(referred via Jordon Cooper)

Here's an idea, borrowed from the world of non-profits and venture capital, for the eventual reconstruction of Iraq, and for all future conflicts built on the same model: matching grants. What if we decided that anytime someone decides to embark on one of these "humanitarian" pre-emptive attacks -- allegedly done in the interest of the people being invaded -- the invading country has to provide matching grants for the recovery of the country. Basically whatever they spend tearing it down, they need to spend building it back up again. So if they spend $80 billion on swords, they have to cough up $80 billion on ploughshares at the other end. War is already filled with dozens of generally agreed-upon conventions: don't interrogate POWs on TV, don't pretend to surrender and then shoot when you get close. How about we add a new one for countries that decide to bomb for peace?

(seen here)