the propeace community
evolving from antiwar to propeacebuilding a culture of peace
welcomeactive bloggerslink exchangeRecent sites with which propeace.net has exchanged links:
Would you like to exchange links with propeace.net? Contact us! propeace global
Webmasters: start a propeace community site in your country! Here's how. |
Here is, I believe, is our B E S T tool for Mid-East peace building.If all the peace efforts up to now haven't moved enough people to stop the hostilities and heal the wounds, then we can not be sure that even more of these efforts will do the job, especially now that Hamas has won the election. Something new is needed. The conflict will surely escalate in this changed political climate. Time is running out. Circumstances are calling for a new and more effective form of action. So here comes CHANGES AHEAD. Here comes a radically different approach to our peacemaking. This is a book to help both Israelis and Palestinians (and the rest of us) see our religions, our lives and ourselves in a larger way so our true commonality can be seen and attractive possibilities can be recognized and pursued. Changes Ahead enables each of us, worldwide, to speed our social development by showing how we are each more of a person than we have considered ourself to be. It helps us move beyond our fears, hurts and angers to see each other more clearly and helpfully. I'm talking about discovering living skills and peace dividends that we haven't really considered before. The book, Changes Ahead, is free. It's an easy download for everyone who clicks on: http://www.changesahead.net/download.html. From behind a writing style that is conversational (rather informal and personal) you'll see a Crossover Bible come through. This is a short book, only 160 pages long. After you finish its few pages you'll understand why it's your best tool. The more it gets out and read by others, the more momentum builds for a lasting peace and happier life in the region. So go to: http://www.changesahead.net/download.html to see the book. And be sure to read on beyond your first reactions. Use all or parts of it, as you wish. With best wishes, Olaf (Note: If you click the web address above and nothing happens, then just copy and paste it in the address line at the top of the page.)
|
propeace quoteProtest is the sound of victimization. Rally is the sound of empowerment. daily omrecent blog postsactive discussionssimilar postswho's onlineThere are currently 0 users and 3 guests online.
support this communityHelp keep propeace.net online and spread the word at the same time. Make a donation of US$5 or more and receive a propeace.net button. The button is a 2" X 3" (5.1cm X 7.6cm) rectangle that looks like this:
subscribe |
digg it
technorati search
RSS 2.0
Your Research
I am always encouraged to learn about students who are active seekers and not passive recipients of facts and theories.
To take up your questions in backwards order, the Department of Peace would not require input into the decision-making processes of the Department of Defense. The must-consult clause refers only to the deployment of troops. Your doubts about the ultimate effectiveness of such a requirement and about the legislation in general are well founded; after all; look what happened to the EPA. But we think it is important to get our intent out there - to put our money where our mouth is, so to speak.
The Peace Alliance was founded by Dennis Kucinich and Marianne Williamson as a not-for-profit lobbying organization to promote passage of the legislation to make peace an organizing principle of society. As such, you won't find them taking a stand on any particular issue but rather promoting a core paradigm shift - a change in the way we perceive human nature.
Finally, if I or anyone else could answer your first question, we wouldn't need a Department of Peace and $10 billion. But just because we haven't answered the question doesn't mean that we won't. Or maybe we need to refine and reframe the question itself in order to make it more amenable to answers that are feasible.
Editor, propeace.net
cgirl,"In response to
cgirl,
"In response to number 3, I believe this is not a feasible solution, because the Dept. of Defense would feel inferior to the Dept. of Peace."
And that, my friend, is the best line I've heard in quite a long while! I feel it is in the best interests of the world to do away with nuclear weaponry, not nuclear technology. The money issue is certainly sad in regards to weapons budgeting! The step I would first take toward peace is impeach Bush and begin again... For some insight on my thoughts on the current administration go here...
http://apoeticjustice.blogspot.com/
thepoetryman
Re: Department of Peace
An age-old question with no easy answer. The Peace Alliance approach, and the approach the Department of Peace would take is to address root causes of violence through non-violence training, mediation, conflict resolution techniques, and diplomacy. You could research each of those topics to get more in-depth information about how they work.
Sorry, I'm not familiar with this issue.
In response to number 3, I believe this is not a feasible solution, because the Dept. of Defense would feel inferior to the Dept. of Peace.
Peace should be much more a part of the national dialog. Peace should have a seat at the table of power. Sure, the Department of Defense may have a superiority complex, but I think peace measures up adequately. No doubt there would be a bit of an adversarial relationship between Defense and Peace. However, I think that is healthy. Without that, the question is typically when to attack rather than whether to attack. The question is how to punish rather than how to prevent. A Department of Peace would restore balance where we are currently off balance.
Jason.
Department of Peace
After reviewing http://www.peacealliance.org I have found this site to be informative, yet lacking in specific information that could be pertinent to others wanting to join the peace alliance.
1) what steps could be taken to attain peace?
2) what do you think of the new proposed budget to take away money from the NCCC, but leave the nuclear sites?
3) is it viable for The Department of Defense and Security to consult with the Peace Alliance before making decisions?
In response to number 3, I believe this is not a feasible solution, because the Dept. of Defense would feel inferior to the Dept. of Peace.
Any thoughts or feedback would be highly appreciated as I am doing some research for a Political Science class.