65,000 More troops of 3 years...

[max]

Code: Select all

The 20,000 troop increase was a step in the wrong direction, but this... this is us falling down a cliff with no gear, no pretection pads, and no cell phone to call for help once we smack the rock hard ground. 

Where did I say I knew what was going to happen in Iraq? Learn to read.

Comparing the decision to falling off of a cliff leaves quite an impression. Don't go back on your point (The point of your entire thread really) just to try and make some kind of point to make me look stupid. Like said, don't let your temper get the better of you.

BainbrindgeShred: I think that first quote was from SwitchKicker... Unless I missed something along the way.

Jon: well done for a very proffessionnal looking quote withing a quote

[janis]

If Condoleeza Rice could only do toe stalls, but was really into it, and started posting things here that I disagreed with, I wouldn't question her right to post here.

I would, and then I'd tell that bitch to go learn some fucking tricks from the .org forum before she started cluttering up MY forum with useless topics that already exist.

do you mean .com forum ?

[Switch Kicker]

Code: Select all

The 20,000 troop increase was a step in the wrong direction, but this... this is us falling down a cliff with no gear, no pretection pads, and no cell phone to call for help once we smack the rock hard ground. 

Where did I say I knew what was going to happen in Iraq? Learn to read.

Comparing the decision to falling off of a cliff leaves quite an impression. Don't go back on your point (The point of your entire thread really) just to try and make some kind of point to make me look stupid. Like said, don't let your temper get the better of you.

You fail Mr. Feary. I know at a very very quick first glance, that Kenny boy's avatar and mine look similar, but I posted that first message, and Ken just kinda... Didn't.

But Ken, you are being kind of a dick.

[Jeremy]

If Condoleeza Rice could only do toe stalls, but was really into it, and started posting things here that I disagreed with, I wouldn't question her right to post here.

I would, and then I'd tell that bitch to go learn some fucking tricks from the .org forum before she started cluttering up MY forum with useless topics that already exist.

Nice, Jeremy, very nice.

(I'm mostly just replying because I thought that was pretty funny, and also because I wanted to take a crack at puttng a quote within a quote, something I have never successfully done before - thanks to Jeremy O'Wheel for teaching me, if this actually works, otherwise, "Curse you, O'Wheel! " )

(It worked! But it took me three tries )

Awesome



To return, if that is possible, to the topic of Iraq, rather than the issue of if the people who post in the discussion topics are losers or not; I'm sure this is a surprise to many people, but I actually think this is a good decision. Actually I should clarify that. It's not a good decision and it will fail miserably, but it's the right kind of thinking and I think if the world was more worried about the actual issue at hand, and not about politics, the Iraq solution actually is solvable. Recently I read The Age Of Horrorism by Martin Amis - which is definitely worth a read - and I think he builds a very strong case for taking real control in the Middle East. The way I see it, we have three options and none of them are any good.

1. We keep doing what we're doing.

I don't think I need to explain this, it will result in continued bloodshed and war.

2. We remove the troops and leave Iraq to fend for itself.

This is the option of the left, and probably the option many people think I would take. Unfortunately it's not a realist option and it doesn't take into account the history of Iraq at all. Yes going to war in Iraq was a mistake, and people who deny that are deluding themselves. However we did go to war and it's happening. I believe we have a moral obligation to continue to work to clean up the mess that we have created. It strikes me as wrong to turn a relatively stable (if nasty) country into a completely anarchist state. Removing the troops will not end the violence. In fact, as Amis said when interviewed on the Australian Lateline program; removing the troops will lead to an escalation of the Sunni/Shi'ite war and there is no reason not to think that it will spread out beyond Iraq. Middle East and Islamic experts have been predicting a full on Islamic civil war for years and it is clear that Iraq was the trigger for this event. No doubt if we had not gone to war in Iraq it would have occurred from other causes. It appears that at the moment the Coalition troops in Iraq are actually stopping the war from escalating so rapidly and are giving both sides something to unite against. There are essentially actually 4 forces fighting in Iraq - the US are fighting the anti-american Islamist while the Sunnis are fighting the Shi'ites. The disruption caused by the US part of the war is actually helping to retard the civil war. This will not continue, and, in any event, the current outcomes are not acceptable. The other important thing to realise is that Iraq, like many troubled countries in the world, Iraq was forged in the 20s out of three separate provinces. It will never be a unified country in the same way that Israel and Palestine will never be a unified country. Since the 20s there has been much fighting and ethnic conflict and it is hard to see that ever stopping. We may criticise Saddam Hussein but he did manage to unify the country. Not that I in anyway endorse his actions, but maybe we have something to learn from.

