Talk:Project for the New American Century
PNAC's stated goal is global American leadership. There is wide opposition to this goal. Emphasis in PNAC is on military solutions; diplomacy is not considered to be an effective means to end conflict.
"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor"
The above statement is taken from Section V of Rebuilding America's Defenses, which is a major part of PNAC's central theory. It was originally presented in 1997.
Some would contend that George W. Bush's subscription to this doctrine was the reason for his late response to the 9/11 attacks: that he was waiting for the most damage to be done.
I tried to edit the article and it wouldn't let me without taking out this man's name. Apparently there is a spam filter which blocks a misspelling of the infamous four-letter word.-danq 11:37, 4 December 2007 (EST)
- Sorry, it was "...uyama." -danq 12:01, 4 December 2007 (EST)
- Prominent politicians, journalists and scholars associated with the Project For New American Century include Charles Krauthammer, Paul Wolfowitz, Lewis Libby, Jeb Bush, Richard Perle, Dick Cheney, William J. Bennett, Norman Podhoretz, Dan Quayle, Abram Shulsky, Frank Gaffney, Zalmay Khalilzad, R. James Woolsey, Jr., Rudy Boschwitz, Eliot A. Cohen, Steve Forbes, Michael Ledeen, Dov Zakheim, Richard Armitage, Robert Zoellick, Paula Dobriansky and Aaron Friedberg.
- PNAC's stated goal is to promote global American leadership (which they call "Pax Americana"),
- "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor"
- The above statement is taken from Section V of "Rebuilding America's Defenses," a document which they published in September 2000. Conspiracy theorists claim that this quote implies foreknowledge of 9/11.
Someone is trying to make this group look bad. I'd rather they would not try to use the authority of the encyclopedia for this.
It would be better to give voice to named critics. Like,
- fellow conservative Ima Throwback siad PNAC was "a scary group trying to make a Taliban-like hegemony over the ignorant people of the world"; or,
- liberal opponent Teeny B. Rain said, "Like all things American, this group uses power to stifle opposing thought."
- Ed, it was not my goal to make PNAC look bad, only to be more descriptive and explain how the quote (which I didn't put on the page) was relevant to 9/11 conspiracy theorists. As for the phrase "Pax Americana," it is not a "dig," but a literal phrase in RAD. Take a look at my latest revision and let me know what you think. -danq 17:42, 7 December 2007 (EST)
As with all things political, there's often a difference between what a group says its aims are, and what their opponents say the group's aims are.
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1018-03.htm (if it's about the same Pax Americana) make it sound as if (1) they are quoting PNAC and (2) that PNAC is trying to make a Taliban-like hegemony over the ignorant people of the world.
At Wikipedia, it's often hard to make fine distinctions like this, but here I have the luxury of being a sysop. If lazy or evil people try to put words in someone's mouth I can undo, protect and even block. But if is there a controversy over what Pax American is, then let's reveal the controversy. --Ed Poor Talk 00:11, 8 December 2007 (EST)
- Ed, what's the controversy? I'm simply stating the phrase PNAC uses to describe their own ideology. -danq 13:40, 8 December 2007 (EST)
- Let's look at the full context:
- "The American peace has proven itself peaceful, stable and durable. It has, over the past decade, provided the geopolitical framework for widespread economic growth and the spread of American principles of liberty and democracy. Yet no moment in international politics can be frozen in time; even a global Pax Americana will not preserve itself."
- This is written in the pre-9/11 era. Thier website yields no other reference to this term. It's use here is both out of context and given undue weight. Rob Smith 15:00, 8 December 2007 (EST)
- Let's look at the full context:
- OK, no big deal. It's just a simple phrase used in RAD; if it's not mentioned anywhere other than a few places in the RAD document, then it's obviously not official and thus not worth adding to the page. -danq 18:25, 8 December 2007 (EST)