Talk:Project for the New American Century/Archive 2

message: “Some proponents of the war claim it was not a foregone conclusion unless one assumed that Saddam would continue to be intransigent and that France, Russia, Germany and China would continue to block unanimity on the UN security council.”
That's a great sentence. Oh, you mean all of the other four members with veto power are “blocking” unanimity? Who's doing the blocking? A citation would be welcome here, so it would possible to tell whether the wording is from the source or the writer. 149.169.20.229 05:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great sentences of the article 

message: "Military might is not power in itself; it requires huge financial commitments, strong domestic and international support plus skillful management to be considered worthwhile. PNAC position papers and other documents contain few references on building or maintaining any of these requirements."
Okay, I'm new to this, but here goes: While I agree with the first sentence, it sounds like an assertion. Is there a way to make it seem a little more neutral? The second one sounds like it's making a point, or sounds like a criticism. Is there a way to convey the same information while still maintaining an impartial ... um voice? :)
Also, the section that mentions that some feel the PNAC is an unfair victim of conspiracy theories, wouldn't it be fair to include some of the quotes that have fueled the theories?
Garden Stater 04:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Part of the sentences you are concerned about are in italics.  You might want to review they history and past versions to see what their origin is.  They may be actual quotes, the cites for which have been lost in the article, or perhaps were posted here on the talk page.--Silverback 09:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerning a 2 sentences in "Contreversy" 

message: I mistakenly quoted from this document that was from the Committee for Peace and Security in the Gulf. Thanks for catching my error. --JWSchmidt 02:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Sorry, wrong document

message: Clarified 'be intransigent' and removed '...continued to block unanimity..' for reasons given by  149.169.20.229 above (05:35, 27 September 2005). The previous sentence did not make sense - the point of those who believed that the war was a foregone coclusion, and would go ahead irrespective of the result of a vote on a further resolution, is that US policy was clearly not contingent on Great Power unanimity, as the war DID go ahead despite the prospect of being vetoed by the Security Council.  Hippo43 07:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to  'Criticisms of position on Iraq' 

message: Shouldn't the paragraph quoting this line go under controversy instead of Iraq policy criticism? --BohicaTwentyTwo 20:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Pearl Harbor 

message: Under the heading "Controversy" is says that "[s]upporters of the project reply that the PNAC's goals are not fundamentally different from other conservative foreign policy assessments of the past". However, the view of PNAC differs greatly from that of, say Pat Buchanan, who opposes interventionist foreign policy (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Buchanan). Buchanan is often regarded as an archetype of a traditional conservative, today known as Paleo-conservative. And as the article on Paleo-conservativism also points out "[a] central pillar of paleoconservatism is a foreign policy based upon non-interventionism or isolationism" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoconservative#Paleoconservatism.27s_foreign_policy_concerns). Thus, although the supporters claim that their policy is in line with assessment of other conservatives, this statement is incorrect. And in order to fulfil the Wikipedia principle of being informative, this ought to be pointed out, in my opinion. PJ 15:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess it depends on what your definition of conservative is. Are there only two types of conservatives these days? Paleo- and neo-? --BohicaTwentyTwo 16:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are several types of conservativism, but Paleo-conservatism certainly is a major one. (In fact, neo-conservatism and paleo-conservatism are most likely the two major types.) For example, both the The American Conservative and Chronicles are oulets for paleo-convervatism. With that, the claim by PNAC seems to me incorrect. Furthermore, there are other major conservative figures, such as William F. Buckely Jr., founder of National Review, who has expressed criticism of the neoconservative agenda, such as the Iraq war, and further even arguing that Bush — who should be regarded as a neo-conservative, in my view — is not even a conservative (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_F._Buckley%2C_Jr.). It seems wrong, therefore, to say that there is no difference between neoconservatives and other conservatives. PJ 19:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PNAC, Conservatism, and Foreign Policy 

message: Given Fukuyama's heavy-weight status within the neocon intelligensia, I definately believe that his critique of the PNACs policies ought to be mentioned in this article. (Se e.g. "After Neoconservatism", http://www.champress.net/english/index.php?page=show_det&id=2405; and "Fukuyama’s moment: a neocon schism opens", http://www.opendemocracy.net/democracy-election2004/article_2190.jsp#.) PJ 14:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fukuyama, Neocons, and PNAC 

message: Project for the New American Century concerns me very much and when I looked it up on wikipedia I would have thought it would have had more information. This is a bigger threat than terrorism (I know a lot of people won't agree with me, especially as this is US based (I am Australian)) but gets next to zilch media coverage... c'mon wikipedians, expand, expand! Timeshift 05:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Expansion?

