User talk:Cabalamat/Project for a New American Century on Iraq

I can't see how this article can be anything more than a willful misreading of the PNAC document. I don't want to call people liars willy-nilly, but...

First, although I haven't read the entire document, I saw no mention anywhere proposing an attack on Iraq. This is not to say the PNAC did not favor such an attack, just that it is not mentioned in RAD.

But more to the point, the quotation means nothing like what the article says it does. It is not a part of a proposed attack on Iraq, and in the context RAD clearly says that the Gulf is a "region of vital importance", and that therefore having forces there is desirable, regardless of "the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein" (what this means is complicated too, but it clearly doesn't mean what is said in the article). Read for yourself, it's on page 14.

I know many people have issues with the PNAC's ideas, but surely you can argue against them without deception. Or maybe you cannot?

I have added "Factual accuracy" for now. Deletion might be more in order. -- VV 06:14, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I've made a start on fixing accuracy and NPOV issues regarding this article. I'll do more tomorrow (assuminbg it's not deleted). -- Cabalamat 03:20, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)