Skip Nav
7 Things Grown-Ass Women Need to Stop Doing in the Dating Game
How Close Are We to a Handmaid's Tale Reality?
20+ Raw Diamond Rings to Swoon Over

Front Page: Iran Claims to Test Missile Within Israel's Reach

Front Page: Iran Claims to Test Missile Within Israel's Reach

  • Iran announced today that it tested a new surface-to-surface air missile, adding that it is ready to defend itself against an attack. — Reuters
  • John McCain will go to Georgia tomorrow to push for Republican Senator Saxby Chambliss, who is stuck in a tight race there with a Democratic challenger. Three Senate races, in Georgia, Minnesota, and Alaska, have yet to be called. If they go Democrat, the party will significantly widen its majority in Senate. — USA Today
  • Lobbyists will be restricted from participating in President-elect Barack Obama's transition to the White House. Under self-imposed ethics restrictions, Obama will not allow lobbyists to work in areas in which they have worked for clients in the last year.— New York Times
  • The US and Russia will begin talks on nuclear proliferation tomorrow, working toward a new treaty to replace the expiring Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START). The Bush administration also is planning to minimize Russian objections to a US missile defense program in Europe. — Associated Press


Around The Web
Join The Conversation
Jude-C Jude-C 8 years
That's crazy, CHOOCHOO! That stupid "It's a Small World" song is still stuck in my head four days later, by the way. The funny thing is that no one actually wanted to go on that ride--everyone who'd been there before said it sucked. But we all felt obligated for some reason :rant: My favorite part of the whole ten-hour Disney World adventure was wandering around eating a giant turkey leg. Now that was a good time.
jude, i know what you mean. i saw two dudes go at each other at disney world. one used a coke bottle as a weapon. nice...
kastarte2, it might be because of the annoying 'It's a small world' ride. :-)
bluesarahlou bluesarahlou 8 years
SERIOUSLY Jude! And I almost got kicked out of Disneyland...:sneaky-evil:
Jude-C Jude-C 8 years
"Nuking Disney World would be completely out of order. Who would want to destroy the happiest place on earth?" I was just at Disney World, kas, and I can say with full conviction that THAT IS NOT THE HAPPIEST PLACE ON EARTH. OH MY GOD. My feet still hurt. I'm too old for that sh!t.
mydiadem mydiadem 8 years
So the US is defending itself by trying to prevent other bad nations from having nuclear weapons. But some other good nations, its ok. And of course its ok for us.
kastarte2 kastarte2 8 years
Nuking Disney World would be completely out of order. Who would want to destroy the happiest place on earth?
Jude, I could have sworn Japan attacked Pearl Harbor before we even considered dropping the bomb. Our reaction to that, while over the top, was not an act of aggression. Anyone not concerned about Iran with nukes isn't paying attention. How long before Russia, Cuba, Venezuela and Iran join forces and nuke Disney World while 'training' in the waters below Florida? Would anyone be concerned, then? The USA can't have a la-de-da attitude when considering ways to defend herself.
bluesteyes bluesteyes 8 years
Without getting involved seriously and investing time in Israel and Palestine, it will be hard to change people's mind.
bluesteyes bluesteyes 8 years
I can't be bothered to read everyone's opinions but i doubt that this will go down well in Washington, the policy is don't talk to hard liner, i think Obama will lose sleep over this and so he should because it will take years to negotiate, he'd better be patient with hard liners in the middle east. There is a very good reason why they don't like the west and he needs to change their mind. Israel versus Palestine conflict is a priority.
Jude-C Jude-C 8 years
No, I think what will get us attacked is this mentality of "we're better than you, and we're going to decide what YOU can do in YOUR country. You know what? Even better--we'll do it FOR YOU."
beavis667 beavis667 8 years
"I don't agree with Ahmadinejad on many things, and on the most basic level I think he's a loon. But that doesn't mean that we should feel ourselves entitled to dictate which other countries are allowed to have the same weapons WE ALREADY HAVE." While it works on paper, that philosophy will get one of our cities nuked eventually.
starangel82 starangel82 8 years
mydiadem - I'm afraid the US will never stop being the world police. We've been that way for too long... we can't help but stick our noses in others' business. We'll always be going to the aid of other countries whether they want our help or not. Well I should rephrase that... we'll be going to the aid of other countries as long as we have the capabilities of doing so.
Jillness Jillness 8 years
The good thing is that Obama's election has given us some political captial in the world, and if we need to impose tougher sanctions on Iran, whose economy is not doing well now, then I think we will have greater pull to get the sanctions in place. Iran's economic situation increases the power of economic sanctions against them. Regarding "tests" for Obama, the idea that global currents would stop flowing to allow for a Presidental election in one country is a pretty silly notion. These countries didn't start doing this kind of thing on Nov. 4th...they have been doing them for years. And essentially, what happens now isn't a test for Obama because he does not yet have the powers of a US President. Decision making still rests in Bush's hands.
mydiadem mydiadem 8 years
