Talk:Bush and Putin suggest potential for World War III

Isn't this name a little dis-honest? I mean, really, just cheap advertising to get people to look at it. Putin didn't specifically mention WWIII at all it seems, and he said that thing about being able to penetrate the missile defense a long time ago. And it should also take into account, that he is CLAIMING that they have the capacity, not a proven fact. Remember that you can never trust state controlled media to give you the facts. Contralya 19:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

If either side uses nukes, it will be WWIII one way or another. 70.54.11.65 00:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I am talking about the name and validity of this article. All that happened was Bush mentioning WWIII, thats all! Putin talked about being able to bypass the defense shield MONTHS ago. I think this article is hypocrisy. There isn't any real news in it, Bush mentioning WWIII isn't worthy of an article. Contralya 01:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I personally think that mentioning WWIII is a newsworthy thing (country leaders don't say that lightly).However the title might be a bit misleading. What would you call it?Bawolff ☺☻ 01:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, I don't see this as so news worthy. The article's focus needs to be changed. Here the thing is, Bush mentioned WWIII recently, wile Putin has been saying that the USA wants to invade Russia and that the USA wants Siberia, FOR YEARS. Putin and his media have been saying this stuff for years, it's not news. Information should be included in the article that there is no evidence supporting Putin and his government controlled media's claims. I bet they showed a US politician talking in English and fake translated it. Contralya 02:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

You forgot to mention all the nuclear war rhetoric that Putin has been stating including the acquisition and possible use of Nukes and that attacking Iran is unacceptable, again another threat. Here is an article to calm you down Not Knut but Kute 70.54.11.65 10:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I, for one, think that article titles should be catchy and encourage people to view the articles.

I think an article's name should be honest. Yes, Putin is retro, he tries to slow down all peacekeeping efforts, he supplies anti-air missiles to Iran; but he didn't mention WWIII! The article should be called 'Bush suggests potential for WWIII', because Putin did NOT mention it. I guess it's too late now, I bet there are a lot of people who think there is another cold war because of this dishonest title. Contralya 16:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

There is another Cold War and it is not because of the title of this article -:) 70.54.11.65 18:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

But there ISN'T WWIII Contralya 18:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

First you advise you don't like the name, then you advise the article is not news worthy and should not be published. Please check Google News you will see thousands of related articles to this article, it is definitely news worthy and both leaders are suggesting the potential for WWIII. My final words on the matter. 70.54.11.65 00:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

What I am saying is that BUSH mentioned it, and the stuff Putin says he has been saying for years. It should be something like 'Bush suggests potential for WWIII', because Putin isn't the one who said it. By the way, the scenario is that Iran nukes Israel, meanwhile Russia supports Iran and NATO supports Israel. Contralya 03:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

There are several scenario's suggested by both Putin and Bush, all leading to WWIII, so the title is accurate based on the facts. 70.54.11.65 10:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Contralya. You can't mix old news with new news and call it all new and amazing. This article should be combined with another article.

Bcbrwk (talk) 20:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)