And people say Iran isn't a threat... sure.

Okay, if they say they are preparing in case they need to defend themselves I don't see why that is a threat - Israel has more than enough to defend itself, US has more then enough to defend itself, Israel, and pretty much can blow up the world if it wants to....even Pakistan has the ability to defend itself (even with its unorganized and unstable government and insurgent threat) - why doesn't Iran get the same right?

Our job it to watch them and make sure they dont use it, but it is not our place to say they can't develop a way to defend themselves from aggressors, especially after the news that we have authorized ourselves to attack anywhere anytime to hunt down more Al Qaeda number 2s - and especially after we attacked Syria from Iran's neighbor Iraq - it seems reasonable that a nation would want to safeguard themselves....and these are nukes, so even by UN standard there are no violations - just because we don't like it does not make them a threat.

Ummm... Ahmadinejad has gone on record many times about his hatred for our country.

zeze - you are not concerned about him having nukes now? Not even a teensy bit?

If not, then I envy you. I am not being sarcastic.

OMG! Iran?? OBAMA had better visit that country asap, this is high on the list.

zeze- Israel has not promised to blow Iran off the face of the earth... the UN should act, it is their responsibility... once they launch a missile like that, we can't stop it. And i am sure that Iran wouldn't call the UN and let them know they were trying to annihilate Israel. Take a situation here at home, you have credible information that a person is stockpiling weapons and building bombs, you would want the government to come in and take away the threat and not let an attack happen.
go to this website to see why there are sanctions on iran
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/indxiran.htm

kranky- she isn't worried about it because their missile can't hit where she lives, kind of like out of site out of mind! Not her problem - IMO

Hainian - you might have a point, but I'd prefer to give her the benefit of the doubt.

Obama tests since winning the presidency:

1. Russia plans to put missiles near Polish border.
2. This

Thank you for your incredible foresight Joe Biden. We never knew you would be right so quickly.

I agree with Zeze. Even though I am completely against ANY country being in the possession of nuclear weapons (I think that it should be the ultimate goal for a glocal society to move past that already) but it just makes the US government look like hypocrites to judge Iran based on what kinds of weapons they possess. And just for the record, Israel officials have said many times that for them, preliminary missile strikes against Iran aren't out of the question either (altough for now they are waiting for the sanctions to take effect). Like any country, I say that Iran deserves the right (and SHOULD have the right) to prepare to defend themselves. Anything else would not be fair, especially in light of how easily it seems to be for US politicians too to talk about the possibility of attacking Iran.

The only way here is diplomacy and to help the Iranian people bild a stable democracy. And yes, by that I especially mean that Obama and members of his future administration should start talks with the Iranian government as soon as possible (and maby try and work together with other UN nations this time around...)

Also, beavis.

1. What about the US wanting to place their missile defense system in Poland? Sounds kind of similar now, doesn't it?

I'm sure the first thing Obama will do is backpedal on that missile system. At least, that's what Putin wants him to do.

It shouldn't be hard for foreign leaders to get their way with him. During the Bill O'Reilly interview, Bill talked Obama down to 25% from 40% on capital gains tax.

Maybe Joe Biden had foresight, because he is informed on what is going on in the world, by reading newspapers, etc. unlike some others (cough palin cough).

Lots of countries see us as a threat, yet we have missiles that could annialiate them. It is hypocritical to deny other nations the right to build up their defenses. Good diplomacy and foreign relations would make it very unlikely that these would ever be used.

I don't think anyone had to read newspapers to know that Obama's youth and inexperience would be tested. You would have to be a psychic however to know he would be tested 2x within a the first week!

"Good diplomacy and foreign relations would make it very unlikely that these would ever be used."

We actually had pretty good relations with Japan until they bombed us in WWII.

And, it could be argued that Obama has already backpedaled on the missile system.

Do you know why we want missiles in Poland? I should restate, do you know why we want to put INTERCEPTOR missiles in Poland and the Czek Republic? They are meant to protect the area from missiles from Iran and South Korea.

Nations that are run by dictators who have no problem talking about how they hate Westerners, and just got armed.