If Iran is such a threat then why don't we say 'Hey, we get this is unfair. As the USA we are going to dispose of all of our nuclear weapons as a gesture of good faith'. If anything it would call their bluff on the 'for defense' thing, even better we could have less nuclear weapons on the planet and stop being World Police
Jude-C Jude-C 8 years
Exactly, Roarman.
Roarman Roarman 8 years
Jude C, I said the exact same thing in my earlier post. Put down your gun, but we won't put down ours. It's ridiculous.
StolzeMama StolzeMama 8 years
This article wasn't on pakistan or india, The whole thing is so complex, I wish things were fair, but I think the UNs top immediate threat IS Iran not pakistan or india. US is not perfect, but that does not mean we don't have the right to protect our allies.
Jude-C Jude-C 8 years
I was just going to agree with you, mydia! The general mentality of armed nations attempting to disarm others or prevent them from arming seems to be "might is right": We already have ours, so now we can flex those muscles against the countries with whose ideologies we disagree. Speaking of disarmament, why isn't any attention being paid to India and Pakistan? Two nations in nearly constant conflict--but perhaps it's simply that their threat to each other isn't considered a great enough threat to us or the rest of the world to bother doing anything about. :ponder: It's the inconsistency of disarmament attempts that bothers me most.
mydiadem mydiadem 8 years
And what Jude said :)
mydiadem mydiadem 8 years
I never said i don't think the UN should resolve this, I just wanted to point out a hypocrisy. And if you talk to people outside the US they all would say that the US invading Iraq, our president naming a load of countries to the 'axis of evil' etc. are threats as well. If I had it my way no one would be allowed to have nuclear weapons.
Jude-C Jude-C 8 years
Hainan, you fail to understand that my post wasn't referring to any decision the UN may make regarding Iran's possession of nuclear missiles. I was referring in a much broader sense to the American tendency to single out and delegitimize some governments and not others in a seeming ploy to allow some to have weapons and others not. Protection and defense are quite subjective. We have shown aggression towards other countries; in that case, shouldn't those countries be allowed to arm themselves in defense against us? I mean, hell, we're the ones who dropped the A-bomb on Japan. In addition, shouldn't countries about which our leaders and potential leaders have made threatening comments be able to defend themselves? I don't agree with Ahmadinejad on many things, and on the most basic level I think he's a loon. But that doesn't mean that we should feel ourselves entitled to dictate which other countries are allowed to have the same weapons WE ALREADY HAVE.
StolzeMama StolzeMama 8 years
mydia and jude, IMO you fail to understand that the descision making in regards to Iran is coming from the UN. We are part of the UN so we protect our UN allies... And when a country's leader states that the holocaust never happened and he would like to erase israel off the face of the map, THEY SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO HAVE WEAPONS....Our weapons are for protection, Iran tries to say that is what theirs are for as well, but when you take their leaders words they translate into threats. Regardless of what our president has done in iraq etc... that does not mean that we have any less a right to back the UN in their sanctions of a country that has all but promised attacks on our ally!
starangel82 starangel82 8 years
All I know is that Ahmadinejad is very verbal in his hatred for our country. And if they have nukes to use, I'm afraid the day will come they'll use them on us. :( But I very much hope that isn't the case. While the Bush administration has said numerous times if Israel was attacked, we would defend our ally. I really don't seem the Obama administration changing this stance. American is known for being the peace keepers... it's not something I always agree with, but we are. I know Obama is all for pulling our military out of Iraq and getting into Pakistan, but I really don't see him sitting by idly if Iran attacks any one of our allies. The fact that Iran has nukes scares the hell out of me... and I really believe they are a threat.
kranky kranky 8 years
I completely agree with your assessment of American civilian lives vs. non. I have no problem with that and approve of it. I am going out on a limb and stating that I *believe* that has always been the US's stance on things, so it has not changed. I do think that in the political areana, the lives of our allies should take precendce over the lives of of on-allies/enemies. I *believe* this has also always been the policy of the US, and I also support it. I would never say that one person's life is more important than another's. But in this life, we have to make hard choices and set priorities. I am OK with the choices American politians have made so far. I do have a fundamental problem with Iran having nukes given that their dictator has been very vocal about his stance on the US and the West in general. I do not believe that he will use those nukes only for protection, but I hope, hope, hope and pray, pray, pray that I am wrong. It makes me nervous for the reason that MarinerMandy pointed out as well.
Lottery Horror Stories
Bob Harper on Mediterranean Diet
What It's Like to Be the Child of an Undocumented Immigrant
How to Fight Anti-Semitism
Bob Harper's Heart Attack Recovery
Bob Harper Heart Attack
Iranian Director Asghar Farhadi Will Boycott the 2017 Oscars

POPSUGAR, the #1 independent media and technology company for women. Where more than 75 million women go for original, inspirational content that feeds their passions and interests.

From Our Partners
Latest Love
All the Latest From Ryan Reynolds