Why has GWB not been sectioned?

[KHL]

Wrong. I'm simply pointing out that he's not "insane" as the poster of this message implied by his statement in this thread. Or did you even bother to read what this thread as about past the word "Bush"?

There you go again claiming 'Bush-Hatred'. Besides, you're trying to deflect attention off the fact that "insane" or not you agree with his reasoning for attacking Iraq.

Deflect attention from what? What I agree or do not agree with is irrelevant.

First of all the purpose of my post is to answer the original poster's notion that Bush was insane.

I will say this. Whether I agree with it or not, I can definately understand Bush's logic behind invading Iraq. If you are going to sit there and say you can't then you are lieing.

No its not the same. What makes someone insanse isn't their action alone, it is their reasoning behind the action. If you were to walk up and shoot someone simply because a voice in your head told you to, that makes you insane. If you shoot that same person because they have a weapon in their hand and are threatening you then you are acting rationally in self defense. Results are the same, but one person is crazy and the other is not. Sorry if that makes me a "logic whore".

Yay, another Red Herring! Shooting someone because you heard voices vs justified self defense doesn't compare to 'invading an oil-rich country just because vs invading said country because God said so.'

Its not a red herring to answer your ridiculous statements. You stated that the actions of a sane person and the actions of a crazy person were the exact same "if the results are the same." I pointed out the flaw in your reasoning. It was not meant as a 1 to 1 analogy of the invasion of Iraq.

Further, even if you choose to believe (which you apparently do) that we invaded soley for the oil, it still doesn't make Bush insane. Speaking from a striclty Machavalien point of view, oil is a vital resource and it is in our national interest to have it in friendly hands.

I was giving you an example of what an insane act by the President would be in order to contrast it with the invasion of Iraq dumbass. Its not a red herring, its called explaining a point.

You fail it. It's still a red herring and therefore inadmissible.

No, you aren't hand waving this away. I gave you specific example of an insane act by a leader and used it to contrast it Bush's actions in Iraq. If you continue to refer to it as a "red herring" I can only assume that you have no fucking clue as to the meaning of the word.

As I said, I'm not here to debate the President's morality, only his sanity.

Hmm, your actions speak otherwise.

How so? Sanity vs Insanity has nothing to do with Morality. If you reall want to know what I feel then here goes:

If Bush truly felt that Saddam was a threat, that the intelligence was credible, and that by removing him he was defending the U.S. then I'd say his decision was morally sound.

If Bush's sole motive was to control the oil, then I'd have to say that it was immorral, but none the less still a very sane decision.

Your doubt as to his motives is irrelevent to the debate as to whether or not he is insane.

Yes it is relevant in the way that I don't think he's insane, merely after-the-fact justifying his big huge screwup.

So you think Bush is Sane. Concession accepted.

Yes and we don't have all of either.

Concession Accepted.

This was never in dispute.

Therefore all we have is personal belief. If you want an example of a Red herring, then this is it.

Black-White Fallacy! What about the facts we DO have?

I don't know what facts we have. The only fact really not in dispute is that we didn't find WMDs. Did Bush lie, or was he simply the victim of bad intelligence? I don't know, and it doesn't matter as far as this debate goes.

Great Idea! Put together them impeachment case, and present it to the democract party. I'm sure they'd give it a listen. However, it still is entirely irrelevent as to the President's sanity, which again, is the topic of this debate.

I'm sure the Dems can take care of themselves. Or the Internet community.

[KHL]

Characterizing intuition or insight as god speaking to you is as delusional as hearing an actual voice in your head.

No its not. Not by a long shot.

When someone is confronted with a tough decision without a clear outcome, then they will do what some call "going with their gut" feeling. If someone wants to believe that God is steering them towards one choice or the other thats no where near the same thing as actually hearing a voice in your head that is telling you things to do.

[General Zod]

Characterizing intuition or insight as god speaking to you is as delusional as hearing an actual voice in your head.

No its not. Not by a long shot.

When someone is confronted with a tough decision without a clear outcome, then they will do what some call "going with their gut" feeling. If someone wants to believe that God is steering them towards one choice or the other thats no where near the same thing as actually hearing a voice in your head that is telling you things to do.

Perhaps you'd care to explain the difference between the following statements then, using more reasoning than "It's not insanity if it's the voice of god." and variations thereof.

"God told me to kill the satan worshipper!"

"Alien implants in my head told me to kill the enemy."

[Frank Hipper]

Characterizing intuition or insight as god speaking to you is as delusional as hearing an actual voice in your head.

No its not. Not by a long shot.

When someone is confronted with a tough decision without a clear outcome, then they will do what some call "going with their gut" feeling. If someone wants to believe that God is steering them towards one choice or the other thats no where near the same thing as actually hearing a voice in your head that is telling you things to do.

Ascribing an exterior entity to your own intuition is delusion, and the fact that it's willful perhaps makes it even more delusional than a schizophrenic who can't help themselves.

