Talk:Newspaper alleges U.S. drawing up plans to attack Iran

WoW

WoW...if even that...maybe stunned silence. If this is indeed true...then when? And if this is true, do you realize that we have just threatened to blow up another nation? We have basically in a sense declared war. Do you know what the reprecautions of this could be? Jason Safoutin 19:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Jason, if you haven't got a Bible,get one; and go to the back of the book. Neutralizer 21:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I am literally stunned... Looks like I will cancel that summer trip to Persia. Genjix 00:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Ummm, rather like time to book a trip to a safe summer cottage on the Moon. There's nothing about the risk that the attack could be a nuclear attack in this wikinews article - the problem with including this, according to the wikinews guidelines, is that this is old information from August 2005 - but if someone wants to integrate it into the article anyway, in a way consistent with wikinews goals, please go ahead:

http://www.amconmag.com/2005_08_01/article3.html

Philip Giraldi, a former CIA Officer: "The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney’s office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. ... Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. (my emphasis added)

Giraldi's article has been quoted and discussed quite a bit around the net - google a bit and you'll find stuff. Is he saying the truth? i don't know, i've never met him and probably never will. But his argument does seem to be taken seriously - bombing a country with 5 million internet users and 70,000 bloggers is awfully risky in terms of "public relations", and if all the bombing does is destroy a few tonnes of hard rock along with some unfortunate "human resources" whose friends, families, colleagues are handy with digital cameras and keyboards, without even being able to "claim success" by destroying the deep-underground facilities which allegedly are used for developing weapons, well, then you have a public relations nightmare on your hands. With the mini-nuke option, the US administration could at least "benefit" from the claim of successfully destroying the facilities. (Of course, if any of these go off early and Iranians starting sending fresh photos of mushroom clouds around the web, that also might be a public relations disaster...) Boud 00:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

President Bush majored in history; our politicians know exactly when and how far to push us; and we're(collectively) almost primed to applaud the nuclear murder of a few hundred thousand muslims who will get us if we don't get them first. The only question is, who will pull the trigger, us or Israel. Our masters sold us on Iraq's WMDs and they're selling us now on Iran's "nuclear ambitions". In case you're too young to know this; we made movies celebrating our "heroes" who dropped the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (Hiroshima was maybe justified;Nagasaki was just for the hell of it); but surely you remember the cheers that went up from our reporters on the rooftops of Baghdad when our first bombs landed on Iraqis in their Baghdad homes in 2003. PR will be no problem at all; after all, you drink coke don't you? :) Neutralizer 03:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Edits

This: ...ballistic missile attacks against Iran's nuclear sites as a last resort as part of the...(bold indicates text added [second paragraph]). Jason Safoutin 20:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, note that the Telegraph puts the quotes "last resort". Boud 23:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup request

Please do not use italics to indicate quotes. Use "quotes". - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 20:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Does that look any better? Jason Safoutin 20:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The italics are my fault. If this is the preferred wikinews style, fine by me, i'll try to "stick by it" :). Boud 23:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

alleged

the alleged number of alleged disclaimers in the alleged opening paragraphs is allegedly a little too much. suggest using "reported", "said" and other synonyms to make it read better. allegedly, Doldrums 03:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)