Axis of Evil?

[A_Wanderer]

Iran offered N. Korea oil for weapons help - magazine

BERLIN (Reuters) - Iran has offered North Korea oil and natural gas as payment for help in developing nuclear missiles, German weekly magazine Der Spiegel reported on Saturday, citing unidentified Western intelligence sources.

A senior Iranian official traveled to the North Korean capital Pyongyang during the second week of October to make the offer, the magazine quoted the sources as saying. It was unclear what North Korea's response was, it added.

Diplomats and intelligence sources say Iran is pushing ahead with plans to enrich uranium in defiance of international pressure to stop developing sensitive nuclear technology to calm fears it is seeking nuclear weapons.

Iran insists its nuclear ambitions are entirely peaceful.

Iran's Shahab-3 missiles are based on North Korea's Nodong rockets and Pyongyang is Tehran's most important partner in developing missile technology, Der Spiegel said.

link

Wouldn't be the first time that N-Korea trades missile technology to other states. Notably the moves by Saddam to purchase the banned Rodong missile technology in the 2 years prior to war.

 

[financeguy]

Ah yes. Those 'Western Intelligence Sources'. The boy who cried wolf?

 

[Sonoftelepunk]

Ah yes. Those 'Western Intelligence Sources'. The boy who cried wolf?

Oh but the sources are right most of the time I'd venture to say.

I bet that it would be a lot easier for the Iranian Intelligence to know the truth.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Well when you have the EU and IAEA calling your bluff then something very serious going down, this is only a slight against the slow response to the problem and the innefective nature of that effort that played right into the hands of the cheat-retreat game of the Mullahs.

 

[financeguy]

The lessons of history show that running an empire shouldn't be left to ideologues and fanatics.

 

[A_Wanderer]

And "empire" today seems to be defined by Marxist doctrine over any overreaching dominions. I think that there may be an attitude in some quarters that Iran posessing nuclear weapons would be an issue of parity in the region rather than a negative development.

 

[financeguy]

And "empire" today seems to be defined by Marxist doctrine over any overreaching dominions.

Interesting that any and all opponents of neo-con dogma are instantly labelled as 'Marxists'. Colin Powell, George Bush sr, and John Major would be most intrigued at being assciated with 'Marxist doctrine'.

 

[A_Wanderer]

No, I am not saying that, I am perfectly aware that the realists are opposed to neoconservatism on many fronts. I am saying that the concept of Empire has gone from a central great power extending direct political and economic control over a subject dominion to a more broad based idea that any influence by outside nations becomes evidence of empire. And you see examples where American cultural products become artifacts of American Empire. So it is Coke, McDonalds and Hollywood not Pax Americana that are the driving force.

 

[financeguy]

No, I am not saying that, I am perfectly aware that the realists are opposed to neoconservatism on many fronts. I am saying that the concept of Empire has gone from a central great power extending direct political and economic control over a subject dominion to a more broad based idea that any influence by outside nations becomes evidence of empire. And you see examples where American cultural products become artifacts of American Empire. So it is Coke, McDonalds and Hollywood not Pax Americana that are the driving force.

So why didn't you say that the first time? Who has even made that argument on here, I certainly haven't. Practically no regular poster here would define themselves as 'Marxist' so why even set up 'Marxism' as the bete noire du jour.

Unless of course your intention is to mischaracterise those you describe as 'realists' as associating themslves with what you call 'Marxism' (which in your mind seems to equate to anything to the left of Cheney).

 

[A_Wanderer]

anything to the left of Cheney? Thats plain stupid, I would rather associate with those "drink soaked trotskyite popinjays" than the apologists for totalitarianism that are found in conservative circles.

No the realists are the shapers of foreign policy who believe that stability should be a driving force to achieve ones interests often divided from the "idealists", neoconservatism is seperate from it, it is a much more idealistic discipline that is dangerous because it upsets the short term stability of dictators in favour of fostering free civil societies, the concept of democratic peace theory would be the overriding ideal of the neocons.

They are in stark constrast to the realists such as the Scowcroft's and Kissinger's. They are the men that won the Cold War through whatever means neccessary, backing dictators, orchestrating coup detats to subvert democracy when it didn't fit their goals, containment policies. The architects of the policies that contributed to the current situations in the world. The current US administration has more than a few realists shaping its policies and the relationship to Saudi Arabia and the history of that relationship is a very longrunning example of it, crossing party lines.

Marxism is those who follow Marx's political and economic theories, those who pursue an anti-imperialist agenda are often but not always self-described Marxists. They will often disavow the forms of implemented communism as corruptions and not the system as it should be. I alluded to this because anti-Imperialism today is dominated by Marxist type language and is associated with the left.

I suggest that you look at the "anti-Imperialists" and their literature to gauge how much of it is from the left. Now sure there are right-wing anti-Imperialists but their positions and their definitions could be a bit different than those on the left.