3. - Drastically increase the troop presence.

What Saddam did, is control the country with force. That's the only way we will gain control of the country. At the same time, we shouldn't be making more enemies and we need to start behaving in a morally appropriate manner, instead of the arrogantly authoritarian manner that leads the US to have so many military problems. Politically sending more troops to Iraq is suicide. However if we can get beyond our own ambitions and look towards building a world of peace, I see this as the only real solution. The first step should be to go to the UN, humbly apologise for being dickheads and ask that the UN (that is to say, the nations of the world) gives large amounts of troops to the Iraq (and regional effort). Essentially we need to turn the region into a West controlled police state. This is radical. Almost certainly it is far to radical to ever actually happen. However without such action, we are destined to see a 100 year + war in the region which will have dramatic effects on our life and the lives of our children - not to mention the millions of victims in the world. If we are to prevent this now is the time to take the action. We also need to stop supporting religion. By tolerating one religion, we are forced to tolerate all religion. We need to start pushing and teaching a world where rational decisions govern people's actions, not faith. The war in Iraq will continue because of people's faith in their religion. It will spread from Iraq to Syria and Iran and then move onwards across the Middle East. It will effect our petrol prices which effect our food prices. It will have a dramatically negative effect on our way of life. It is not Islam that we should blame for this, but the fact that some people make decisions based on teachings that don't have evidence to back them up. Maybe you can call it brainwashing, but once we take control of the Middle East, we need to ensure that the people understand rationality and science. It is no surprise that the top 10 countries in the world in terms of peace and tolerance (according to the United Nations Human Development Reports) are also the top 10 countries in the world in terms of number of atheists.


So I've digressed a little, for which I apologise. Working 7 days a week tends to mess my mind up a little. What I wanted to say in this post is that the Iraq situation is messed up, but that if we took a proactive approach we could solve the problem in a lot less time then what's going to happen. That I think instead we're going to see a civil war for the rest of our lives. That religion is the root of this problem and we need to fight against religion, not particular religions and finally that everybody should read The Age of Horrorism by Martin Amis.

Here is a link to the essay.

http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments ... 39,00.html

[Switch Kicker]

I would, and then I'd tell that bitch to go learn some fucking tricks from the .org forum before she started cluttering up MY forum with useless topics that already exist.

Nice, Jeremy, very nice.

(I'm mostly just replying because I thought that was pretty funny, and also because I wanted to take a crack at puttng a quote within a quote, something I have never successfully done before - thanks to Jeremy O'Wheel for teaching me, if this actually works, otherwise, "Curse you, O'Wheel! " )

(It worked! But it took me three tries )

Awesome



To return, if that is possible, to the topic of Iraq, rather than the issue of if the people who post in the discussion topics are losers or not; I'm sure this is a surprise to many people, but I actually think this is a good decision. Actually I should clarify that. It's not a good decision and it will fail miserably, but it's the right kind of thinking and I think if the world was more worried about the actual issue at hand, and not about politics, the Iraq solution actually is solvable. Recently I read The Age Of Horrorism by Martin Amis - which is definitely worth a read - and I think he builds a very strong case for taking real control in the Middle East. The way I see it, we have three options and none of them are any good.

1. We keep doing what we're doing.

I don't think I need to explain this, it will result in continued bloodshed and war.

2. We remove the troops and leave Iraq to fend for itself.

This is the option of the left, and probably the option many people think I would take. Unfortunately it's not a realist option and it doesn't take into account the history of Iraq at all. Yes going to war in Iraq was a mistake, and people who deny that are deluding themselves. However we did go to war and it's happening. I believe we have a moral obligation to continue to work to clean up the mess that we have created. It strikes me as wrong to turn a relatively stable (if nasty) country into a completely anarchist state. Removing the troops will not end the violence. In fact, as Amis said when interviewed on the Australian Lateline program; removing the troops will lead to an escalation of the Sunni/Shi'ite war and there is no reason not to think that it will spread out beyond Iraq. Middle East and Islamic experts have been predicting a full on Islamic civil war for years and it is clear that Iraq was the trigger for this event. No doubt if we had not gone to war in Iraq it would have occurred from other causes. It appears that at the moment the Coalition troops in Iraq are actually stopping the war from escalating so rapidly and are giving both sides something to unite against. There are essentially actually 4 forces fighting in Iraq - the US are fighting the anti-american Islamist while the Sunnis are fighting the Shi'ites. The disruption caused by the US part of the war is actually helping to retard the civil war. This will not continue, and, in any event, the current outcomes are not acceptable. The other important thing to realise is that Iraq, like many troubled countries in the world, Iraq was forged in the 20s out of three separate provinces. It will never be a unified country in the same way that Israel and Palestine will never be a unified country. Since the 20s there has been much fighting and ethnic conflict and it is hard to see that ever stopping. We may criticise Saddam Hussein but he did manage to unify the country. Not that I in anyway endorse his actions, but maybe we have something to learn from.

3. - Drastically increase the troop presence.

What Saddam did, is control the country with force. That's the only way we will gain control of the country. At the same time, we shouldn't be making more enemies and we need to start behaving in a morally appropriate manner, instead of the arrogantly authoritarian manner that leads the US to have so many military problems. Politically sending more troops to Iraq is suicide. However if we can get beyond our own ambitions and look towards building a world of peace, I see this as the only real solution. The first step should be to go to the UN, humbly apologise for being dickheads and ask that the UN (that is to say, the nations of the world) gives large amounts of troops to the Iraq (and regional effort). Essentially we need to turn the region into a West controlled police state. This is radical. Almost certainly it is far to radical to ever actually happen. However without such action, we are destined to see a 100 year + war in the region which will have dramatic effects on our life and the lives of our children - not to mention the millions of victims in the world. If we are to prevent this now is the time to take the action. We also need to stop supporting religion. By tolerating one religion, we are forced to tolerate all religion. We need to start pushing and teaching a world where rational decisions govern people's actions, not faith. The war in Iraq will continue because of people's faith in their religion. It will spread from Iraq to Syria and Iran and then move onwards across the Middle East. It will effect our petrol prices which effect our food prices. It will have a dramatically negative effect on our way of life. It is not Islam that we should blame for this, but the fact that some people make decisions based on teachings that don't have evidence to back them up. Maybe you can call it brainwashing, but once we take control of the Middle East, we need to ensure that the people understand rationality and science. It is no surprise that the top 10 countries in the world in terms of peace and tolerance (according to the United Nations Human Development Reports) are also the top 10 countries in the world in terms of number of atheists.


So I've digressed a little, for which I apologise. Working 7 days a week tends to mess my mind up a little. What I wanted to say in this post is that the Iraq situation is messed up, but that if we took a proactive approach we could solve the problem in a lot less time then what's going to happen. That I think instead we're going to see a civil war for the rest of our lives. That religion is the root of this problem and we need to fight against religion, not particular religions and finally that everybody should read The Age of Horrorism by Martin Amis.

Here is a link to the essay.

http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments ... 39,00.html

Too intelligent and thought out for my tastes... Could you uhhh... put that into something a bit smaller, and to the point?

