Saw last night's episode of the Daily Show with...

[Anid Maro]

Their guest Efraim Halevy, former head of the Mossad. Ran the Mossad for about four years, was on some other high level position for some more years, and worked for the Mossad for over fourty years.

Overall a very interesting episode, but most interesting was when Jon Stewart asked Efraim Halevy's perspective on the Iraq war.

His response?

The CIA got it right.

He is certain that there are in fact hidden WMDs not only in the Middle East, but perhaps in Iraq itself.

To back up that claim, he referenced that several planes for presumably Saddam's air force were discovered under ground, buried beneath the sand.

And the argument goes: If you can bury planes, surely you can bury nukes.

I haven't double checked the buried planes story, but I figure that since this story comes from the former head of Mossad, it's probably safe to go along with it.

So... what's your take on it?

[Julius Seeker]

I wouldn't trust anything he says just based on the fact that he is Israeli alone. Let alone that he was a leading figure in the Israeli secret service which is probably more or less a branch of CIA to begin with.

[Anid Maro]

Okay, perhaps he is a filthy lying Jew.

So I did a Google search for "Iraq buried planes" and clicked on the first link.

Confirmed

So... what's your take on it?

[Anid Maro]

Here, I'll throw in my two cents on it, to show I'm not just trolling.

I think Bush was itching for any reason to invade Iraq. It didn't matter if WMDs existed and he was more than willing to manipulate the public to get his war.

Furthermore, the invasion was poorly thought out and we shouldn't have done it in the first place.

However, that has no relevance to whether or not there actually are WMDs. I, for one, believe there honestly could be. It is not unrealistic to think that Saddam wouldn't want to get his hands on nukes, especially since he was in fact hiding planes under the desert. And that's not even mentioning our colorful past with him.

Of course, it is pure speculation until we find WMDs, and given the vast amount of potential hiding places (i.e. the whole fucking desert) it's unlikely they will be unearthed.

Lots of people like to bash Bush on how he never found his fabled WMDs, as if not finding them means they don't exist. Bush may make bad decisions, but was the intelligence itself bad?

[Kupek]

It's been three years. No WMD have been found. Those planes were found in 2003. It's now 2006. So, what's more likely: WMD are there, but they're so well hidden that no amount of searching, questioning and looking through documentation can turn them up, or they're just not there. I'm inclined to say it's more likely that there were no WMD.

As far as I know, all of the evidence the US cited has turned out to be wrong. So the fomer head of the Mossad thinks there are WMD, and his best support are some planes? The former head of the CIA thought there were WMD, too. As did the Secretary of Defense. As did the President. (I'm honestly not sure if the Secretary of State thought there were WMD, but he got in line when it was his turn.) All that tells me is they're not willing to let go of their original conclusion and justification.

[Kupek]

Of course, it is pure speculation until we find WMDs, and given the vast amount of potential hiding places (i.e. the whole fucking desert) it's unlikely they will be unearthed.

I don't buy that reasoning at all. You don't bury something as expensive and important as WMD without having a paper trail documenting where they are and that they exist in the first place. Nor do you bury something like that without having a large amount of people in on it. Sure, it was done in secret. But bureaucracies document everything. I find it extremely unlikely that something like that could be done without some evidence pointing to it, or some people willing to come forward to talk about it.

Yes, there <i>could</i> be WMD. But all of the <i>evidence</i> points against it.

[Oracle]

Yes, there <i>could</i> be WMD. But all of the <i>evidence</i> points against it.

You tell em, Grissom!

[Anid Maro]

Okay, so there would likely be a paper trail. However, isn't it concievable that Saddam or his generals would try to burn such trails while preparing for their retreat?

Or, we can take the other approach. It is reasonable to assume there would be a paper trail, and its absence indicates a lack of WMDs. In that case, why would Efraim Halevy insist that the CIA "had it right"?

Perhaps he finds it in Israel's intrest to have an American presence in the Middle East, and he wants to solidify support in the US? Or has he simply been mislead (although it would be arguably difficult to mislead the head of Mossad)? Or something else altogether?

Remember, he is no longer the head of Mossad, so he doesn't have to lie (although he might anyways).

Also as an aside, to put his presence on the Daily Show into context, he was there to promote his book called "Man in the Shadows" (here is the Amazon link, for anybody interested).

