money (I thought your phrase "our hard-earned tax money" was very telling - that money was taken from the pockets of individual Americans - they are the ones who earned it - it is NOT "our" money, it is theirs) to pay for a new cabinet-level agency, free education for the everyone for 20 years, free health care for everyone, AND give a "job" to everyone who "wants" one. Whatever happened to getting out there and earning a job. At some point in such ever-increasing plunder of wage-earning taxpayers, there ceases to be any incentive to work. Think I'm crazy? Take a look at the "worker's paradise" of the Soviet Union.

[redqueen]

32. Yes, as the truism says:

"The love of money is the root of all evil."

Money is not the creation of the best power within a person. Money is simply a way to procure goods and services without resorting to pure barter. Nothing more.

You misinterpret 'our hard-earned tax money'. NNNS was referring to the fact that Americans work hard to earn that money, and provide it to the government to fund many projects. As it is being used for the common good, it is indeed, OUR money. For the military apparatus to LOSE that much, is an insult and should result in their funding being CUT.

Accountability, remember?

When you set up the strawman of the Soviet Union, it becomes completely transparent that you have no interest is taking anyone else's view into consideration. Your mind is made up.

Providing healthcare and education will increase the well being of society, and the economy, to the benefit of everyone contributing to those programs.

[no name no slogan]

34. thanks redqueen

methinks this thread is getting "freeped" by a certain poster, who seems to think that because one advocates a government BY the people, FOR the people that one is suddenly a Soviet-era Stalinist. His responses do not resemble any democrats (big or small "d") that I am personally acquainted with. Another one of Rush's minions pays a visit?

:eyes:

ON EDIT: I see the poster has been tombstoned. Another troll as I suspected.

[redqueen]

35. My pleasure, NNNS

Call me sick and twisted, but I actually enjoy debating with those that disagree yet are forced to at least maintain the appearance of being a democrat. You don't have to deal with the ravings of the openly right-wing as on IRC or some other forums, and you can still present your case to those who disagree and need to hear other views.

People can resist knowledge all they want, but those facts which are unavoidable truths will stay lodged in the subconscious. With luck and providence, some of those that seek to come and disrupt will end up having their eyes opened. :)

Plus it's good debate practice!

Thanks Rush! :toast:

[no name no slogan]

36. Good points-- all of them

Back in the early 90s (pre-Clinton) I used to work with a bunch of Dittoheads, and was on at least drinkin-buddy terms with all of them. We'd occassionally debate politics and I'll be damned if I didn't open some Dittohead eyes about a lot of things, and even get some to change their views to boot!

I agree its good practice-- not that fellow Dems aren't good debators (they are), but sometimes it's the arguments from "the right side" that are the most challenging to refute.

:D

[Zomby Woof]

24. kick

[snoochie]

38. Great find

The resistance to this Department is baffling. It's what we need, and we need it so badly. It's been a long time coming (Washington was the first to state the necessity).

We need this now. America needs KUCINICH. Hell, the WORLD needs a leader like him, who is unafraid to challenge the primitive notion that violence is a fact of life.

Thanks for posting it. :)

:toast:

[genius]

39. It's waiting for Dennis Kucinich to take office

None of the other candidates will create one.

[OhioStateProgressive]

40. bump