Talk:Project for the New American Century

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)