[Julius Seeker]

I think it's more likely that Saddam was hiding the true Messiah than Nuclear Arms, personally. There is no evidence to suggest Saddam had any Nukes. This would not be the first time that a nation made up some story for justification to invade a foreign nation when the real motivation was control of resources for certain capitalists living within their nation. It's been going on since the 19th century at least.

[Kupek]

Okay, so there would likely be a paper trail. However, isn't it concievable that Saddam or his generals would try to burn such trails while preparing for their retreat?

Conceivable, yes. But I don't think it's likely. We can play what-if scenarios all day, but in the end, we have to look at the evidence we do have and consider what's most likely.

Or, we can take the other approach. It is reasonable to assume there would be a paper trail, and its absence indicates a lack of WMDs. In that case, why would Efraim Halevy insist that the CIA "had it right"?

Saving face. He didn't bring up any new evidence, so it doesn't matter much what he said.

Perhaps he finds it in Israel's intrest to have an American presence in the Middle East, and he wants to solidify support in the US? Or has he simply been mislead (although it would be arguably difficult to mislead the head of Mossad)?

He's human like everyone else, and since it looks like our top intelligence people got it wrong (despite the correct intelligence being there, they just ignored it or dismissed it), I don't see what's so special about him.

[Anid Maro]

I think it's more likely that Saddam was hiding the true Messiah than Nuclear Arms, personally. There is no evidence to suggest Saddam had any Nukes. This would not be the first time that a nation made up some story for justification to invade a foreign nation when the real motivation was control of resources for certain capitalists living within their nation. It's been going on since the 19th century at least.

True, in fact, I'd argue it's been happening since centuries earlier than the 19th. However, that doesn't mean there aren't WMDs, just that it didn't matter to Bush whether there were or weren't.

Okay, so there would likely be a paper trail. However, isn't it concievable that Saddam or his generals would try to burn such trails while preparing for their retreat?

Conceivable, yes. But I don't think it's likely. We can play what-if scenarios all day, but in the end, we have to look at the evidence we do have and consider what's most likely.

Fair enough.

Or, we can take the other approach. It is reasonable to assume there would be a paper trail, and its absence indicates a lack of WMDs. In that case, why would Efraim Halevy insist that the CIA "had it right"?

Saving face. He didn't bring up any new evidence, so it doesn't matter much what he said.

Perhaps he finds it in Israel's intrest to have an American presence in the Middle East, and he wants to solidify support in the US? Or has he simply been mislead (although it would be arguably difficult to mislead the head of Mossad)?

He's human like everyone else, and since it looks like our top intelligence people got it wrong (despite the correct intelligence being there, they just ignored it or dismissed it), I don't see what's so special about him.

Okay, I give. I was playing Devil's Advocate with this. Although I did think it reasonable that there might be WMDs still. But you've quashed that idea Kupek, as I read more of your replies, it sounds even less likely.

If you guys are interested, that Daily Show episode is going to air again in about ten minutes. Aside from the interview, the rest of the episode was really good as well.

[Zeus]

Don't forget, Israel spends 60% of its GDP on arms. Along with this ensuring America never wants peace in the Middle East (guess where Israel buys its arms from?) it also means that a lot of people have a lot of reason for fear-mongering, especially the heads of the intelligence agencies who would see a drastic reduction in funding should there be nothing to worry about

[Nev]

My guess is if anything - anything - even remotely dangerous had been found over there, or even if there had been a convincing and coverable way to fake it, Bush et. al. would have plastered it all over the news for weeks. The whole issue is one of his biggest PR busts.

As for yet-undiscovered buried WMDs...sorry, but no. I saw videos about Iraq a few years ago in a few of my classes, interviewing Hans Blix and everything, before we invaded, and the gist of the entire thing was that as a result of our ten-year embargo since the first Gulf War, the entire country was completely crippled and bankrupt. Schools didn't have toilets, and etc. The usual counterargument to that is that Saddam was spending the money that was supposed to be earmarked for the toilets on WMDs...but...I just don't buy it.

Basically, my guess is that even before we invaded, the whole place was teetering on the edge of complete and utter financial collapse. The "most dangerous nation on Earth" stuff looks pretty interesting, to me, viewed in that context.

