Football riots aside, it seems North Korean-Iranian relations are running smoothly, with a North Korean team of construction experts in Tehran to negotiate a deal to help Iran build underground bunkers:
Iran is secretly negotiating with North Korea to build a network of underground bunkers to conceal its clandestine nuclear weapons project.
A team of construction experts has arrived in Tehran to conduct a survey of Iranian requirements. It included a senior North Korean specialist in underground construction who helped to design the bunkers that contain Pyongyang’s illegal weapons programme.
Current talks centre on whether the North Koreans will undertake the work for the Iranians, or act as advisers to Iranian construction companies.
The North Koreans specialise in the equipment and technology used in the construction of underground complexes. In the past, the Communist dictatorship has supplied tunnel-digging equipment for military purposes to Iraq, Syria and Libya.
The legal department of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, which is undertaking the project, recently summoned the managers of dozens of construction companies to discuss possible contracts.
Well, I guess this means South Korea isn’t the only one on the peninsula taking advantage of the Middle Eastern construction boom.
12 Comments
No axis here. What was Bush talking about?
All your base are belong to us
First there was the Axis battle, now there is Axis cooperation.
…
If the US press had been more critical of Vietnam, maybe we wouldn’t have gotten ourselves into that mess?
[...] l your base are belong to us First there was the Axis battle, now there is Axis cooperation. ADDENDUM: Ethnic unrest in Iran Part I [...]
Daily linklets 13th June
* Who is behind the Ching Cheong incident? * ESWN looks at the joint China-Korea-Japan history textbook. Who said you can’t write books by committee? Danwei also has a detailed look at the background and contents of the book. * Cigarettes are good for…
Most Democrat Presidents get a free ride with getting into wars.
The press wasn’t very critical of the war when Kennedy got the U.S. into Vietnam. Johnson devoted more and more resources to Vietnam and it wasn?€™t until the last year of his lame duck Presidency, and the upcoming Presidential elections coming around the corner, that the Press started to be more critical of the war effort. It wasn’t until Nixon became President that the press completely turned on the war effort and dubbed it a ?€œquagmire?€?.
Clinton also had good support from the press with the war in Kosovo.
Isn’t the entire concept of “media” and “press” shifting far too quickly for us to be able to identify this supposed bias towards one side or the other? Starting with radio, then into television, color films, color TV, cable television, satelitte television, etc. it seems like the whole thing has been mutating so quickly as to defy comparison between the media during one four year segment and another.
Kushibo
Please read the following section again.
“Johnson devoted more and more resources to Vietnam and it wasn?€™t until the last year of his lame duck Presidency, and the upcoming Presidential elections coming around the corner, that the Press started to be more critical of the war effort.”
There were no chants in LBS’s first term. It wasn’t until he was a lame duck until the chanting started happened.
Johnson was eligible to run for a “third” term (his second full term, since he served only one year of Kennedy’s term), but he decided not to. I had thought that this was because of the unpopularity of the Vietnam War.
I’m talking about a bunch of things that happened before I was born, so if the above information is wrong, please let me know. If it is right, how can it be that the war was unpopular enough to cause LBJ not to seek re-election but the press had “a positive spin”?
Did the press start to turn around the time of the Tet offensive?
Getting into the whole history of “media”, one could even argue the “progressives” of the early 1900s saturated the print media of the time with their views and or bias. Where did many of the networks get their journalists? The progressives in the print media. Who taught network journalists how to be journalists? The “Progressives”. This is how a dominant ?€œview?€? or ?€œbias?€? can have continuity.
Over 40 years ago when a war in a little known country halfway around the world called Vietnam was getting started, network T.V. with its evening news was the way a vast majority of people got their news. There was very little coverage of the U.S. involvement, and what coverage did exist had a positive spin. No body counts during Kennedy?€™s Presidency. No daily body counts through the majority of Johnson?€™s Presidency when the fighting greatly escalated. You are right, the networks were not the least bit critical at the beginning of Vietnam. When Nixon got into office seeing the daily body counts everyday on T.V. while the family was eating their dinner had an effect on how people viewed the war. Calling Vietnam a quagmire everyday for years was being very critical of the war.
It wouldn’t be that difficult to have a bias since we are talking about only 3 networks. Those three networks had a virtual monopoly for about 40 years. Long enough for a bias to further cement itself in the media?€™s concentrated foundation of the time. Where did many of the cable networks like CNN get their journalists? The three networks. Who taught them how to be journalists? The people who worked at the 3 networks.
You are right, the more recent explosion in media outlets has decentralized the traditional power base and their influence on people. Now, not only are people more critical consumers of the media, they have real alternatives. That is a big reason why “traditional” media with its bias foundations like the 3 networks, 60 minutes, and print media have taken a huge hit with ratings and circulation.
I’ve rambled long enough.
Plus the media withheld coverage of protestors chanting “Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids have you killed today?” until Nixon was in office.
Rat bastards!
Kushibo
You are right. The 22nd amendment would have legally allowed LBJ to run for another term. This all happened before I was born as well. He announced his decision shortly after the tet offensive. The “official” reason he left was to pursue his own goals. I’m sure there is more to it than that, including an unpopular war. Not being successful in a war for over 5 years will tend to make a president unpopular with the people no matter what the media does to try to spin it.
“If it is right, how can it be that the war was unpopular enough to cause LBJ not to seek re-election but the press had ?€œa positive spin?€??”
Remember we are talking about “spin” or “bias” in the media. While spin does influence the way people look at an issue, it can only influence it to a certain degree. Positive spin on an issue does not always directly translate to popularity on an issue. Again an unsuccessful war President will be unpopular no matter what.
As I said the positive spin happened during Kennedy’s Presidency and in the beginning of LBJ’s Presidency. They were given a free ride by the media getting involved in the war and its heavy build up.
The positive spin turned into a no spin for a few years when people started to wonder if the U.S. could win and if it was worth it. Only after the tet offensive and LBJ announced he would not run again did the press turn it into a negative spin. Once Nixon won the Presidency, it turned into an intense negative spin by the media.
The reason for the souring spin was twofold. Genuine questions were being raised about the war. Is it worth it? Can the U.S. win? This did come to ahead after tet as yo pointed out. Combine this with a Republican in office and you get a powerful synergy of the press turning against the war and calling it a quagmire.