pull down to refresh
20 sats \ 7 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 30 Sep \ parent \ on: Joe Biden Is Responsible for Burning Lebanon | The Libertarian Institute Politics_And_Law
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
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
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