message: I think this section should be deleted. It is basically non-cited possibly anti-semetic POV.
:I agree it should be deleted. It adds nothing to the article as a whole, which I think is pretty good otherwise. If no-one objects, I'll delete it in a week. --BobFromBrockley 09:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support for liberal democracies

message: This article is linked to by Prisonplanet.com www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2006/250706ethniccleansers.htm]. --Striver 02:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: media

message: That link points to a british comedian, are you sure your not refering to another Bremmer? Paul Bremmer perhaps?
That's Bremner. Looking at the citation it appears that the British comedian is indeed cited and all is okay. 71.57.34.186 11:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rory Bremmer??

message: The issue which should be dealt with in this article is the project for the new american century.
The issue of the PFTNAC's stance on the war on iraq seems to be overshadowing the actual project its self. This should not only be reformatted, but possibly completely re written as well...
As for that conspiracy theorist...I wonder what his DU (democratic underground) name is? 72.25.77.134 02:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sidestepping the issue 

message: I'm just curious about one thing, why is Pax Americana listed in the opening paragraphs as one of the claims of the critics of PNAC? They have on their website very blatant claims that it is precisely what they want, take for instance this pdf, which is titled "Preserving Pax Americana". So how is this an allegation of critics alone as implied? --Paul Barkley 03:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: quoting from the second paragraph in the article, Pax Americana, "The term Pax Americana is used by both supporters and critics of United States foreign policy, and as such, it carries different connotations depending on the context."  The next sentence in that paragraph refers to the "rebuilding america's defenses" document, where the term is also used.  Maybe you can help to clarify this somewhere, somehow in this article also.  Umeboshi 23:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pax Americana 

message: this section does not display properly:
|I. Lewis Libby
|Bush Administration (2001-2005)
|Chief of Staff for the |Vice President 
|Indicted by Grand Jury on charges of Obstruction of Justice, False Statements, and Perjury and resigned October 28, 2005.
All you see is Vice President, instead of Chief of Staff for the Vice President
:Ok, I fixed the problem with the link. I'm not sure that it should still be listed as such, or if it should be former CoStotheVP.  Umeboshi 23:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Erm, no, because it's completely untrue. BobFromBrockley 11:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correction needed:

message: May I ask a question? References 12 and 13, in the 'Controversy' section, both lead to documents on the 'Springerlink' website about genetic modification of plants, in particular fungi. Are these really a useful link when talking about the PNAC document's discussion of possible future uses in bio-warfare? I'm not an expert in this field, but can't someone find a more appropriate link?--Lopakhin 14:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: see this BBC article.
From the article:
"The ambitions proclaimed when the neo-cons' mission statement "The Project for the New American Century" was declared in 1997 have turned into disappointment and recriminations as the crisis in Iraq has grown."
"The Project for the New American Century" has been reduced to a voice-mail box and a ghostly website. A single employee has been left to wrap things up. "
"Richard Perle declared that had he known how it would turn out, he would have been against it: "I think now I probably would have said: 'No, let's consider other strategies'."
"Kenneth Adelman said: "They turned out to be among the most incompetent teams in the post-war era."
"Donald Rumsfeld "fooled me", he said."
This article needs to be updated.
Yeago 04:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  PNAC defunct?? 

message: What is the socioeconomic vision of PNAC for rest of the world? 
Known 18:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Socioeconomic? 

message: With respect to the page number concerning ethnocentric warfare the page number is 60. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Guam is good (talk • contribs) 23:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong Page 

message: Most of the sources for this article come from critics of the group and include mainly criticisms of the groups goals, but there seems to be little linking to information about the group itself (the structure, etc.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.186.118.123 (talk) 16:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. more research is needed in this area. especially what consitutes membership, or who signed letters. more about the financial structure. nuts and bolts stuff.--Boscobiscotti 05:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Info on the group 

message: are there any archives or backups of this site, as the book itself claims that the list of sources was on the website that seems to now be defunct.
KurtFF8 04:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amiraqa site gone