MoodyGroove (talk | contribs) Removed significant portion of unsourced, poorly sourced, weasel, or original research comments to talk page |
Boscobiscotti (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 289: | Line 289: | ||
::''Some critics of the Bush administration see the 1998 letter to President Clinton as a "smoking gun",<ref>http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm</ref> showing that the invasion of Iraq was a foregone conclusion. These critics see the letter as evidence of Rumsfeld's, Wolfowitz's and [[Richard Perle]]'s opinions, five years prior to the Iraq invasion. Other signatories of the letter include [[John Bolton]] and [[Zalmay Khalilzad]], as of this writing the United States' former and current ambassador to the United Nations , respectively.'' |
::''Some critics of the Bush administration see the 1998 letter to President Clinton as a "smoking gun",<ref>http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm</ref> showing that the invasion of Iraq was a foregone conclusion. These critics see the letter as evidence of Rumsfeld's, Wolfowitz's and [[Richard Perle]]'s opinions, five years prior to the Iraq invasion. Other signatories of the letter include [[John Bolton]] and [[Zalmay Khalilzad]], as of this writing the United States' former and current ambassador to the United Nations , respectively.'' |
||
*This is truly the most shameful POV pushing I have ever seen on the English Wikipedia. Placing it under "Controversy" does not obviate the need to be responsible. Since the Project for the New American Century is composed of notable living persons, the same [[WP:POLICY|policy]] standards should apply to this article that apply to [[Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons|biographies of living persons]]. As a reminder, "the responsibility for finding a source lies with the person who adds or restores the material. Unsourced or poorly sourced edits may be challenged and removed at any time. Sometimes it is better to have no information at all than to have information without a source." And yes, the cited source needs to be [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#What_is_a_reliable_source.3F|reliable]], [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|verifiable]], and substantiate the text it is linked to. [[WP:FRINGE|Fringe]] theories in particular should be very well sourced. [[User:MoodyGroove|MoodyGroove]] 02:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove |
*This is truly the most shameful POV pushing I have ever seen on the English Wikipedia. Placing it under "Controversy" does not obviate the need to be responsible. Since the Project for the New American Century is composed of notable living persons, the same [[WP:POLICY|policy]] standards should apply to this article that apply to [[Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons|biographies of living persons]]. As a reminder, "the responsibility for finding a source lies with the person who adds or restores the material. Unsourced or poorly sourced edits may be challenged and removed at any time. Sometimes it is better to have no information at all than to have information without a source." And yes, the cited source needs to be [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#What_is_a_reliable_source.3F|reliable]], [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|verifiable]], and substantiate the text it is linked to. [[WP:FRINGE|Fringe]] theories in particular should be very well sourced. [[User:MoodyGroove|MoodyGroove]] 02:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove |
||
: Hi Moody. so we meet again. you may have some concerns, but in fact 1) this is not a biography of a living person 2) when in doubt, do not do massive deletions, but improve. You have completely removed the entire controversy section. In fact PNAC is a controversial organization. Whitewashing this fact does not make the controversy dissapear. I agree that comments should be sourced and well considered. |
|||
PNAC is a historic and influential organization, as well as a controversial one. see http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/iraq/etc/cron.html for a sourced example of how they are considered to be influential.--[[User:Boscobiscotti|Boscobiscotti]] 04:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==References== |
==References== |
Revision as of 04:18, 7 May 2007
- /Archive 1 - up to and including 2004
Perceived?
In 1998, following perceived Iraqi unwillingness to co-operate with UN weapons inspections
Perceived?
Stuff like this does you guys no good.... the more opinion in the articles - the more you turn off a lot of people.
I would think that kicking the weapons inspectors out of Iraq qualifies as something other than a "perceived Iraqi unwillingness to co-operate with UN weapons inspections"
Controversy
I have some concerns with the paragraph regarding genetically tailored bio weapons. While the author provides some very detailed information on genetics, they fail to cite any sources arguing that this passage shows the PNAC to be violent racists. In its current form this paragraph is an opinion. I ask the author to provide a source that discusses racist charge in the statement.
Rory Bremmer??
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)
Silverback.. re: Iraq regime change
Silverback, regarding this line you added:
- The report makes no assertions about preemptively attacking Iraq or enacting regime change. Instead, it states ..
