Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 32:
Line 32: + + + + + +
Talk:Project for the New American Century (view source)
Revision as of 05:11, December 8, 2007
, 05:11, December 8, 2007to danq and/or RedBlade
: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. -[[User:RedBlade7|danq]] 17:42, 7 December 2007 (EST)
: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. -[[User:RedBlade7|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. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 00:11, 8 December 2007 (EST)