A century before Bastiat, Adam Smith had also understood the situation. vet meds The British Empire

The Vietnam War was one of the first to receive extensive television coverage. Unlike the Gulf War in 1991, media coverage of the Vietnam War hurt the U.S. Army. Well, the media showed the harshness of military action (unlike CNN coverage in the Gulf War, which was more akin to a video game), and that ended up stripping popularity to war between the public itself U.S..
One of the most chilling images of this media coverage was a photograph vet meds taken by Nick Ut: image, appears a Vietnamese girl screaming desperately, after a napalm bombing, a terrible fuel that was used to deforest the Vietnamese jungles in which Vietcong guerrillas hiding.
The image is reminiscent of the bestiality of this American adventure. The leaders of North Vietnam and South Vietnam had reached an agreement that would unite the nation with elections, but the government of Ngo Dinh Diem in South Vietnam unilaterally withdrew from the race (probably expected to lose the election) , and that led to a violent escalation that led to war. From the beginning, the participation of South Vietnam in the war was unjust. And by extension, was equally unjust vet meds inserting USA, to support the side that had violated the terms of the agreement. Not only that, but also, USA tactics employed clearly prohibited by international law (often deliberately vet meds targeted civilians, and caused a terrible ecological damage to forests).
There is every reason, then, to criticize the U.S. military intervention in the war. But more recently, some propagandists of the left have taken the original photo of Ut, and have manipulated, so that the child suffers desperately bombing, accompanying Mickey Mouse and Ronald McDonald. The image evoked by this new message vet meds is simple: capitalism is responsible for U.S. imperial wars, and Disney and McDonalds are companies that promote militarism. The argument is repeated ad nauseam: capitalist corporations are lobbying governments for other countries to invade, they impose their rule and thus open up markets so that they can flood the Third World with their products, and the dominated countries are impoverished, because they consume imports, but have no ability to export. Ultimately, this produces impoverishment armed resistance movements, and this prolongs the violent cycle.
This explanation is plausible, but I want to challenge it. In the nineteenth century, Frederic Bastiat economist famously warned that "if goods do not cross borders, armies then yes they will." vet meds With this, Bastiat proclaimed that capitalism and international trade, far from encouraging wars, prevented.
It is not difficult to understand why. Today the cliché that war is big business is repeated. Certainly for those who lead the military industrial complex (on which Eisenhower warned boldly), no profit. But the number of people who benefit financially from the war are few. I think Keynes was wrong when he postulated that a war can benefit an economy. War generates huge economic losses. War can be a business for some, but peace is a much more substantial for many more business.
A country that is dedicated vet meds to produce and trade seek to promote peace and prevent armed confrontations. The war will not find it beneficial, because with its military campaign, will be damaging to your potential customers and business partners, and stripped of the ability to consume their own products. Mickey and Ronald McDonald Vietnamese want to live to consume burgers and cartoons (and offer workforce to produce such goods). A girl desperately vet meds fleeing a bombing is not a potential consumer of these products.
A century before Bastiat, Adam Smith had also understood the situation. vet meds The British Empire was debating what to do with the American rebels. Smith was adamant in his position: much more should let the rebels become independent. Maintainer