[Nev]

Don't forget, Israel spends 60% of its GDP on arms. Along with this ensuring America never wants peace in the Middle East (guess where Israel buys its arms from?) it also means that a lot of people have a lot of reason for fear-mongering, especially the heads of the intelligence agencies who would see a drastic reduction in funding should there be nothing to worry about

Absolutely right.

[Anid Maro]

The "most dangerous nation on Earth" stuff looks pretty interesting, to me, viewed in that context.

True. I haven't been terribly impressed with Iraq's, uh... potential threat to us? Or something.

North Korea, on the other hand, makes me wonder if Bush just has a hard on for the Middle East or if he's genuinely afraid of Kim Jong II's threats/posturing.

Of course, I remember South Korea not being terribly thrilled with our handling of North Korea, so maybe Bush listened to them?

...

Yeah, I know, I'm only kidding about that last part.

[Julius Seeker]

North Korea doesn't have anything that the people, that Bush represents, needs. Iraq has oil. There are plenty of threats in Asia and Africa, the only reason the Boers were taken seriously by the British 100 years ago was because they had lots of gold, other places in the area had diamonds (see Cecil Rhodes). The only true threat to North America is Russia.

[Anid Maro]

Very true, North Korea has no oil.

But speaking of threats, wouldn't China constitute more of a threat than Russia?

China, not so much as a military power but as an industrialized nation. They will be a serious competitor for many valuable resources (such as oil).

[Julius Seeker]

It's difficult to say. Judging by the products they sell there, it appears that China is run by many of the same people who run the US, Europe, Canda, and Japan.

[Nev]

The only true threat to North America is Russia.

Unless you're talking about Russian loose nukes - in which case, the former Russian republics (particularly the Ukraine) are a much bigger danger than Russia itself - they're torn between capitalism and corruption right now, and in general I don't think they have much (or maybe even any) global political power to oppose us.

The international relations class I took at Stanford four years ago, taught by Clinton Secretary of Defense William Perry, who really should know if anyone does, identified the threat landscape as: rogue Muslim extremism (not a full nuclear threat for the most part, but bioterrorism, chemical weapons, small-scale "dirty bombs" of briefcase size, and other "unconventional" threats, probably smuggled into the country somehow), North Korea (the nuclear threat), Libya and Iran (potential nuclear threat and/or the other "unconventional" threats), and then "rogue generals" acting with poorly controlled fissionable material somewhere in a *former* Russian republic. Russia itself was not even on the list. I don't even know where you're getting that idea from.

My guess is that the present threat landscape looks similar, albeit with a little bit of juggling of order, perhaps (Iran has almost certainly moved up, I would guess). But Russia itself...

I mean, come on, man.

[Julius Seeker]

Russia and the US are the two largest threats due to the significantly large number of ICBMs which they have in comparison to all other countries. They have thousands of Nuclear Weapons, no other county has even close to one thousand, let alone several thousand.

As far as I know, Islamic militant groups have only used nuclear arms in any capacity except movies (not ever in real life, though the government seems to like to convince people that they will). These militant groups also only exist because of Western aggression within their territories. Iran, Libya, and North Korea, as far as I know, aren't a threat to anyone except their immediate neighbours, and even then; what is their motivation? The only aggressive nation in the world since the start of the Millenium has been the US itself, and its allies. Some might call the September 11th acts as aggression from one nation against the US, but question it: why has there not been anything else to follow this up? Who benefitted from the attacks other than specific groups of upper class Westerners?

EDIT: bad grammar error =P

[Nev]

I just deleted two replies to this, because they won't go anywhere good.

But I do want to say this, Seek. Most foreign policy experts *do* think that, despite what you've said, North Korea will probably be capable of launching a nuclear missile at the United States in the next ten years or so. It will only be able to reach the West Coast, but there's a large financial and population center sitting in the middle of my signature which would probably be a highly attractive target.

I really wish you'd be less glib about it, man...especially when the threats are to me and mine...

[Julius Seeker]

Did you ask yourself the question: What motivation would North Korea have for launching a nuclear strike against your city?

Also, ask a question about the reliability of these foreign policy "experts", if they come from the Republican party or their associates, I hope you know as well as I do that they're full of shit and are more than willing to incite fear into populace of the United States. They are the same people that said Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction, that numerous times there was going to be Anthrax attacks throughout the US, etc....

