NationStates Jolt Archive

In another thread, there was an assertion made that in essence, Jordan and Egypt signed a peace treaty with Israel ONLY because the US paid them to do so.

Well.

It seems to be working pretty well.

So, if you had a choice between paying adjoining states to leave Israel alone, or letting things rot to the point where Syria and Lebanon have gone, what is a better idea to you?

Preventing war by paying money, or letting nature take its course?

It's an interesting dilemma; I'd say cash is better than guns, but only if the States are stable and free enough for us to be proping them up. But you have to ask whether countries that fit this criteria would need bribing to not go to war in the first place.

It also opens up the possibility of States pretending to be preparing to attack in order to get some money, therefore potentially destabalising the region rather than bringing peace. And finally, there is of course the risk that they take the money and attack anyway.

So, on reflection, no, it's probably better to just shoot the buggers.

Hell no, I don't want anymore US money going towards the Middle East! I say let them screw each other over!

There's nothing to do, short of blowing Iran back to the stone age.

In another thread, there was an assertion made that in essence, Jordan and Egypt signed a peace treaty with Israel ONLY because the US paid them to do so.

Well.

It seems to be working pretty well.

So, if you had a choice between paying adjoining states to leave Israel alone, or letting things rot to the point where Syria and Lebanon have gone, what is a better idea to you?

Preventing war by paying money, or letting nature take its course?

Paying for peace strikes me as a whole lot cheaper than paying for war.

More bang for the buck. Or less...:confused:

Of course there's a third option: Pay for neither. Kick em out of the UN, refuse to trade with them and deal with the survivors when they learn how to behave. *nod*

Paying for peace strikes me as a whole lot cheaper than paying for war.

More bang for the buck. Or less...:confused:

Of course there's a third option: Pay for neither. Kick em out of the UN, refuse to trade with them and deal with the survivors when they learn how to behave. *nod*

The problem is, there's always some country willing to trade with the pariahs.

The problem is, there's always some country willing to trade with the pariahs.

Then they join em. *nod*

Then they join em. *nod*
ummm..
*compiles list of nations that dealt with Iraq in violation of sanctions*

uhhh...

*compiles list of nations that still sell arms and sensitive technology to North Korea*

uhhh....

I don't think that would work...

to much money have already been spend to let you believe it.
Next move--------->

ummm..
*compiles list of nations that dealt with Iraq in violation of sanctions*

uhhh...

*compiles list of nations that still sell arms and sensitive technology to North Korea*

uhhh....

I don't think that would work...

Since economic pressure from the global community is the only solution to terrorism, I suspect it's just a matter of time before the political will of the world comes to terms with the fact that you cannot negotiate or trade with governments that refuse to play nicely with eachother.

Why should we pay them to not get their asses kicked by the Israelis? If people wanna fuck with Israel, let 'em. When they get blown back to the stone age they can lament how evil the jews are being by defending themselves.

I'd gladly pay for that. Lifes are worth more than money, anyday and anywhere.