Skip to main content

View Diary: our 2016 Dem Pres nominee Hillary Clinton backs strong military response in Syria (87 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  That's fine to ask (2+ / 0-)

    This has been addressed any number of times already, but it's possible to address it again.

    In order for "other alternatives" to be "effective", they must actually be tried. Of course, as with "missile strikes", nothing is "guaranteed" to be effective...

    *economic sanctions
    *establishing "buffer zones"
    *financial aid to certain factions not sympathetic to Assad
    There are surely others that don't yet spring to my coffee-less brain this morning...

    This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

    by lunachickie on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 07:10:35 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Thanks for this list. All I can say to it is that (0+ / 0-)

      these don't look workable to me...

      Sanctions have been tried, and so far the results (according to http://www.oyetimes.com/...) are:

      In 2010, Syria's GDP was $59 billion with an economic growth rate of between four and five percent; nominal GDP dropped to between $21 and $35 billion by June 2013, a decline of between 41 and 64 percent.  Around 28 percent of the total GDP loss in 2011 and 2012 was due to international economic sanctions with the majority of the loss ($3.9 billion of the $6.8 billion decline) due to sanctions on the oil industry.
      Buffer zones would mean a no-fly zone or troops on the ground, no?  That's more war.

      And I'm not sure what giving money to Assad's opponents would do.  Not much, I don't think.  We're already giving them arms, which is what they'd be using the money to buy, unless they should decide to just take it & move to Monte Carlo.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site