Israel and Iran and nuclear weapons.

This in the news today: http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2007-01-07T094811Z_01_L06759405_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAN-NUCLEAR-ISRAEL.xml&WTmodLoc=NewsHome-C1-topNews-2

I want to take a look at Iran's quest for nuclear weapons and American policy regarding Israel. Let me first make clear that I'm not an Ahmedinejad apologist.

With that disclaimer out of the way, I will now show how something is fucked up with American policy.
One of the following two cases must be true. In each of which case something is wrong.
1. Israel has nuclear weapons and is willing to use them in a first strike: Then Iran has no rational choice but pursue a nuclear weapon. The only way to induce Iran give this up is to neutralize its risk. That is, strip Israel of its weapons. The threat of sanctions does not make a country like Iran prefer no nuclear deterrent against a nuclear enemy. It would be irrational to expose itself to Israel's nuclear threat.
2. Israel has nuclear weapons but will only only use it in a second strike (i.e. deterrent): Ever seen Dr. Strangelove? As any strategist will tell you, a deterrent is meaningless unless it is not only known by both sides but common knowledge (I know that you know that I know that you know ...). It's a recipe for disaster (and very likely a lie) if Israel plans on using these weapons as deterrents.

Either way something is wrong.

Pol Pot and the USA

I saw two documentaries yesterday. S21: The Khmer Rouge Killing Machine and The Road To Guantanamo.
S21 deals with the Toul Sleng prison in Phnom Penh where prisoners were systematically tortured and executed. In particular it approaches the issue of reconciliation an resolving the viewpoints of the prison guards and the prisoners. On one hand the guards seek to evade responsibility for their actions by claiming to be bullied and threatened into doing what they did. Yet as the recount and reenact their stories of what they did at the prison, they show little remorse. They are hardly affected by reliving those brutal times. This sits uncomfortably with their claims of being victims (as much or even more than the prisoners themselves.) Seeking the meaning of reconciliation (not reconciliation itself) a survivor from the prison tries to come to grips with how this could be. But the documentary leaves it at that. It makes no attempt to actually answer this question (perhaps rightly so: it is a very complex undertaking). But as a starting point I would note that one of the following must be true: i) the indoctrination by the Khmer Rouge was so effective that the minds of these guards became twisted to the point that they really did not understand what they were doing. ii) The guards eventually killed their humanity alongside their victims. iii) The Khmer Rouge was unbelievably adept at recruiting individuals with no humanity or conscience (to the extent that they were almost insane). I would say that i) or ii) are most likely in which case you might say that the guards were in fact victims rather than perpetrators.
A repetitive theme was that most of the victims were “arrested” first and then had their “crimes” articulated. (as opposed to the logical reverse). This relates to the other film.
The Road To Guantanamo is the story of three young British men of Pakistani origin who end up at the wrong place at the wrong time, leading them to Guantanamo bay prison. Most anyone who keeps up with the news (maybe not if you must watch FOX, but then you’ve got other problems) would be reminded of several things as the movie progressed: the indiscriminate American bombing in Afghanistan; the thuggery of the Northern Alliance that America supported to fight its war on the ground; the abuse of prisoners in American custody; and the “shoot first, ask questions later” mentality of the American war. This last item leads to the main point of the film: America holds hundreds of prisoners without charge who are tortured into confessing to just about anything. Turns out that this is just what the Khmer Rouge did in Toul Sleng.
The motives may be different and the victims may be different. But what we remember Pol Pot for was not so much his end as is means. But then again, the winner writes history so maybe we will remember America for its end and not its means.

Glenn Beck

Holy shit. Who is this guy?!

I'm sitting in LaGuardia airport right now because my flight got cancelled. They have this show on TV here and there’s a “gB” in the corner. I’ve never seen this guy before, but this is what he started to say: “This is a religious war. It’s not about anything else. YOU are the next one to be attacked. If the Muslims win, they’re going to put YOU in the gas chamber.” And so on. (Of course, I’m paraphrasing... But yeah, that’s basically what he was saying)

What is this? “Daily dose of fear”?!?

Holy cow, I can’t believe they play shit like this on TV at all. Its even more ridiculous that its at an airport. There’s enough racism here with the “selective screenings” and such, this kind of shit doesn’t help.

Turns out he has his own show on CNN. So if you’re looking for a laugh, I suggest that you check it out. Once you get over being offended by him, you can probably see the ridiculousness of his arguments and laugh your ass off like I’m doing now.

UPDATE: I eventually noticed that this wasn't just regular CNN, but the "Airport Network". Nice choice of programming CNN.