Iran is set to give a mighty punch to the west in just a few days are you ready?  

of course! the united states is weak! obama and the other fool in london, england? gimme me a break; michael savage says it best. the west plays checkers, while iran, china etc. play chess. until real men take over western governments, well- hell I would be flexing my muscle too if I was iran or russia, china. if one is weak one invites death. now will iran do something thursday? I think it maybe a nuclear test of somekind; wonder if it happens if obama will go running to iran not negotiate, but do what he does best to foreign leaders: bow at their feet.

What's Khomeini going to do...hit the western allies with a giant purse? He wasn't just referring to the U.S., Rose. He's whining about Russia, France and every other member country of the International Atomic Energy Agency who objects to Iran's plans to produce higher-grade uranium enrichment on it's own soil in contradiction of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty they recently signed. This fist pounding nothing statement is in response to the promise of additional sanctions against Iran by the IAEA membership. But, tell us Rose, what it is you expect Iran is capable of doing in the near future? Do you honestly believe that their Air Force is capable of getting anywhere close to the boarders of any of the western IAEA member countries without being blown out of the sky? Have you forgotten about the defense capabilities of not only the U.S. but other countries as well...including Israel's nuclaer weapons that stand ready? Yeah, I'm real skert.

Well, I have never been to the US -I don't have an interest in the country, sorry-, and I live in the East, so it wouldn't affect me much, but anyway I'm against wars, and against all that insane thing about leaders always wanting to blow other's heads. Sometimes you can compare it with 3 year old kids trying to get their older brother or sister's toy

So I guess I should be really afraid? Of what, exactly? Remember Iraq and weapons of mass destruction? We were told to be really afraid then, too.
Iran, however, is a different kettle of fish. It is a large country with a lot of resources. The leadership is somewhat irrational, and therefore unpredictable. The U.S. has for many years tried to induce regime change in many countries by imposing sanctions. We refuse to do business with that country (Reagan excepted--he sold weapons to the Iranians) and it never works. Sanctions were imposed on Cuba shortly shortly after Castro took control. They have been in place for almost 50 years, with no sign of regime change yet.
Sanctions like trade embargoes never work. Never. We are more likely to induce a regime change by doing business with the people of a country than by refusing to do so. We could increase the dissatisfaction of the Iranian people with their government by selling them Levis and television sets, except we don't make any of those anymore.
John Bolton ranks right up towards the top of the list of unreliable sources about what is happening in the world and the best way to deal with it. He was one of the guys pounding the drum about Iraq's WMD.
When you look at the assessments of international situations by those who are called "neocons", which includes Bolton, and then look at subsequent events, there is a truly striking pattern: these guys have never been right about anything.

I don't think they will be blowing anything up, they're probably done with that. The next thing will probably be a biological weapon of some sort--they will infect some people with an awful disease and fly them here to spread it.

Our problem is that we react, we don't prevent. We search old ladies and babies at the airports and let the target groups sail by because it would be politically incorrect to single out the demographic group that the terrorists belong to. We wait till they do something then we take steps to prevent that particular act. We leave our borders wide open and essentially unprotected while we concentrate on air traffic. We don't inspect incoming sea cargo, either.

On your other point, I find it ironic that Mrs. Palin's crib notes are being ridiculed while we have a president that can't speak well without a teleprompter, even taking it with him to address a class of children. And he can't pronounce "corpsman", either. We all have our limitations, of course, but to criticize the speck in someone's eye before they attend to the log in their own is ridiculous.

Hmm....

I think Americans are far to scared of losing there imperialism! I mean, as some respondents have pointed out, even if Iran was to do something silly, the West has so many defence mechanisms that Iranian attacks really would not get very far. Moreover, Iran, as with Iraq does not really have any of the REAL high tech wmd that all the Western nations have. So with just rhetoric, and a clever alliance building with Eastern bloc, I think the US is running scared of losing its power grip on the world.

No country wants to be dictated to, but can work with a memorandum of understanding. All of the Arab nations, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi, Lebanon and now Iraq and Afghanistan, with Syria weakened, they cannot lift a finger in defiance of the US. Iran up until 1979 was a 'friend', but decided its alliance with the US was going to be on its own terms, 'take or leave it' attitude. It required no help from the US, and the Iranian nation has become prosperous, similar to Iraq in the 1980's.
But the control of the US is not there, and the US does not like it. But when you look deeply into Iran itself, its government and its mindset from all the speeches and its actions, you really do not get the impression that these people are mad. Rather, there is a very strong passion of methodology for the Iranian nation and reaching out to its neighbors and strategic partners. Moreover, all of its programmes have been largely peaceful.
But the Americans cannot see it this way simply because it opposes American and Israeli policy. It does agree with much what America has done and it does not fear by saying them openly. Yet the US assume this as a pre-requisite for nuclear ambitions to fire at the West - creating a mad state image and linking it with terrorist.

Let me also remind you, the US has 3000+ nukes and Israel has 200+. Double standards?? Moreover, the US is the only country which has used the nuke TWICE! Yet if Iran was to acquire any sort of weapon, it could not attack Israel if it wanted to. Maybe in 30 years it may have some capabilty.

In my mind, what is coming out from many US hawks and many posters, is an imperialistic and arrogant mindset of those who wish to control or meddle with other nations affairs. But if they only realised that the way to 'help' other nations with their power and influence, is to deal with each nation fairly and respond according to their needs and not YOUR needs. This would make the world a far safer and peaceful place. And also, as with all imperialistic powers, they decline, so it would be US interest to calm it a little.

To make a fuss about Palin writing on her hand is really scraping the bottom of the barrel. It that is all the Dumcrats can complain about then they really are dumb. We have many much more important things to worry about.
I have never really cared too much for Palin but I found the note written on her hand to be rather endearing. Nothing to be compared to Obama's teleprompter which tells him every damn word to say!!

I am going to go off on a completely different path here. I do not believe their "punch that stuns the world" will have anything to do with war, weapons, nuclear war heads or anything of the sort. My speculation is it will be the announcement of something to do with their space program. I am going to venture they will announce something along the lines of a program for an orbiter vehical of sorts, manned space flight, perhaps even the statrt of their own moon exploration program. Just my guess.

I don't want to be rude to you but I am trying to figure out when some of these leaders have ever STOPPED threatening democratic nations. I am sorry you feel less safe than you used to feel, but personally I don't. I was alarmed when I learned that the last administration received the memo "bin Laden determined to strike within the U.S." and didn't move to change any security precautions. However, I have no idea of how many such memoes come into the oval office every day for review and what happens to them. I tend to blame terrorists for terrorism, not the many presidential administrations who have the awesome burden of dealing with them. I'm pretty sure we'd all be mortified if we had a complete record of all these threats, because such threats have been going on for as long as I can remember.

So I am not sure how to answer your question -- are you suggesting the U.S. should go ahead and bomb any country that issues some vague verbal threat or what? I mean in what way are you saying we should be ready? I suppose my answer would be on my last day on earth I'll be myLotting, enjoying my family and friends and working like I always do.