Peace through Capitalism

There have never been two countries at war whose capitals had a McDonald's.

Cenk spoke in yesterdays show about what might be the best way to deal with Iran and stated his opinion that sanctions might be the way to go.
My opinion is the exact opposite. Sanctions unite the people behind the leader, because it shows that other countries are the enemy. I understand that the first impulse when we see an injustice or threat is to punish, but this is in my opinion not the most effective way to deal with such a situation.
We shouldn't exclude Iran and thereby strengthen their opposition to Western society, we should trade with Iran as much as possible.
That makes it harder to motivate people to gather behind a fundamentalist leader.
It also leads to better infrastructure and education in Iran, which is the basis for a working democracy.
Don't drop bombs, drop burgers and laptops.
That's always the best way to fight local propaganda.
Let people in Iran learn about the rest of the world, so they understand their situation in it better. (That's also something that would be helpful for Americans.;-))

I think in the Israeli-Palestinian-conflic t. America could create peace in this area and profit at the same time.
The solution would be that America tells Israel that they cut their military support in half and Israel and Palestine have to decide in which kind of companies in the region they should invest the money. The only condition would be that the people working in those companies would be half Palestinians and half Israelis (and of course both halfs would need to get comparable payments) and the money these companies make goes in equal parts back to the American government and to the Palestinian and Israelian government (or into local education and infrastructure programs).
If they were unable to decide America would just keep the money. I'm sure they would come up with solutions in far less than a year.
This project could indeed create a Domino-Effect in the region and it would be the best way to take power away from fundamentalists on both sites.

< The prescription is ON the contacts! | Isn't Science F***ing Amazing (Pt.2) >
 Display:
not a bad idea for Iran, could work, and a better idea then economic boycott which just makes the weak suffer, and little poor kids die from malnutition.

but the sistuation in Arab-Tsraeli confict is much more conpicated, and I'd argue that America/Isreal don't want peace but to commit genocide agaist the Arabs there. Isreal has Amerian politicans in there control, so America will never do tose things like cut millitary aid or invest in companies.

Isreal could have taken power away from Hamas and the like before, when they had nothing and no way to support mass followers (like they do now) by helping a secular organisation form, but they didn't do that, so now they have this sistuation on there hands which is only getting wrose by there apartie polices.

by KangaKucha on 09/09/2010 11:24:07 AM EST

teo capalist countries have fought wars before, Germany and UK/Fra in WW1 was one.

by KangaKucha on 09/09/2010 11:24:58 AM EST

You're right, sanctions really never work, and are more like a thing politicians do to tell people "We're doing something about this problem". Your thesis that increased trade would help overthrowing autocratic regimes is a bit optimistic, but perhaps would have some (very) long-term benefits as described by you, so it would be worth trying.

In any event, economic interdependence is most successful at securing long-term peace. As unfortunate as it is that most countries are inofficially run by big economic lobbies, it does mean that trade interests trump "traditional" nationalistic motives (unless the weapons industry plays a dominant role) and religious crusading.

by OldGerman on 09/09/2010 12:14:39 PM EST

 Display: