TM_Direct:
Unless I missed reading some parts of this thread, I'm not sure where anyone talked about fault of repubs or dems, Bush or Clinton in particular. Maybe we need a thread to discuss all the bs each administration has shoved down the throats of our fellow citizens and the world for that matter. But also it's evident that when we get into all these geopolitical discussions just about everything is interrelated. Who is in charge, who's interests are served, who controls the money flow, who controls the guns, the media, the spin doctors, the politics, the war machine, the need to sell weapons, oil, how to bring the $$$ back that we spend for it, the divide and conquer, the basic human traits behind it, greed, power, fear, and the list can become extremely long.
Yes you are correct, some of the discussion has taken of tangents and a bit away from the original thread tittle.
So this recent Rumsfeld's response to UN resolutions and inspectors, maybe a more pertinent post:
...The president has said repeatedly that if Iraq does not disarm, the United States would lead "a coalition of the willing" to disarm Iraq by force...
I wonder if nobody is willing, will Bush attack alone?
...officials have said the resolution also prohibits Iraq from firing on U.S. and British planes patrolling no-fly zones set up to protect Kurds in northern Iraq and Shiite Muslims in southern Iraq...
I'm not sure if this is funny or sad, but for sure it is ironic. We are protecting the same Kurds, that 15 years ago we gave saddam all the bios and chems he wanted and we helped him gas 6,000 of them. What will these Kurds and Shiite thing about US and UK now? wonder what pawns have they become in who's game again?
...But U.S. officials have been deliberately vague about whether they would view any Iraqi firings as a breach of the latest U.N. resolution and therefore an automatic trigger for war....
So what is the automatic trigger?
...A caller to the radio show asked Rumsfeld about the recent parliamentary elections in Pakistan, in which pro-Taliban parties won 59 of the 342 seats. Rumsfeld said he was sympathetic to President Pervez Musharraf's attempts to "manage that country as a moderate Muslim state."
"The last thing anyone in the world would want is to see Pakistan as a failed state or a Taliban state, which would be the same thing," Rumsfeld said....
Imagine Pakistan electing through a "democratic" process a Taliban majority gov't. Do we attack them next day? And why don't we attack Pakistan now? After all the Taliban/al-queda are still our greatest enemy as of 1999 and definitely after 9/11.. right?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,70317,00.html
I just hope cool heads prevail.
Josh