I mean, don't most essays have a simple paragraph at the end with a conclusion, or summary?

[C-Fan]

Don't go back on your point (The point of your entire thread really) just to try and make some kind of point to make me look stupid. .

You don't need any help from me.

[BainbridgeShred]

lmao, whatever, i was high

[Senor Grommet]

4 options:

1.Leave troop numbers as is: bad option for US soldiers
2.Send in more troops: worse option for US soldiers and US citizens in US, potentially better situation for Iraqi peace-loving citizens, however, also potentially worse for them if increased US presence increases anti-US violence
3.Withdraw all troops: good option for US troops, bad option for stability of country
4.Slowly withdraw troops over time: fairly good option for US soldiers, fairly good option for Iraqi citizens.

There is no good way to finalize this situation. Maybe we should let the Sunni and the Shi'ite fight it out while we back the fuck out? OR, maybe they'd agree to stop fighting if the US just up'n left.

[Switch Kicker]

lmao, whatever, i was high

That's a completely understandable excuse...

[Jeremy]

I mean, don't most essays have a simple paragraph at the end with a conclusion, or summary?

Yes, including mine...

I disagree with Senor Grommet's assessment. I think withdrawing troops will only work if they are replaced by an independent force. Certainly I agree a little with the assessments of who it is actually good for, except I think war in the Middle East is ultimately bad for all of us.

[Genzu]

So I'm a day late, but I like this quote from Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr.:

""Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Hate multiplies hate, violence multiplies violence and toughness multiplies toughness in a descending spiral of destruction. The chain reaction of evil………must be broken, or we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation."

How do we break the chain? Obviously there is no easy answer. One thing that comes to mind is the work my wife (Sunny) is doing in creating a new cabinet level of government called the Department of Peace...

http://www.thepeacealliance.org/

Peace.[/url]

[HighDemonslayer]

Man, what a pain.


In order:

Switch kicker:

I'm not even fucking kidding when I say this, I am so looking into moving to the UK. Socialism, fuck yea.

Yeah, move to the ultimate police state. They are slipping deeper everyday. Ultimate surveillance and attempted thought/speech control.


You should take those steps you said,for the reasons you said, to try to avoid being sent to Iraq. The idea that Iraq needs more troops, implies that they will be used in the same way, in short...handcuffed, with targets painted on their backs, acting as policemen.

Put me on the record.........refuse any draft, take whatever steps to avoid being shipped to Iraq. A future pardon will be forthcoming, if America exists then.

Like you said, who are you fighting for? America is a fractured, Balkanized society.
Why get caught up in the meat-grinder, when the country that you are fighting for, will be un-recognizable when you return.




C-fan:

I was giving him shit for spending so much time posting in political threads on a footbag forum, when he doesn't post in any footbag threads, or show any evidence of even playing footbag.

You are a loser for posting in this sub-forum so much, everyone is.

I try to keep my posts short, except this one.

Of course I am a loser post posting in this forum, but I do know several real people that post here. Most other people in my everyday life just care about meaningless shit, clueless to the future, and likely dangers.
And at least in my early Footbag career, the kickers had a more intellectual depth, than the average baseball fan.



You have never come out to kick with me, I should assume that you never kick, and you cant be bothered......and you post in even lamer Discussion topics than I do.

At least I throw out some red-meat occasionally.

If you are capable of making a simple search, you could find that I have posted in many different forums, even ones more important than freestyle (4-square).




However, i have been inspired to reach a few freestyle goals, since being challenged.

Now, I do want to shred with you sometime.Maybe it'll happen.



Although.... getting a recent 4-square session group back together, along with some Disc Golf\kickers might be sweet.


And i will post less here, even though I dont remember the last thread, besides this one, that I posted in.
-------------------------------

Props to Jeremy, for posting that I do exist, and that I was an out-of shape, sub-par guiltless kicker then. I do believe I am better now, but way lazy-ier.

p.s.
If you are reading this,you are all f-ing losers.

[HighDemonslayer]

I am reading a bunch of stuff over at that peacealliance.org site, and I am going to have to rip into them real bad.

Still reading........


-n

[HighDemonslayer]

Wow , i am halfway thru the house bill, and I cannot believe the amount of vagueness , ambiguity, over reaching authority. A

The best is the out-right laughable paragraphs, so chock full of ideology, lacking any substance whatsoever.

I wonder what kind of thought police-state would be built if this went thru. (Beyond the police-state we have now).


I wonder how bad the other bill is. (I am a total loser for reading, but not if it is such an expose.


-n

[Dawn Of Freestyle]

This is the best proposed plan I have seen for Iraq.

I know this is long, you can read what you want and skim the rest.

1. The US announces it will end the occupation, close military bases and withdraw. The insurgency has been fueled by the occupation and the prospect of a long-term presence as indicated by the building of permanent bases. A US declaration of an intention to withdraw troops and close bases will help dampen the insurgency which has been inspired to resist colonization and fight invaders and those who have supported US policy. Furthermore this will provide an opening where parties within Iraq and in the region can set the stage for negotiations towards peaceful settlement.

2. US announces that it will use existing funds to bring the troops and necessary equipment home. Congress appropriated $70 billion in bridge funds on October 1st for the war. Money from this and other DOD accounts can be used to fund the troops in the field over the next few months, and to pay for the cost of the return of the troops, (which has been estimated at between $5 and $7 billion dollars) while a political settlement is being negotiated and preparations are made for a transition to an international security and peacekeeping force.

3. Order a simultaneous return of all US contractors to the United States and turn over all contracting work to the Iraqi government. The contracting process has been rife with world-class corruption, with contractors stealing from the US Government and cheating the Iraqi people, taking large contracts and giving 5% or so to Iraqi subcontractors.

Reconstruction activities must be reorganized and closely monitored in Iraq by the Iraqi government, with the assistance of the international community. The massive corruption as it relates to US contractors, should be investigated by congressional committees and federal grand juries. The lack of tangible benefits, the lack of accountability for billions of dollars, while millions of Iraqis do not have a means of financial support, nor substantive employment, cries out for justice.

It is noteworthy that after the first Gulf War, Iraqis reestablished electricity within three months, despite sanctions. Four years into the US occupation there is no water, nor reliable electricity in Baghdad, despite massive funding from the US and from the Madrid conference. The greatest mystery involves the activities of private security companies who function as mercenaries. Reports of false flag operations must be investigated by an international tribunal.

4. Convene a regional conference for the purpose of developing a security and stabilization force for Iraq. The focus should be on a process which solves the problems of Iraq. The US has told the international community, "This is our policy and we want you to come and help us implement it." The international community may have an interest in helping Iraq, but has no interest in participating in the implementation of failed US policy.

A shift in US policy away from unilateralism and toward cooperation will provide new opportunities for exploring common concerns about the plight of Iraq. The UN is the appropriate place to convene, through the office of the Secretary General, all countries that have interests, concerns and influence, including the five permanent members of the Security Council and the European community, and all Arab nations.

The end of the US occupation and the closing of military bases are necessary preconditions for such a conference. When the US creates a shift of policy and announces it will focus on the concerns of the people of Iraq, it will provide a powerful incentive for nations to participate.

It is well known that while some nations may see the instability in Iraq as an opportunity, there is also an even-present danger that the civil war in Iraq threatens the stability of nations throughout the region. The impending end of the occupation will provide a breakthrough for the cooperation between the US and the UN and the UN and countries of the region. The regional conference must include Iran, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan.

5. Prepare an international security and peacekeeping force to move in, replacing US troops who then return home. The UN has an indispensable role to play here, but cannot do it as long as the US is committed to an occupation. The UN is the only international organization with the ability to mobilize and the legitimacy to authorize troops.

The UN is the place to develop the process, to build the political consensus, to craft a political agreement, to prepare the ground for the peacekeeping mission, to implement the basis of an agreement that will end the occupation and begin the transition to international peacekeepers. This process will take at least three months from the time the US announces the intention to end the occupation.

The US will necessarily have to fund a peacekeeping mission, which, by definition will not require as many troops. Fifty percent of the peacekeeping troops must come from nations with large Muslim populations. The international security force, under UN direction, will remain in place until the Iraqi government is capable of handling its own security. The UN can field an international security and peacekeeping mission, but such an initiative will not take shape unless there is a peace to keep, and that will be dependent upon a political process which reaches agreement between all the Iraqi parties. Such an agreement means fewer troops will be needed.

According to UN sources, the UN the peacekeeping mission in the Congo, which is four times larger in area than Iraq, required about twenty thousand troops. Finally the UN does not mobilize quickly because they depend upon governments to supply the troops, and governments are slow. The ambition of the UN is to deploy in less than ninety days. However, without an agreement of parties the UN is not likely to approve a mission to Iraq, because countries will not give them troops.

6. Develop and fund a process of national reconciliation. The process of reconciliation must begin with a national conference, organized with the assistance of the UN and with the participation of parties who can create, participate in and affect the process of reconciliation, defined as an airing of all grievances and the creation of pathways toward open, transparent talks producing truth and resolution of grievances. The Iraqi government has indicated a desire for the process of reconciliation to take place around it, and that those who were opposed to the government should give up and join the government. Reconciliation must not be confused with capitulation, nor with realignments for the purposes of protecting power relationships.

For example, Kurds need to be assured that their own autonomy will be regarded and therefore obviate the need for the Kurds to align with religious Shia for the purposes of self-protection. The problem in Iraq is that every community is living in fear. The Shia, who are the majority fear they will not be allowed to government even though they are a majority. The Kurds are afraid they will lose the autonomy they have gained. The Sunnis think they will continue to be made to pay for the sins of Saddam.

A reconciliation process which brings people together is the only way to overcome their fears and reconcile their differences. It is essential to create a minimum of understanding and mutual confidence between the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds.

But how can a reconciliation process be constructed in Iraq when there is such mistrust: Ethnic cleansing is rampant. The police get their money from the US and their ideas from Tehran. They function as religious militia, fighting for supremacy, while the Interior Ministry collaborates. Two or three million people have been displaced. When someone loses a family member, a loved one, a friend, the first response is likely to be that there is no reconciliation.

It is also difficult to move toward reconciliation when one or several parties engaged in the conflict think they can win outright. The Shia, some of whom are out for revenge, think they can win because they have the defacto support of the US. The end of the US occupation will enhance the opportunity for the Shia to come to an accommodation with the Sunnis. They have the oil, the weapons, and support from Iran. They have little interest in reconciling with those who are seen as Baathists.

The Sunnis think they have experience, as the former army of Saddam, boasting half a million people insurgents. The Sunnis have so much more experience and motivation that as soon as the Americans leave they believe they can defeat the Shia government. Any Sunni revenge impulses can be held in check by international peacekeepers. The only sure path toward reconciliation is through the political process. All factions and all insurgents not with al Queda must be brought together in a relentless process which involves Saudis, Turks and Iranians.

7. Reconstruction and Jobs. Restart the failed reconstruction program in Iraq. Rebuild roads, bridges, schools, hospitals, and other public facilities, houses, and factories with jobs and job training going to local Iraqis.

8. Reparations. The US and Great Britain have a high moral obligation to enable a peace process by beginning a program of significant reparations to the people of Iraq for the loss of lives, physical and emotional injuries, and damage to property. There should be special programs to rescue the tens of thousands of Iraqi orphans from lives of destitution. This is essential to enable reconciliation.

9. Political Sovereignty. Put an end to suspicions that the US invasion and occupation was influenced by a desire to gain control of Iraq's oil assets by A) setting aside initiatives to privatize Iraqi oil interests or other national assets, and B) by abandoning efforts to change Iraqi national law to facilitate privatization.

