The Department of Peace - What's wrong with it?

I'm just wondering why the conservatives here have a problem with this concept. What, exactly, is so horrible about it?

Changed from the War Department after WWII. Not named the "Department of Empire" or the "Department of Aggression" for good reason.

DOOIW, Department of Offense and Illegal Wars

including abuse such as child abuse and things like that.

it's worth a read.

I'm not for giving up our defenses, but there's plenty -- PLENTY -- of room in our government for a genuine effort at spreading peace.

it, haven't actually read it. If you bother to read it, It's actually a sensible and workable plan.

OK, there's one thing I don't like about it: The name. I think it should be called the Department of Peace Initiatives.

Oh, and I think it's snotty to sneeringly call people who disagree with you "conservatives". They aren't. If you wanted an honest answer to your question, you wouldn't have insulted and taunted the people you purportedly are eliciting answers from.

And hey, a lot of people here call me a conservative or DLC- it's just a way to insult someone.

Progress
Human Rights
International Stability

Them Pubs wouldn't know WHO to Appoint Secretary of Peace outside of a Crony...

They can't even do it for them existing Dept's

And where are they going to get the monies??? Even a 10th of the War monies would do...

Is there TIME Left to do this?? or is it too little too late???

How will a DoP channel tax dollars to big business?

no money in it so its a foolish idea

A Department of Peace with tanks and machine guns is very creepy and 1984ish.

Unless you'd support our country having no weapons.

Paragraphs like this: http://www.dennis4president.com/go/resources/the-department-of-peace/
"We can conceive of peace as not simply the absence of violence but the presence of the capacity for a higher evolution of human awareness, of respect, trust, and integrity. We can conceive of peace as a tool to tap the infinite capabilities of humanity to transform consciousness and conditions that impel or compel violence at a personal, group, or national level toward creating understanding, compassion, and love. We can bring forth new understandings where peace, not war, becomes inevitable. We can move from wars to end all wars to peace to end all wars."

I've tried to think what the phrase "presence of the capacity" means.

Honestly, it sounds like too much Beatles, "love is all you need".

Feel free to link me to some more formal document.

Peace is a dirty word in 2007.

You want to go with "The Department of War is Awesome, but Lets Take a Breather Now and Then".

there's not a goddamned thing wrong with the idea. Conservatives hate it because they're peace-haters.

and shuts down debate. There are people here who don't support it for various reasons, who definitely aren't "peace-haters". Nice smear of people who don't agree with you.

I was talking about why I believe conservatives oppose the idea, which I believe was the point of the OP.

Discussion as to why some liberals oppose the idea is a whole 'nother thing, and warrants its own thread. I don't smear DUers, not intentionally at least.

I sincerely apologize to you. I thought you were agreeing with the OP:

I'm just wondering why the conservatives here have a problem with this concept. What, exactly, is so horrible about it?

The OP says conservatives HERE. It's clear he's talking about DUers.

I didn't twig to "here". Thanks for pointing that out.

of the government under the guise a feel-good name.

Much like the creation of the Dept. of Homeland Security. This would just take a bunch of functions and agencies from the Depts. of State, Defense, Energy, HHS, etc., and combine them into one incoherent department.

And I reject the premise that only conservatives can oppose the Dept. of Peace.