>>While the nucular weapons aren't simply sold, specially not to countries with UN resolutions looming over them like Damocles' sword, what about the diplomat, in the persona of ms Rice, going all over the globe selling fighter jets and bombers, pretty much moonlighting as a Boeing/McDonnel/Grumman/Whoever's travelling salesperson (with special ability to bend arms and squeeze ears)? Also, how much of NATO's Drang nach Osten was dictated by the lucrative idea that all these countries should just drop their true and tried kalashnikovs and replace all they have with Western issue weaponry etc? Then not only you need some little war somewhere to show how this armor makes one invulnerable, it's also needed as a place to dump all those old kalashnikovs.
>>
>>You just can't sell a weapon which wasn't tested in the field.
>
>Dragan, you're too funny sometimes! Which century are you living in? :o)
>
>Somehow I do not see our Secretary of State as having a sole purpose of travelling the globe selling weapons in order to boost American revenue...

What is the "not" negating here? Is it that she's having other agenda as well, or that you aren't watching so you don't see?

>by the way, what NATO Drang nach Osten are you referring to?

Including most of the former Warsaw pact countries and pretty much any Satrapistan which may have oil and/or border with Russia as either a member, or in some sort of partnership or alliance or any other name.

>I'm assuming to Kosovo and Bill clinton's comments:

> "if we’re going to have a strong relationship that includes our ability to sell around the world, Europe has got to be a key....That’s what this Kosovo thing is all about."

Nope, that's globalization and Halliburton. The whole matter of war as private enterprise was already tried there, maybe not to the extent that happened in Iraq, and not necessarily under Clinton's control, but check who built the Bondsteel base.