That is editorial commentary. Don't you think it best to let the reader decide what the quote says and means? BTW I was not the one who remove it originally, but can see some reason for doing so. Stbalbach 17:08, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I think this is a NOR content issue. Mentioning what is NOT in a document appears to be a useful service to the reader and if it is mere editorial opinion rather than fact it should be easily refutable. I don't think banning this is what the ban on NOR had in mind. Its supposed motivation was to prevent crackpot physics theories of individuals. My section in this arb case addresses the issue of argumentative refutation in an article, so perhaps the arb committee will shed some light there [1]. I am sure you will agree that argumentative refutation goes far beyond noting what is not in a document. I've also posted some of my thoughts on this issue to the wickien-l email list. I quote myself here:
- A scientific case would be more helpful, because there is a more generally accepted concept of the truth being searched for and what constitutes facts and the most authoritative evidence. Therefore there is the opportunity to elaborate NOR beyond the every word must have been used by someone else straightjacket. Pointing out omissions or flaws that any peer reviewer or scientific literate would acknowledge, should be allowed. For example, this new study demonstrates this new variable is important, therefor that older study which did not account for that variable (by inspection, because no one else has said it YET) is now called into question. NOR should not ban simple things like counting, summarizing, drawing conclusions from inspection of an article, application of simple equations or principles to facts, etc.
- I think this NOR-content issue is one which goes directly to the readability and usefulness of wikipedia. NOR is one of the most abused and destructive objections, but it also is admittedly sometimes quite subjective. Hopefully the community can deal conform to this standard without being throttled by it.--Silverback 17:30, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Actually, it reads like your taking sides in a debate, defending the PNAC report. It's a more fundamental neutrality issue. I'm not sure that is your intent, perhaps it could be re-phrased? Why did you deem it important to mention that the report does not mention pre-empt attacking Iraq? Stbalbach 05:18, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I agree it does look out of place now. There was a lot reading between the lines conspiracy theories citing this report in the article at one time. Perhaps that is one justification for keeping it, although they are no longer in the article, they are probably still out there in the community. The defense was put in the article at a time when there was a lot of debate here by persons who were reading the report and debating what it meant. So, in a sense, those statements have passed peer review. If not those familiar with the report would have shot them down if they were wrong, of course, the clincher was probably the quote from the report. It might need to be reworded now that the other side is no longer present in the article, but something should probably be retained so that newcomers would know we've read the report and have already been down that road. Thanx for pointing that out.--Silverback 05:56, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I hope this new more informational version addresses your concerns.--Silverback 14:11, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Yeah looks fine now, thanks for the explanation and history, makes sense. Stbalbach 16:33, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I strongly oppose to the suggestion that the context in which the phrase about "a new Pearl Harbor" stands, would change what it might imply.
The chapter in which it stands is about "CREATING TOMORROW’S DOMINANT FORCE" and begins with the following statement:
"To preserve American military preeminence in the coming decades, the Department of Defense must move more aggressively to experiment with new technologies and operational concepts, and seek to exploit the emerging revolution in military affairs."
Hence, the general aim behind the wish to develop and use new technologies, was and remains global dominance.
Kind regards. Satuka.
- Satuka, if you read the report, you will find that much of the "general aim" behind the wish to develop and use new technologies, is to save money, and to utilize existing expenditures more efficiently. Forward ground deployments are in the same vein, given the expense of projecting force with carriers. Freeing up carriers from Iraq by ground bases in Kuwait was also proposed for these reasons.--Silverback 00:23, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Silverback, Satuka is exactly right, if one simply reads the documents from the PNAC literally, without introducing their own biases. Firstly, to show that Silverback is wrong that their intent was to save money, the strategy proposal "Rebuilding
America's Defenses" states in the introduction that expense was intentionally not considered. Secondly, to substantiate Satuka's assertion, the document states all over the place "military preeminence", and states it explicitly as one of the suggested goals in the introduction. I couldn't write a paper more obviously about military dominance and not about cost efficiency if I tried - mostly because I consider it bad form to repeat oneself so often in a literary work. Kevin Baastalk: 01:32, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Perhaps I am biased, or just distrustful of PNAC's conclusions, or perhaps it is original research to consider statements like the following as evidence that expense was considered, although, in PNAC's defense, perhaps it is not "intentional":
- "CANCEL “ROADBLOCK” PROGRAMS such as the Joint Strike Fighter, CVX aircraft carrier, and Crusader howitzer system that would absorb exorbitant amounts of Pentagon funding while providing limited improvements to current capabilities. Savings from these canceled programs should be used to spur the process of military transformation."
