"That which can be bought ought not to be bought with the blood of men" is from "The Book of the Deeds and Good Manners of the Wise King Charles V" by Christine de Pizan.

I believe the context of that statement is the question of whether to bribe the captain of a besieged castle to surrender it.

Today's context is: why buy the peace of the Korean peninsula with blood when it could be bought with money?  E.g. if we had the guts to tell China that we would terminate all trade until they took control of N. Korea, they'd have the problem solved in a day.

Want to stop Iranian nukes? Extend the sanctions: everyone who trades with anyone who trades with Iran suffers our sanction. That might bring world-wide economic collapse--but would anyone gamble the life of their son to prevent that? And yet, millions are ready to gamble the lives of their sons on the battlefield. 

What if we stopped all aid to Israel, and instead bought all of Israel's exports, oranges, Uzis, etc, BUT only thru Palestinian brokers?  And--would only buy a quantity of oranges proportional to Palestinian olives.

How much would it cost to buy the claims of Pakistan and India to Kashmir? Several billion, of course. But if those two start throwing bombs at each other, the whole planet will go into a nuclear winter. What a bargain! 

That which can be bought ought not to be bought with blood of our children.