[Lord of the Abyss]

Ascribing an exterior entity to your own intuition is delusion, and the fact that it's willful perhaps makes it even more delusional than a schizophrenic who can't help themselves.

Not to mention more morally culpable.

[KHL]

Characterizing intuition or insight as god speaking to you is as delusional as hearing an actual voice in your head.

No its not. Not by a long shot.

When someone is confronted with a tough decision without a clear outcome, then they will do what some call "going with their gut" feeling. If someone wants to believe that God is steering them towards one choice or the other thats no where near the same thing as actually hearing a voice in your head that is telling you things to do.

Perhaps you'd care to explain the difference between the following statements then, using more reasoning than "It's not insanity if it's the voice of god." and variations thereof.

"God told me to kill the satan worshipper!"

"Alien implants in my head told me to kill the enemy."

In the example you just gave, chances are that both of them are insane. If someone is hearing a voice that is telling them to engage in an act that they would never otherwise do, then that person is likely nuts.

Even the most devoutly religious person doesn't believe that God directly speaks to them. When they (the sane ones) say that "God was speaking to me" they mean that God was influencing them through their gut feeling or intuition.

[KHL]

Characterizing intuition or insight as god speaking to you is as delusional as hearing an actual voice in your head.

No its not. Not by a long shot.

When someone is confronted with a tough decision without a clear outcome, then they will do what some call "going with their gut" feeling. If someone wants to believe that God is steering them towards one choice or the other thats no where near the same thing as actually hearing a voice in your head that is telling you things to do.

Ascribing an exterior entity to your own intuition is delusion, and the fact that it's willful perhaps makes it even more delusional than a schizophrenic who can't help themselves.

It is a matter of faith.

I take it that you don't believe in a higher power of any sort?

If that assumption is correct, can I also assume that you view followers of any religious belief to be delusional?

[General Zod]

In the example you just gave, chances are that both of them are insane. If someone is hearing a voice that is telling them to engage in an act that they would never otherwise do, then that person is likely nuts.

Even the most devoutly religious person doesn't believe that God directly speaks to them. When they (the sane ones) say that "God was speaking to me" they mean that God was influencing them through their gut feeling or intuition.

I suppose you have some sort of magical litmust test to distinguish between the sane ones and the insane ones when someone claims God Told them to do something? Psychology doesn't typically rely on the results of someone's actions to distinguish between sanity and insanity, after all.

[Lord of the Abyss]

Even the most devoutly religious person doesn't believe that God directly speaks to them. When they (the sane ones) say that "God was speaking to me" they mean that God was influencing them through their gut feeling or intuition.

That is "directly speaking to you" and is crazy, or at least blatantly stupid.

[Surlethe]

Except you gave irrational reasons.

What irrational reason did I give? Do you even understand the meaning of the word?

WMDs, for example. Were you unaware there was evidence against WMDs in Iraq, which the Bush Administration ignored in peddling the war? This demonstrates the disconnect the Administration's judgment shared with reality, which in turn implies the reason of WMDs is irrational.

And, of course, you pulled those reasons out of your ass; let's see some actual reasons the Bush Administration gave, you imbecilic troll.

[Surlethe]

You know, we have gone over this topic before.

[Dennis Toy]

Further, even if you choose to believe (which you apparently do) that we invaded soley for the oil, it still doesn't make Bush insane. Speaking from a striclty Machavalien point of view, oil is a vital resource and it is in our national interest to have it in friendly hands.

hypothetically speaking, if we invaded iraq for oil ( which i think we did ), how in the name of hell is it of our interest to have it in "Friendly Hands"? Why do we need Iraq oil in our hands, so we suburban yuppies can drive our hummers to work and to the mall? So we could build those "McMansions" ( Medium-Large mansions) so we could impress the joneses. We don't need iraq oil, we get ours from south america and in the oceans. Why do we need to keep Iraq oil from other countries? so they wont become as powerful as we are? Why is it of our interest?

[brianeyci]

Politicians lie all the time.

If Bush was pandering to his audience, it isn't insanity. It's cunning. If his audience likes to hear "God told me to do so", give the people what they want.

Besides I heard on FOX a Bush interview where George stanolongname interviewed Bush and asked him the same question, and he said "God didn't tell me to invade Iraq, that would be like saying God told me to..." blah blah along those lines.

Brian

[Sam Or I]

KHL ----- STOP NOW!!

You are defending a paraphrased quote. A quote is left upto interpretation, much less a paraphrased quote (at this point you are interpretting an interpretation.) Find the exact quote in Bush's speech, in the context it was in, defend that, or ask the original poster to give an exact quote, the burden of proof is on him.

[Darth Wong]

I will say this. Whether I agree with it or not, I can definately understand Bush's logic behind invading Iraq. If you are going to sit there and say you can't then you are lieing.

So? If I try hard enough, I can understand the warped worldview of a white supremacist too; all you have to do is adopt a bunch of stupid and false premises. Much like the ones Bush used.

[FSTargetDrone]

It is a matter of faith.