Why would these people do such a thing as create lies? It is quite possible that they did it so that they would appear to have justification to invade specific locations.
Why would they want to invade specific locations? I won't say, but do you think that it is coincidence that every majaor military act that the US has made in the middle east has taken a step to further benefit a certain group of wealthy families of capitalists? The benefitting capitalists are not all American either, there are Europeans and Middle Eastern families who benefit as well.

"This could never happen, it's impossible that a western government would betray its people like that"; one might say. To that I answer with three words: The Boer War. A war in which the British claimed that the Free Republic of the Transvaal was treating outsiders very poorly (outsiders could not vote). A wealthy capitalist by the name of Cecil Rhodes, one of the wealthiest people of the 19th century (controlled most of the worlds Diamond supply) attempted to stage a coup against the Boer Republic and hoped that the British foreigners and such within the nation would join in; of course, it failed. Later on the British sent an ultamatum stating that the British citizens must be given the right to vote within the Boer Republic of the Transvaal, or be at war with Britain. Paul Kruger of the Boer's said, "remove your troops from our borders within 48 hours or we will consider you already at war with us." It is quite funny, how a war by the British over civil rights ended in tens of thousands of Boers and Africans (mostly children) dying in concentration camps, with the farms and villages of these republics being burned to the ground, the wells poisoned. Just so the British could win the right for their citizens to vote. Oh yeah, it just happened that the Transvaal sat on top of the world's largest gold deposit.

This sort of thing is not new, it's been around for a long time. Living in Canada, which is a part of the British Commonwealth, I can find books in the libraries written during the time of the Boer War, and shortly after. The people during those times truly believed in the cause of the British government.

Perhaps I'm wrong, I very well could be, in 10-15 years we'll see; I really have no need whatsoever to be right, so it doesn't even matter to me personally if I am wrong. A good number of people here at the Shrine were certain Saddam had weapons of mass destruction 3-4 years ago; how man people believe that now? Even the US Republicans have admitted the weapons didn't exist, now, after being bombarded with statements of contradictions against their claims.

I do think the most relevant question is: what motivation would North Korea have in attacking the United States with Nuclear Arms? You don't even have to answer the question to me, answer it to yourself.

The answer (as to why they would attack) would have to be something quite important, because no nation has ever used Nuclear Weapons against another under any circumstances, with one single exception. Personally, I do not think that the US sanctions are reason enough; though I haven't studied North Korea enough to know what sort of effects they have been having on the nation. If you ask yourself the question, don't just say "because they're crazy" as we have seen true no evidence that they are any more insane as any other nation who might have Nuclear capabilities. If you think that it is something that perhaps the US government is doing, look at the reasoning behind why they are doing it. Consider that the Japanese and South Koreans have been critisizing US sanctions against North Korea as well. I personally am not even sure why the US government continues to push sanctions on countries such as North Korea and Cuba; the cold war is over.

[Nev]

Did you ask yourself the question: What motivation would North Korea have for launching a nuclear strike against your city?

Motivations are for rational people, Seek. Kim Jong-Il has lived acclaimed as a god in his own country since the day of his birth. I don't think he's had to personally face up to the consequences of much that he's done in his life - sad for him, and for all of us as well.

I'm sure you're bright enough to have heard of Uday and Qusay, Saddam Hussein's kids...who were similarly privileged sons of a dictator and didn't have to face up to any consequences of what they did. At least one of them, from what I heard, was rather fond of taking animals, and removing the skins from them while they were still alive.

As for a stated motivation, I'd direct you to the North Korean rep's response to good ol' John Bolton's criticism of them recently at the negotiating table - and I quote - "Such human scum and bloodsucker is not entitled to take part in the talks." (http://washingtontimes.com/world/200308 ... -6611r.htm)

Now I have a question for you - does that sound like a balanced response from a rational and reasonable diplomatic government?

You seem to have this perception that the government of North Korea will invite us in for tea and crumpets if we just stop being big, bad America. Not so in reality, man.

The more relevant question, to me, is whether or not the country will completely just fall apart from Jong-Il's horrendous economic mismanagement before they get Taepodong-2 up and tested. Even then, the thing is likely to fall apart at any one of its booster stages, but the whole thing still just makes me uneasy.

And, by the way, most of this is going on international relations stuff I was taught at Stanford. Stanford is more or less considered fairly center-to-left in that kind of thing, and generally is about as Republican as you are. The fact that you seem to have assumed that the info came from Republicans is showing me that you're not exactly unbiased on this...