pull down to refresh

Just curious, why dont we let them do their own thing? Just let them burn to the ground themselves. How quick do you think it would sort itself off, if everyone stopped trade with the two countries?
I see this as two separate questions. If other governments stopped intervening, the material for war would be much more scarce and both sides would reduce the rate at which they expend it. I suspect they would pursue less violent resolutions to their disputes.
The trade point would mean placing a full embargo on both nations (until hostilities cease, I imagine). Typically, embargoes don't achieve the stated aims of those who enforce them. Regimes are usually strengthened by embargoes, because it's an external force for the public to unite against. That scenario would not go well, in my estimation.
reply
I feel the first situation might qork to their benefit.
reply
It's certainly what I'd like to see. It's also not realistic, at all. Even if NATO/America stopped supplying Israel, the Muslim nations funding Hezbollah aren't going to stop. I still think it would be better if the US stopped being involved.
reply
I think it would be good if the USA stopped involving itself in other peoples wars unless we actually have some tangible benefit.
reply
I don't think benefit is a strong enough restrictions. "War" is just a euphemism for "mass-murder campaign", so it should never be waged, except to defend against foreign aggression.
reply
I think there should be other ways of negotiation in this time and age.
reply
There are other ways, but the sociopaths in charge don't care about the costs of war, since other people end up paying them.
reply
They just care about the profits they can make from supplying the war.