Difference between revisions of "Talk:Project for the New American Century"

Revision as of 18:24, March 23, 2020

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.

Others would contend that this doctrine is evidence that at least some of PNAC's members knew about the attacks in advance, or worse, helped plan them. --Geopolitician (talk) 13:17, 22 March 2020 (EDT)

Francis ...yama?

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)

Cut digs

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."

Try again, please. --Ed Poor ^Talk 17:34, 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. -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)

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)

PNAC and 9/11

Lately, I've been flirting with 9/11 truth theories. I don't believe the towers were blown up by explosives, nor do I think bin Laden was innocent. But I do believe at least some members of our government knew about the attacks in advance and intentionally did nothing, for political reasons. I also wouldn't be surprised if at least one person in our government was an active participant in the 9/11 plot, given the US and al-Qaeda's mutual ties to Saudi Arabia.

That being said, the fact that PNAC discussed "a new Pearl Harbor"just twelve months before 9/11 is very suspicious to me. Can I edit the article to discuss this? I know 9/11 is such a sensitive topic and I don't want to end up getting blocked for making a controversial edit about it.--Geopolitician (talk) 13:22, 22 March 2020 (EDT)

You simply don't understand Saudi domestic politics, Islamic Law, or the structure of the Saudi government. And keep spreading dangerous misinformation the way you talk about. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 13:43, 22 March 2020 (EDT)

Let's go further: You have a Eurocentric view of the Saudi nation state. Now if the Custodians of the Islamic Holy Places and Saudi nation state became as thoroughly Westernized as you have repeatedly advocated for years, how long do you think any sort of internationally recognized regime would last on the Arabian Peninsula? RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 16:41, 22 March 2020 (EDT)

I don't want Saudi Arabia to Westernize. I want Saudi Arabia dismantled. Broken into smaller states that are vassals of its neighbors (particularly Egypt and Iran). And I want those neighbors to do whatever they can to "de-Wahhabify" the peninsula, just as the Allies "de-Nazified" Germany after WWII.

We can make this outcome possible without firing a shot of our own. Our regional allies can do all the work for us. --Geopolitician (talk) 01:00, 23 March 2020 (EDT)

Oh, and the people of the Arabian Peninsula, the Middle East, and the Muslim world are just too stupid to see the hand of Westerners in your plot? RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 01:39, 23 March 2020 (EDT)

Next question: Who inherits the assets of the planet's richest corporation, Saudi Aramco. with an estimated value of its above ground assests of $111 billion? and if oil gets back to $40 or $60 a barrel, double and triple the value of it's 262 billion barrel untapped below ground reserves.

Oh, I gitit. whoever becomes the new Custodian of the Holy Places, alongwith their vassel state neighbors, will adopt a nationalization program and the wealth will be shared by all. Sure, Marxism is compatible with Islam, and Muslims the planet over will welcome this Western intervention in the Land of the Prophet.

Better yet, your idea of having Muslims murder Muslims to steal their property (in the Islamic Holy Land) shouldn't be a problem. We'll first corrupt them with opiodis, pornography, and Hollywood movies. In a few years or generations, nobody will remember and it will all be forgotten how your dream and vision of a peaceful world came about. In the meantime, as long as the vassel states don't follow their own example of murdering each other to steal their oil wealth, it shouldn't be problem. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 01:44, 23 March 2020 (EDT)

I almost laughed out loud when you brought up corrupting them with opiods, porn, and movies. You think that would happen under Egypt or Iran's watch?

Anyway, many Muslims in the region see Saudi Arabia as a Western country. They also despise Wahhabism and see it as a heresy. They're far more likely to celebrate the overthrow of the House of Saud than mourn it.

Also, I honestly don't care what happens to Aramco's assets as long as it doesn't hurt our national interests. Aramco deserves to be broken up anyway. It's basically the financial arm of the world's largest crime family. Meanwhile, we can actually return to sound money. That will be the first step in causing the final collapse of the Deep State.--Geopolitician (talk) 14:07, 23 March 2020 (EDT)

I see. You believe a Western-style nation state, such as Egypt or Iran, has the power to enforce thought control and ban wrong think in Islamic cultures. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 14:11, 23 March 2020 (EDT)

Wahhabism was developed in the eighteenth century. Islam has existed for far longer than that. If non-Wahhabi sects have controled the peninsula before, they can do it again.--Geopolitician (talk) 14:24, 23 March 2020 (EDT)