Why do we care if Israel gets bombed? They aren't US citizens, so therefore they are 'innocent civilians' or people we should care about. Maybe if Iran does attack Israel all those terrorists 'on the run' will be able to go there and keep the war on terror over in the Middle East where it belongs.

diadem, our history with Israel is very long and complicated - starting with the end of WWII. Long story short, it would be very poor form for us to allow them to get bombed if we could at all prevent it.

I am also going to bite the bullet and resume being critical about Obama.

He did state in his campaign that he would not allow lobbyists to participate in his government. But now he is allowing them to do so as long as they aren't in their area of expertise.

Can anyone explain this to me? This is not a rhetorical question.

I'm aware of our history with Israel, and I was obviously laying on the sarcasm to point out the hypocrisy of it all. Its ok for the people of Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan it get bombed. Its ok for Israel to have nuclear weapons, its not ok for Iran too. Its ok for the US to ignore the UN, but its not ok for anyone else.

I assume you are referring to the NY times piece. What is discussed there (which is above and beyond current ethic laws and standards) is consistent with the polices Obama has laid out about lobbyists in Washington from the beginning of his campaign. If you go to this link:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/ethics/

This was personally a huge selling point for me to vote for Obama.

It does scare me on a basic level that Iran will have nukes, however I'm sick of our arrogance in behaving as if we're the world authority that gets to determine who gets to have them and who doesn't based on our perception of which governments are legitimate and which aren't. Unfortunately it's exactly this kind of arrogance in global affairs that leads to others wanting those weapons either as defense against aggression or as offensive weapons.

Mydiadem, I'm glad you were being sarcastic, but I don't think it was "obvious". I read your comment and was asking myself "Why aren't they innocent just because they're not Americans?". Sometimes sarcasm doesn't come across too well on the internet!

diadem -

Whew! I missed the sarcasm, sorry. I was kinda spoked by your comment.

I disagree with the rest of your post, but I guess you probably could have figured that out on your own.

spoked=spooked

(OK, I'm off to peruse diadem's ethic link...)

The problem with some countries having nuclear capabilities is that they don't have the chain of command that we do. The President can't just push a button and annihilate the world, there are procedures and red tape to get through first. That is not the case with Pakistan and won't be with Iran. I totally agree that it's not fair that we should preach so ardently about not developing nukes when we have plenty of them ourselves. It's a really tough issue.

diadem,

Thanks for the link. You are right - it does fall in line with Obama's platform. I had thought that he said NO lobbyists would work in the government EVER, but that must have been my misunderstanding.

See? I asked a question, and got a reasonable response. Now I feel smarter and better about Obama, and have no problem admitting I was wrong. That wasn't so hard.

Mich - there was a post in the GWB article about how the terrorists are on the run and not attacking innocent people anymore. I took it to mean that since the terrorist haven't attacked American civilians recently then everyone that isn't an American civilian isn't an innocent person (i.e. Iraqi civilians, Afghan civilians, etc.)

And Jude - you hit the nail on the head of what I was trying to say

Kranky! I appreciate that! I've got nothing but love for ya

diadem-

The feeling is mutual.

And yup - that was me on the GWB thread saying we've got the terrorists on the run. Thanks for pointing out that refinement in my argument. I do not deny that - to me - American lives are a priority over peoples' of other nations in terms of our foriegn policy. That doesn't mean I don't care if bad things happen to other innocent people around the world, or attribute all acts of terrorism as the responsibility of the US.

(Hope you don't mind if I call you diadem by the way. Mydia soudns weird to me now that I know the root of your handle.)

you can call me whatever you want! The only reason I bring this up is that its one thing to say that American civilian lives take priority of over other non-US civilians. Its another thing to say that Israel lives take precedent over Iranian civilian lives. I'm not saying that's exactly what you said, but saying that Israel can have nukes and defend its citizens and Iran cannot is basically saying that an Israeli live is more warrants more defense than an Iranian civilian.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

And what Jude said

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.

It's the inconsistency of disarmament attempts that bothers me most.

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, I said the exact same thing in my earlier post. Put down your gun, but we won't put down ours. It's ridiculous.

Exactly, Roarman.

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

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 - 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.

"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.

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."

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.

Without getting involved seriously and investing time in Israel and Palestine, it will be hard to change people's mind.

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.

Nuking Disney World would be completely out of order. Who would want to destroy the happiest place on earth?

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.