- "In this regard, the Pentagon should be very wary of making large investments in new programs – tanks, planes, aircraft carriers, for example – that would commit U.S. forces to current paradigms of warfare for many decades to come."
- "In sum, new capabilities will open up new ways of conducting missions that will allow for increased naval presence at a lower cost."
- "The slight increase in the shipbuilding rate is achieved by purchasing less expensive auxiliary cargo ships, which typically cost $300 to $400 million, compared to $1 billion for an attack submarine or Arleigh Burke-class Aegis destroyer, or $6 billion for an aircraft carrier."
- "The expense associated with some programs can make them roadblocks to the larger process of transformation – the Joint Strike Fighter program, at a total of approximately $200 billion, seems an unwise investment."
- "With the rationalization of ground-based U.S. air forces in the region, the demand for carrier presence in the region can be relaxed."
- And I found these just by searching the text for carrier and looking in those immediate paragraphs.
- Note the last quote is in reference to Iraq, evidently the Iraq war was not the first major step in their program.--Silverback 02:14, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
- You have certainly demonstrated that at points cost and commitment have been used rhetorically, however, this says nothing about the aim/purpose of the proposal. The statement of purpose of the proposal is most likely where the authors stated, in clear and direct terms, what the purpose of the proposal is. Duh. No offense, but I'm going to take the authors' word over yours on this one. Kevin Baastalk: 03:18, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, the document is certainly about transformation into tomorrow's force, but the expense arguments are legitimate and not merely rhetorical. How does any of this legitimize taking the Pearl Harbor phrase out of context as Satuka argues, or that the Iraqi war was part of the plan as some conspiracy theorists claim? With the exception of attempts to export the "Drug War", there could hardly be a more benign or sacrificial military dominance than that posed by the United States. Given how the tiny Iraqi conflict bogs down the US military, the US military would have to have a lot more domininance to be a threat to any but the most petty nations.--Silverback 03:32, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
Great sentences of the article
“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)
Concerning a 2 sentences in "Contreversy"
"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)
- 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)
Sorry, wrong document
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)
New US Air Force mission statement
Someone might want to consider adding a comment about the U.S. Air Force's new mission statement that reads: "The mission of the United States Air Force is to deliver sovereign options for the defense of the United States of America and its global interests -- to fly and fight in Air, Space, and Cyberspace." You can find a press release on that on the Air Force's website. The New American Century's website has a document that made mention of US plans in this area from September 2000.
Changes to 'Criticisms of position on Iraq'
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)
New Pearl Harbor
Shouldn't the paragraph quoting this line go under controversy instead of Iraq policy criticism? --BohicaTwentyTwo 20:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Concerned Alumni of Princeton material
The following was deleted by User:163.1.231.234 for the reason that "They were factually innacurate, openly opinionated, politically motivated, and badly written." I don't know anything about this particular subject, but any large deletion by an anonymous user on a politically sensitive article like this deserves a bit more justification IMO so I've moved it here. Anyone want to comment on this stuff? Bryan 00:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
- Increasingly there is concern that the policies of the group are best represented by a group called the Concerned Alumni of Princeton, or CAP. CAP was organized at Princeton in the 1970s in order to work against the rights of women and minorities to have equal opportunities to the portals of entry into the nations elite represented by attendence at Ivy league colleges such as Princeton.
- Undoubtedly the opportunity to network with other upwardly mobile young professionals, and gain access to the grants and scholarships and guidance and reccomendations into positions of power in academia, law, banking, commerce, politics and the media whereby they might help shape America into a society friendly to the tenets of the neo-conservative elite.
- Looking at the boards and foundations of the Project for the New American Century as represented by the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society, there are many well known concerned alumni of Princeton including Donald Rumsfeld, judge Samuel Alito, Bill Frist, and Andrew Napolitano of FOX news, Shelby Cullom Davis as well as several prominent members of the Republican Party and Bush Administration, including Richard Armitage, William J. Bennett, Jeb Bush, Ellen Bork (the wife of Robert Bork), Dick Cheney, Zalmay Khalilzad, Lewis Libby, Richard Perle, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz. A large number of its ideas and its members are associated with the neoconservative movement. PNAC has seven full-time staff members, in addition to its board of directors.
PNAC, Conservatism, and Foreign Policy
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)
- 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)
- 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)
Fukuyama, Neocons, and PNAC
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)
Fukuyama's article belongs on the Neoconservatism page, not here. Good luck adding it there. The edit war there is pretty intense. --BohicaTwentyTwo 16:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Expansion?
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)
Support for liberal democracies
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)
Bork
I think that the information on Ellen Bork is incorrect... The article says she is Robert Bork's wife, but her wiki page and his both say she is his daughter... (I changed it originally but then changed it back, thinking maybe those other two articles were wrong and this one is right)
media
This article is linked to by Prisonplanet.com [2]. --Striver 02:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
New World Order
These are the evil architects of the war machine to march into a New World Order. Leo Strauss trained Trotskyites looking for a compliant American citizenery to pay the blood and tresure for an American/Israeli Empire. They are the sofa samaurais that will send your children to war in foreign lands while allowing illegal immigrants to invade the homeland to take your job. Backed by Rupert Murdoch they were able to brainwash the public into a connection of 9/11 to Iraq, then onto Syria, then Iran, then a compliant Egypt. This dillusional group has no loyalty to America or it's Founding Father's Constitution, it's Zionist agenda gives a bad name to Jews everywhere.
- Yeah, thanks for the meth-induced astral space trip, but here on Wikipedia we deal in facts and not fantasy. Jtrainor 01:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- I have no idea about the politics of the person who wrote the above, but he has a real point! Jtrainor, if his/her musings are so rediculous and false, why not refute them with fact? I suppose you would rather resort to ad hominems about a meth-induced astral space trip. The above poster said nothing outrageous! The poster did not claim American complicity in the 9/11 attacks nor state that the Jews rule the world (merely that Zionists, which are not the same as Jews btw, have considerable political influence in America, which they do).
Yo Jtrainor, you are the one who is living a fantasy thinking your leaders are saints who would do no wrong! You are a people hijacked and made blind to the reality; your government is not of the people, but of the AIPAC,Christian zionists,christian fundamentalists(who think the USA is mentioned in the bible and all sorts of other crap).The hidden agenda of the true powers operating within the white house and capitol hill are apparent from the foreign policies of the US.This is a dangerous game they play and it will end with the fall of the American Empire.(I fear you are as naive as the romans were!).MEanwhile you can go about all smiles and totally ignorant to what is going on and make it known to others that ignorance by making fun of those who are trying to expose the truth...
- What makes you think I'm an American? Also, sign your posts by adding four tildes (~) afterwards as it is not considered polite to post anonymously. Jtrainor 06:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
- This appears to be yet another instance of the time honored game: When you don't know what you are talking about, blame the Jews. This is not helpful.47.230.0.45 16:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- Well, they do appear to have quite a grip over the US government. Check out the US' record on vetoing resolutions at the UN. This is factual, not fantasy. "When you don't know what you are talking about, provide blanket support for AIPAC" is a more apt statement. 195.157.52.65 13:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, there is a big difference between Jews and Zionism.
- This whole article percolates with hints of paranoia and conspiracy mongering. "Some people" think neocons are responsible for 9/11? So what? "Some people" think the Pope is the anti-Christ. Does that mean it belongs in the text of a Wikipedia article? This whole article badly needs a neutrality-check. DesScorp 00:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- Oh great, here come the NWO conspiracy theorists. The biggest hole in any conspiracy theory is that they assume the government (weather controlled by liberals or conservatives) is competent. Yes PNAC is bad, but do you really think, (given how the events in Iraq have unfolded), that they will be able to conquer the world and set up some worldwide fascist government? Even some hardline neo-cons like Richard Perle now say they regret advocating for the invasion of Iraq. You can stick a fork in PNAC and the neo-cons cause they're done. --Jml4000 23:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Good point. Let's trust that their own political incompetence will keep them from imposing their sinister agenda. On the other hand, either Bush really is an idiot (if he truly believes what he promotes I would suspect he is), or he is a Machiavellian genius who wants us to think him a fool. But think about it. Would the village idiot make it in an Ivy Leage School? How does the village idiot get elected POTUS?
- "Even some hardline neo-cons like Richard Perle now say they regret...". Talk is cheap my friend. The fact they advocated the war in Iraq in 1998, suggests that the means were created to justify the end to me. If you want to believe otherwise, fine. But don't trot out establishment ideas that are fed to you by your partial media and believe they're always correct, because it makes you look just as stupid as people who believe in all conspiracy theories. As to competency, the government is pretty incompetent in important matters. My theory on this is because they devote their time to lining their pockets and advancing their own personal agendas, rather than supporting the people of the country they serve. 195.157.52.65 13:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Sidestepping the issue
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) ~RJH www.thatpoliticalblog.com
Pax Americana
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)
- 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)
Correction needed:
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)
Should someone mention that Israelis dominate the membership? Only asking.
- Erm, no, because it's completely untrue. BobFromBrockley 11:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
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)
PNAC defunct??
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) Superscript text
Socioeconomic?
What is the socioeconomic vision of PNAC for rest of the world? Known 18:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Wrong Page
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).
More Info on the group
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).
Too Much Opinion
In the table entry for Richard Armitage: "Committed treason by disclosing Valerie Plame's identity (Plamegate scandal)."
Treason is a very serious charge to state in an entry when no such charges have been made. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Megatech (talk • contribs) 23:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC).
Amiraqa site gone
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)
Source for members?
I think there needs to be a source for the listed members. There is an interview with Bill Kristol on the Colbert Report where he claims that Rumsfeld wasn't a member of the PNAC and that he just signed some of the letters.
If this is the case and the signatories of the letters are the only source for who some of the members were, then the article needs to be revised.
KurtFF8 00:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Removing all unsourced, poorly sourced, weasel, or original research comments to talk page
- Weasel words, unsourced or original research:
- Critics allege that the controversial organization proposes military and economic space, cyberspace, and global domination by the United States, so as to establish and maintain a Pax Americana, a U.S. dominance in world affairs. Some have argued the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March of 2003 was the first step in furthering these plans.
- This may be true, but needs a reference.
- In 1998, following perceived Iraqi unwillingness to co-operate with UN weapons inspections, members of the PNAC, including former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, wrote to President Bill Clinton urging him to remove Saddam Hussein from power using U.S. diplomatic, political and military power. The letter argued that Saddam would pose a threat to the United States, its Middle East allies and oil resources in the region if he succeeded in maintaining his stockpile of Weapons of Mass Destruction. The letter also stated "we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections" and "American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council." The letter argues that an Iraq war would be justified by Hussein's defiance of UN "containment" policy and his persistent threat to U.S. interests.
- Stringing these facts together in this manner implies that September 11 was used as an excuse to engage in warfare that was already planned. Hence it is original research:
- One of the core missions outlined in the 2000 report Rebuilding America's Defenses is "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars;"[1] After the September 11, 2001 attacks, the United States invaded Afghanistan because Osama bin Laden had taken refuge there and the administration held him responsible for the September 11, 2001 attacks. In March 2003, the United States invaded Iraq citing multiple grounds. 2003 invasion of Iraq
- Weasel words, poorly sourced, original research:
- The PNAC has been the subject of considerable criticism and controversy, both among members of the left and right. Critics dispute the premise that US "world leadership" is desirable for the world or even for the United States itself. The PNAC's harshest critics claim it represents a disturbing step towards total world subjugation by the United States, motivated by an imperial and globalist agenda of global US military expansionism and dominance. Critics of the United States' international relations take issue with the PNAC's unabashed position of maintaining the nation's privileged position as sole world superpower. Some critics even assert that the fall of the Soviet Union indicates an end to the era of 'superpowers' and therefore any concept of military hegemony or ascendancy is overrated. Military might is not power in itself, say the critics; it requires huge financial commitments, strong domestic and international support, plus skillful management to be considered worthwhile.[2][3] PNAC position papers and other documents contain few references on building or maintaining any of these requirements.[4]
- Not sourced:
- Supporters of the project reply that the PNAC's goals are not fundamentally different from past conservative foreign policy assessments. US conservatives have traditionally favored a militarily strong United States, and advocated the country take aggressive positions when its interests are threatened. Supporters thus see the PNAC as the target of conspiracy theories, mainly motivated by the left. [citation needed]
- Weasel words, unsourced or original research:
- A line frequently quoted by critics from Rebuilding America's Defenses (September 2000) famously refers to the possibility of a "catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor (PDF)".[5] This quote appears in Chapter V, entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force", which discusses the perceived need for the Department of Defense to "move more aggressively to experiment with new technologies and operational concepts”.[6] The full quote is as follows: "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." Some have used this quote to support the argument that the U.S. government was complicit in the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
- Weasel words, unsourced or original research:
- Other critics make the claim the PNAC conflicts with long held American values and it is in fact, a plan to overthrow the democratic republic of the United States.
- Unsourced and by stringing it together in this manner, original research:
- Critics will often quote another excerpt from the document, "...advanced forms of biological warfare that can target specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool", as evidence of a violently racist lean [stated on page 60][citation needed]; since certain populations (i.e. Iranian Muslims vs. Saudi Arabs) will carry higher frequencies of a certain genotype[7], a biological weapon that is only active in that particular genotype will target one race over another. This occurs via "race-specific elicitors" produced by the pathogen which are only operational in certain host genotypes.[8][9] Both Israel[10] and South Africa before the end of apartheid also researched such race-specific biological weapons, without success.
- Weasel words, unsourced or original research:
- Many critics of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq claim the U.S.' "bullying" of the international community into supporting the 2003 Iraq war, and the fact that the war went ahead despite much international criticism, stem from the positions of prominent conservatives in the Bush administration.
- Weasel words, unsourced or original research:
- Some critics of the Bush administration see the 1998 letter to President Clinton as a "smoking gun",[11] showing that the invasion of Iraq was a foregone conclusion. These critics see the letter as evidence of Rumsfeld's, Wolfowitz's and Richard Perle's opinions, five years prior to the Iraq invasion. Other signatories of the letter include John Bolton and Zalmay Khalilzad, as of this writing the United States' former and current ambassador to the United Nations , respectively.
- This is truly the most shameful POV pushing I have ever seen on the English Wikipedia. Placing it under "Controversy" does not obviate the need to be responsible. Since the Project for the New American Century is composed of notable living persons, the same policy standards should apply to this article that apply to biographies of living persons. As a reminder, "the responsibility for finding a source lies with the person who adds or restores the material. Unsourced or poorly sourced edits may be challenged and removed at any time. Sometimes it is better to have no information at all than to have information without a source." And yes, the cited source needs to be reliable, verifiable, and substantiate the text it is linked to. Fringe theories in particular should be very well sourced. MoodyGroove 02:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
- Hi Moody. so we meet again. you may have some concerns, but in fact 1) this is not a biography of a living person 2) when in doubt, do not do massive deletions, but improve. You have completely removed the entire controversy section. In fact PNAC is a controversial organization. Whitewashing this fact does not make the controversy dissapear. I agree that comments should be sourced and well considered.
PNAC is a historic and influential organization, as well as a controversial one. see http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/iraq/etc/cron.html for a sourced example of how they are considered to be influential.--Boscobiscotti 04:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
References
- ^ http://newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
- ^ http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/000992.php
- ^ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/shoulders/report011204.pdf
- ^ http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
- ^ Rebuilding America's Defenses, page 51
- ^ Rebuilding America's Defenses, page 50
- ^ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/population-genetics/
- ^ http://www.springerlink.com/content/?mode=boolean&k=doi%3a(BF00871954)&sortorder=asc
- ^ http://www.springerlink.com/content/gjw86146823005rk/
- ^ "Israel planning 'ethnic' bomb as Saddam caves in". The Sunday Times. 1998-11-15.
{{cite news}}
:|access-date=
requires|url=
(help); Unknown parameter|coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (help) - ^ http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm