> You're quite right when one is talking of psychological denial. But here > we're talking of Bush's denial (that oil is the main reason for the > invasion of Iraq). As for the NYT and Krugman's naivete, I'm not so sure > they are really being naive even though I charged them with it in my > posting. I think it's more likely that they're pretending to be naive in > order to heap further coals of fire on Bush's head. Even though neither > party has official responsibilities, they are sufficiently intelligent to > know that if America's true purpose is openly talked about in the columns > NYT then they could partly responsible for a really nasty response by the > Moslem countries. > > Keith Hudson
I'm half way through "American Empire" by Andrew Bacevich, and while I would still agree that oil is one reason, I'm no longer sure that it's the main reason. The US attacked Iraq because that is what American administrations do. They do it because they genuinely believe that theirs is the best system in the world and that everybody should convert to it for both their own good and the good of the US. They also do it because they have the power to do it. Excuses are of course needed, and 9/11 provided the ideal excuse. All the current Bush administration had to do was link 9/11 to the Taliban and Saddam, throw in weapons of mass destruction, and proceed to change the world. That leaders told lies may matter in the UK, but it is unlikely to matter in the US. The cause is noble, and if lies are needed, so what? Ed Weick ----- Original Message ----- From: "Keith Hudson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Karen Watters Cole" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 1:42 AM Subject: Not psychological denial (was RE: [Futurework] Denial and Deception > Hi Karen, > > I think you're confusing the denial of Bush with the naivete of the NYT or > Krugman. > At 15:04 24/06/2003 -0700, you wrote: > <<<< > I don't think it's a matter of naivete. You have to open people's minds to > their deception gently. If you accuse someone of being wilfully stupid and > willingly deceived, they will be even more defensive and retreat into denial. > >>>> > > You're quite right when one is talking of psychological denial. But here > we're talking of Bush's denial (that oil is the main reason for the > invasion of Iraq). As for the NYT and Krugman's naivete, I'm not so sure > they are really being naive even though I charged them with it in my > posting. I think it's more likely that they're pretending to be naive in > order to heap further coals of fire on Bush's head. Even though neither > party has official responsibilities, they are sufficiently intelligent to > know that if America's true purpose is openly talked about in the columns > NYT then they could partly responsible for a really nasty response by the > Moslem countries. > > Keith Hudson > > > Keith Hudson, 6 Upper Camden Place, Bath, England > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
