Earlier quoted context omitted.
the "wars" we're involved in now could be solved more cost-effectively by literally paying our enemies not to fight. Thereby creating a nation of people dependent on our aid, who, when we cease sending aid due to budget constraints, will likely decide to start a war anyway . cough North Korea cough Not saying that line of reasoning is totally invalid, but it's definitely not so clear-cut that you can use it in an ana…
The intervention in Libya cost about $2.7BB[1]. With things heating up in Syria, and the need to further isolate Iran, we could be looking at another "low-intensity" operation there in support of the pro-democracy dissidents. Now, what would be more cost-effective: a similar campaign in Syria, or paying Assad $1BB to fuck off to Venezuela and stay there, and a further $1BB distributed to military commanders to get th…
2) What if the national leader you're trying to pay off believes himself to be a true partiot and refuses to surrender his country to US interests?