Any attempt to sell Iraqi oil assets during the US occupation will be a significant stumbling block to peaceful resolution. The current Iraqi constitution gives oil proceeds to the regions and the central government gets nothing. There must be fairness in the distribution of oil resources in Iraq. An Iraqi National Oil Trust should be established to guarantee the oil assets will be used to create a fully functioning infrastructure with financial mechanisms established protect the oil wealth for the use of the people of Iraq.

10. Iraq Economy. Set forth a plan to stabilize Iraq's cost for food and energy, on par to what the prices were before the US invasion and occupation. This would block efforts underway to raise the price of food and energy at a time when most Iraqis do not have the means to meet their own needs.

11. Economic Sovereignty. Work with the world community to restore Iraq's fiscal integrity without structural readjustment measures of the IMF or the World Bank.

12. International Truth and Reconciliation. Establish a policy of truth and reconciliation between the people of the United States and the people of Iraq. In 2002, I led the effort in the House of Representatives challenging the Bush Administration's plans to go to war in Iraq. I organized 125 Democrats to vote against the Iraq war resolution. The analysis I offered at that time stands out in bold relief for its foresight when compared to the assessments of many who today aspire to national leadership. Just as the caution I urged four years ago was well-placed, so the plan I am presenting today is workable, and it responds to the will of the American people, expressed this past November. This is a moment for clarity and foresight. This is a moment to take a new direction in Iraq. One with honor and dignity. One which protects our troops and rescues Iraqi civilians. One which repairs our relationship with Iraqis and with the world.

[Dawn Of Freestyle]

Now to address the comments about the Department of Peace legislation:

The legislation to create a Department of Peace and Non-Violence will be re-introduced into the House of Representatives on Feb. 5th and I will be in DC meeting with my representatives and senators to discuss with them the importance of this legislation.

I am glad you are reading the bill, but I believe you are not "getting it." Yes, I have read the bill several times and over the past two years as I have worked on this campaign I have gained more insight into how the Department of Peace would work to prevent violence and resolve conflicts in our communities and around the world. This is not the creation of a police state, I have no idea where you would get such an idea.

I realize now more than ever that we have a vast array of problem solving options that have not yet been deployed. At a time when many are paralyzed by the overwhelming enormity of the problems we now face, I believe it is time to harness all available resources. There are over 300 colleges and universities in the United States that offer degrees in peace studies, peacebuilding, and peace creation. This country has an extraordinary base of highly professional experts who offer practical, concrete, effective solutions. There are peacebuilders who possess the appropriate, constructive skills and tools that have been proven to resolve conflict before it escalates into violence. It is absolutely critical to the future of our country that we begin to utilize these powerful methods and incorporate them into the structures of our society at all levels. The legislation to create a cabinet level Department of Peace will provide the institutional platform necessary to employ the best of American genius to cure this epidemic of violence.

Here are some key points from the website thepeacealliance.org

The Benefits: International

The Department of Peace will:

-Advise the President, the Secretaries of Defense and State, and others on root causes of violence, plus practical ways to dismantle violence while still in a formative phase

Support the military by:
-Providing cultural, ethnic and psychologically insightful information, education and technology
-Offering practical skills (conflict resolution techniques, and the like) for the amelioration of violence among adversarial factions
-Administer the training and support of civilian peacekeepers to participate in multinational nonviolent peace forces


The Benefits: Domestic

The Department of Peace will:

-Develop field-tested educational programs promoting conflict-resolution and peer mediation among school-age children
-Provide violence-prevention programs addressing domestic violence, gang violence, drug and alcohol-related violence, and the like
-Provide much-needed assistance for the efforts of city, county, and state governments in coordinating existing programs in their own communities, as well as programs newly developed and provided by the Dept. of Peace


Responsibilities of the Secretary of Peace

In addition to leading the Department, the Secretary shall:

-Provide the President with statistically-verified recommendations on how a specific policy either increases or diminishes the prospect of domestic and international peace

-Provide the President with recommendations regarding the social and financial impact of domestic and international policies


A U.S. Peace Academy

-The Department of Peace will create and administer a U.S. Peace Academy, acting as a sister organization to the U.S. Military Academy
-The Academy will research and teach the most cutting-edge techniques for the amelioration of violence among domestic and international populations
-The Peace Academy will join the Military Academy in providing assistance to the military in international conflict-resolution
-The Peace Academy faculty will be derived from well-established practitioners known for best practices in the field of conflict reduction and resolution


I hope you all are a little more clear about the Department of Peace. I'm not saying it is THE solution, but I believe it is a good start.

Love from Idaho,
Sunny

[Dawn Of Freestyle]

Sorry Ken, I am a loser for posting here. Daryl sent me to get involved so blame him!

I do play footbag everyday!

I would gladly drive 3 hours to kick with you if given the opportunity!!

Hey Outsider, I know what you mean about being humbled in a circle... I kick with Jim everyday!

[Switch Kicker]

I mean, don't most essays have a simple paragraph at the end with a conclusion, or summary?

Yes, including mine...

I disagree with Senor Grommet's assessment. I think withdrawing troops will only work if they are replaced by an independent force. Certainly I agree a little with the assessments of who it is actually good for, except I think war in the Middle East is ultimately bad for all of us.

Thanks.

Dawn of Freestyle... Wow...

[HighDemonslayer]

The Senate bill does look shorter than the house version.

And I will attempt to have a more open mind, when analysing this further.

Maybe I suspect mind-thought-police state, because the bill seems to insert the new Secretary of Peace, and his subordinates,and the Departments' propaganda..... into every classroom, an every branch of government, and every function of government.

On it's face, it looks like a MASSIVE money grab, and a MASSIVE power grab. The already wealthy leadership will enrich itself further, and spawn a massive new bureacracy, to promote foreign interests.

And it also inserts all kinds of language about environmentalism, racism, socialism.

What should be clear, from this effort, is that is one group for sure will be in the cross-hairs, and will have no peace...... the white male.




But ill look into it further, after i kick tonight.


-n

[Dawn Of Freestyle]

The Secretary of Peace needs to have a seat at the table of power. I believe the perspective given by this department would be extremely valuable, especially when the president is making decisions related to foreign policy. i.e. sending more troops into Iraq.

Yes, I do believe we need to incorporate a new curriculum into our schools, one that teaches the effectiveness of non-violent movements throughout history, one that gives children the skills necessary to resolve conflicts peacefully. There are already successful programs in some of the schools that have been proven to reduce gang involvement and have reduced overall violence in schools. The DoP would research the programs that are already in existence and help fund and expand the programs that have demonstrated success --at the request and approval of local school boards.

The funding requested for this Department would be equivalent to 2% of the current Defense budget. Much of the money would be used to fund local community programs that are currently run by non-profits, programs that typically are operating on shoestring budgets.

The DoP would be a resource for our already overburdened law enforcement agencies, judicial systems and corrections facilities.

I'm not sure why you have said, "to promote foreign interests." I don't see this at all.

I wouldn't call proven research on violence prevention and conflict resolution "propaganda." We are calling on the highly trained professionals in this field to come together under the umbrella of a DoP to offer the best practices approach to addressing the violence that is prevalent in our communities and around the world. They would research, articulate and facilitate non-violent solutions.

Yes, when talking about peace we have to take into consideration our environment (and the resources at the heart of many conflicts), racism (that currently creates tension between diverse cultures and ethnic groups) and society (and the structures/institutions and cultural beliefs within the society).

We live in a very interconnected world and no one situation can be examined in isolation. Especially conflict, which is deeply rooted in the history of societies at all levels...history of oppression, imperialism, economic inequalities, and beliefs of supremacy or the "chosen people complex." The black and white, right vs wrong, good vs evil approach will not work...never has, never will.

Enough said!!

Can you tell I'm very passionate about this topic?