Talk:Project for the New American Century/Survey

message: ===Version 1 is NPOV. (15 votes) ===
#CheeseDreams 14:51, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Which version is NPOV?

message: #CheeseDreams 14:51, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Version 1 is NPOV. (15 votes) 

message: #VeryVerily 03:07, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Version 2 is NPOV. (1 vote)

message: #"spirited - and frequently extremely partisan and ill-informed" is a judgment, addressing the reader directly like "readers may find it more enlightening to examine the document directly" is not encyclopedia style, and analyzing a particular paragraph from a report in an article about an organization is not appropriate for an encyclopedia altogether. It is fully sufficient to mention that there is a disputer over whether the PNAC suggested something others may be able to specify better than I can about 9/11. Get-back-world-respect 23:00, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Neither of the versions is NPOV. (2 votes) 

message: * An utterly meaningless question.  In what context would it be mentioned?  What is the putative relevance? VeryVerily 03:08, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: The paragraph: (vote one)

message: #Shorne 21:57, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: should mention Iraq. (5 votes) 

message: #Kevin Baas | talk 21:56, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)
#Bryan 00:07, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: I am neutral on this matter. (5 votes) 

message: ===should not say that critics of PNAC believe the paper in question was proposing the invasion of Iraq. (2 votes) ===
#Kevin Baas | talk 21:56, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)
#Shorne 21:58, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: The paragraph: (vote one)

message: #Kevin Baas | talk 21:56, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)
#Shorne 21:58, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: should ''not'' say that critics of PNAC believe the paper in question was proposing the invasion of Iraq. (2 votes) 

message: #It should name them. "Some" and "many" have to be the most-quoted people in Wikipedia. —No-One Jones (m) 15:01, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: should say that ''some'' critics of PNAC believe the paper in question was proposing the invasion of Iraq. (6 votes) 

message: * VeryVerily 03:09, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: should say that ''most'' critics of PNAC believe the paper in question was proposing the invasion of Iraq. (0 votes) 

message: *"frequently quoted out of context"
*#Kevin Baas | talk 21:39, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)
*#Shorne 21:44, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Which, if any, of the following fragments are inherently POV in the context of the above paragraphs? (vote as many as you like)

message: ===Yes. (6 votes) ===
#Kevin Baas | talk 21:39, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)
#Shorne 21:46, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Is it important to have the title of the section from which the quote is from; is the section title indicative of the context, and thus informative? (vote one)

message: #Kevin Baas | talk 21:39, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)
#Shorne 21:46, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Yes. (6 votes) 

message: #--Silverback 05:05, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Indifferent. (2 votes) 

message: * That depends on what information one is attempting to convey. But Kb's reason for wanting the whole sense is to spin a deceptive theory as to what the "transformation" refers to, but the part I quoted was the part most frequently quoted. This is another trick. VeryVerily 03:10, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Is it important to quote the full sentence, rather than only part of it? (vote one)

message: #Kevin Baas | talk 21:39, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)
#Shorne 21:46, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Yes. (5 votes) 

message: #—No-One Jones (m) 15:02, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Indifferent. (3 votes) 

message: # the sept-11 attacks can be thought of as a "New Pearl Harbor" in the sense described in the document
##Kevin Baas | talk 21:39, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)
##Shorne 21:48, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Which, if any, of the following statements are reasonable? (vote as many as you like)

message: * An utterly meaningless question.  In what context would it be mentioned?  What is the putative relevance? VeryVerily 03:08, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny, I understood it perfectly. Shorne 04:51, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: The paragraph: (vote one)

message: * VeryVerily 03:09, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: So don't vote for this one. This is how polls work, you don't have to agree with everything in it. Bryan 03:39, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: How does not voting for it address the misleading impression that this is the view being expressed?  You unilaterally deleted all of my loaded/strawman questions. VeryVerily 04:20, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I unilaterally second the deletion of VeryVerily's loaded/straw-man questions. Shorne 04:51, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: should say that ''most'' critics of PNAC believe the paper in question was proposing the invasion of Iraq.

message: ==== you have stopped beating your wife. ====
==== you have not stopped beating your wife. ====
Moved from the first question:
#Shorne 21:42, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Back in the /archived discussion three days ago when I first proposed a "none of the above" option, your only response was "It's hard for me not to laugh." Perhaps you should have provided a more substansive criticism at that point? Bryan 14:59, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That is because you are operating in such obviously bad faith. VeryVerily 00:03, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: The paragraph should say that: (choose one) 

message: Moved from the first question:
#Shorne 21:42, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Back in the /archived discussion three days ago when I first proposed a "none of the above" option, your only response was "It's hard for me not to laugh." Perhaps you should have provided a more substansive criticism at that point? Bryan 14:59, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That is because you are operating in such obviously bad faith. VeryVerily 00:03, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  you have not stopped beating your wife. 

message: #*More comedy! The only way of giving a dissenting voice other than silence is to say that "none" are reasonable? VeryVerily 06:50, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Which, if any, of the following statements are reasonable? (vote as many as you like)

message: If there is a legitimate body of critics that are directly or through innuendo are accusing the document of advocating or planning an invasion, then it probably deserves to be mentioned and responded to.  I think some passages in the document make it clear that while frustrated by the way Saddam was pulling our chain and concerned about the degradation of our air force readiness due to enforcing the no fly zone, they were actually recommending a long term redeployment which accepted the likely continuation of these realities.  On page 17:
:"With the rationalization of ground-based U.S. air forces in the region, the demand for carrier presence in the region can be relaxed."
Also documented in the document is the clear concern with WMD in general, not just a focus on Iraq, although throughout the document the lessons of Gulf War I and the demands of the no fly zone and the need for stability in the middle east are prominent.  Although on page 57, it states:
:"The current American peace will be short-lived if the United States becomes vulnerable to rogue powers with small, inexpensive arsenals of ballistic missiles and nuclear warheads or other weapons of mass destruction. We cannot allow North Korea, Iran, Iraq or similar states to undermine American leadership, intimidate American allies or threaten the American homeland itself."
the main argument of the document appears to be for a more rational deployment of our forces.  It is no wonder that the administration seized upon it as a fortuitiously available coherant policy in the wake of the urgency thrust upon us by 9/11, so early in the administration.  Besides all the obvious moral reasons for selecting Iraq as the a target, one thing the document makes clear is that the no fly zone was not a painless exercise, but was tying down our forces and reducing our flexibility more than the general public probably appreciated.  Combine that with the UN cooperating in undermining US and UN credibility by repeatedly delaying a meaningful response to Saddams repeated breaking of the truce (the sanctions and the kicking out of inspectors), made Iraq the logical next target.
There is plenty of fodder for the Kerry campaign in the document as well, given that the document recognized the need for larger armed forces because of "constabulary" needs.--Silverback 05:51, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: the Iraq issue

message: The closing date for this survey was October 22. I would like to thank everyone who participated in a mature manner and, in particular, the people who took such pains to devise a fair and reasonable poll in the face of a certain party's unspeakable juvenility. Shorne 19:41, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Survey is closed