Pelosi through the back door?

[mviale]

In the last 30 years, the only time aggressive military options worked was in Bosnia.  Why? Because US diplomatic efforts worked with our allies and all agreed miltary or nato involvement was necessary.  I dont think Rice and Bush are up to that task.  They are a joke internationally and dont have a leg to stand on at home.

[Murffieus]

Mviale----every situation is different----if you think that Ahmadinejad is dealing in good faith now or will in the future----- God bless you!

[ChicosBailBonds]

In the last 30 years, the only time aggressive military options worked was in Bosnia.  Why? Because US diplomatic efforts worked with our allies and all agreed miltary or nato involvement was necessary.  I dont think Rice and Bush are up to that task.  They are a joke internationally and dont have a leg to stand on at home.

You're mviale....oh wait

Gulf War I
Panama
Grenada

That's just US areas

Should we look at other countries about whether they have worked or not?

Hyperbole strikes again

[mviale]

Gulf war 1 had allied support from most of the world - grenada and panama - these were drug busts please!

[Murffieus]

Mviale----you speak with "forked tonque" as Bosnia (which you suggest as a Clintion success) was "an allied or coalition effort" as well as the Gulf War! But what's the difference whether there is a coalition or not?----war is war!

BTW----Grenada and Panama were resolved by armed intervention (gunboat diplomacy) and therefore qualifies as what you refer to as, "aggressive military actions"----and it worked in both cases.

[mviale]

The Philadelphia police force could have taken Grenada and Panama in the same week - wrap it up.

The point is that  - why am I trying to explain.  You guys are so blinded by your party.

[Murffieus]

Well if all it takes is the "Philly Police forsce----then send them----doesn't matter----"armed intervention" is "armed intervention whether it's the marines at Okinawa or an armed police action. The point is things do get resolved at the point of a gun -----a last resort to be sure, but somtimes necessary.

We appear to "blinded" to you ----because it appears to me that you have very little visualization of the long term----in your commentary here you continually think short term effect without considering long term consequences-----you have a very difficult time getting past short term pain that is necessary for a longer term solution.

[ChicosBailBonds]

My party?  What would that be?  I haven't belonged to a party in over a decade.

Secondly, it was YOU who said only Bosnia worked as an aggressive military stance.  And of course, you were WRONG again as I pointed out...again.

[mviale]

In the last 30 years, the only time aggressive military options worked was in Bosnia.  Why? Because US diplomatic efforts worked with our allies and all agreed miltary or nato involvement was necessary.  I dont think Rice and Bush are up to that task.  They are a joke internationally and dont have a leg to stand on at home.

review my post - note why Bosnia was successful. I grant you Gulf 1 as this was concerted action.  Bush 1 is much wiser than his loser son and he sought international and regional support prior to any action.

[ChicosBailBonds]

In the last 30 years, the only time aggressive military options worked was in Bosnia.  Why? Because US diplomatic efforts worked with our allies and all agreed miltary or nato involvement was necessary.  I dont think Rice and Bush are up to that task.  They are a joke internationally and dont have a leg to stand on at home.

review my post - note why Bosnia was successful. I grant you Gulf 1 as this was concerted action.  Bush 1 is much wiser than his loser son and he sought international and regional support prior to any action.

You're right, we went at it alone in Iraq....except for Great Britain, Italy, Poland, Spain, South Korea, Australia, Romania, Denmark, Albania, Czech Republic, etc, etc....34 nations.  Now, have some pulled out...yup...no one is saying that isn't the case.  But the "go it alone" thing is so stupid.


And you're right, the coalition wasn't as big...then again a lot of gov'ts that didn't get involved had BILLIONS of reasons not to as we learned with the UN Oil for Food scandal.

Keep trying mviale, your hatred for Bush is really scary.

[mviale]

I am glad we agree - go it alone is stupid - Need the Big 5 support to make Iran work

[ChicosBailBonds]

I am glad we agree - go it alone is stupid - Need the Big 5 support to make Iran work

The Big 5?  Is this Nova, Penn, Temple...etc?  Please tell me you're not saying Russia, China, France and the UK.  How...shall we say....antiquated.  Not only that, last I checked China, Russia and France were real cozy with Iran and they don't always think about what's right, but how much money is involved.