I take it that you don't believe in a higher power of any sort?

If that assumption is correct, can I also assume that you view followers of any religious belief to be delusional?

(Stepping in where I don't belong...)

You will find that is not an uncommon assumption here.

[The Yosemite Bear]

hmm I hope that we don't have the insanity defense used by him at his impeachment trial....

[zippy]

However, taking God out of the equation, Bush had a logical case to be made for the invasion of Iraq. Maybe he felt that God "pushed him" in the direction of attacking Iraq, but again many people feel this way when they make choices from which the outcome is uncertain.

You've apparently been asleep for a couple years, definately for the last month.

Bush's "logical case" has been in doubt by skeptics for a long time and recently even by Ordinary People too! See: Libby/Rove, Downing Street Memo, Richard Clarke, etc.

Frankly Bush had better stop involving God with his bad plans, unless he's hungery for divine retribution.

Don't hand me that bullshit. Tony Blair obviously felt that there was enough evidence to merrit invasion also. He had his own intelligence services giving him info in addition to our own. You also forget that Vladimir Putin admitted that Russian intelligence had passed along intel that Iraq WAS planning terror attacks against the U.S.

You can argue that the intel was flawed, but as for the logic and rationality of Bush's decision, you have to view it from the standpoint that he did at the time he made his decision: which is that the intelligence was accurate.

Are you fucking serious, Using Blairs "proof" as justification? Are you talking about the 14 year old students dissertation downloaded off the internet, or the 45 minute bullshit claim on deploying WMD that can attack Europe?

Either way I suggest that getting a message from God is more of an excuse than this shit.

[Admiral Valdemar]

The intelligence was sound. The mind of the MPs interpreting is were not. The same reason the 45 minute claim was made also forced Clarke's people out of the White House in disgust. Someone wanted the war, no matter how much rational reasons against it stood in their way.

[Frank Hipper]

It is a matter of faith.

I take it that you don't believe in a higher power of any sort?

If that assumption is correct, can I also assume that you view followers of any religious belief to be delusional?

Strong belief in anything that cannot be shown conclusively to even exist is delusion, yes.

If anything supernatural existed, there wouldn't be any question about it; it would be as verifiable, observable, and as widely experienced as wind or sunshine.

And this veering off topic should most likely be either split or locked.

[Surlethe]

If anything supernatural existed, there wouldn't be any question about it; it would be as verifiable, observable, and as widely experienced as wind or sunshine.

As an addendum, in that case, it wouldn't be supernatural. Ergo, supernatural phenomena do not exist by definition, no?

[KHL]

Except you gave irrational reasons.

What irrational reason did I give? Do you even understand the meaning of the word?

WMDs, for example. Were you unaware there was evidence against WMDs in Iraq, which the Bush Administration ignored in peddling the war? This demonstrates the disconnect the Administration's judgment shared with reality, which in turn implies the reason of WMDs is irrational.

And, of course, you pulled those reasons out of your ass; let's see some actual reasons the Bush Administration gave, you imbecilic troll.

There was also plenty of "evidence" (flawed or not)for the presence of WMDs in Iraq. Bush rationalized that the only way to know for sure was to go in and take Saddam out. Blair apparently agreed with him and Blair had his own sources of information from which to draw.

How convenient you fucking clown, that you seem to forget that the primary dispute in the international community wasn't whether Saddam had WMDs or WMD capabilities. The dispute was on how to deal with him. To come in after the fact knowing what we know now and say that the decision to go in was irrational because it turned it the intelligence was wrong is blatant dishonesty.

[General Zod]

How convenient you fucking clown, that you seem to forget that the primary dispute in the international community wasn't whether Saddam had WMDs or WMD capabilities. The dispute was on how to deal with him. To come in after the fact knowing what we know now and say that the decision to go in was irrational because it turned it the intelligence was wrong is blatant dishonesty.

Except if there wasn't an issue of WMDs existing, then Bush wouldn't have had an excuse to invade at all. Since Iraq wouldn't have been nearly as threatening otherwise.

[KHL]

I suppose you have some sort of magical litmust test to distinguish between the sane ones and the insane ones when someone claims God Told them to do something? Psychology doesn't typically rely on the results of someone's actions to distinguish between sanity and insanity, after all.

Yes the "Magical litmust test" for whether someone is insane or not is the rationalization behind their actions.

[Patrick Degan]

What irrational reason did I give? Do you even understand the meaning of the word?

WMDs, for example. Were you unaware there was evidence against WMDs in Iraq, which the Bush Administration ignored in peddling the war? This demonstrates the disconnect the Administration's judgment shared with reality, which in turn implies the reason of WMDs is irrational.

And, of course, you pulled those reasons out of your ass; let's see some actual reasons the Bush Administration gave, you imbecilic troll.

There was also plenty of "evidence" (flawed or not)for the presence of WMDs in Iraq. Bush rationalized that the only way to know for sure was to go in and take Saddam out. Blair apparently agreed with him and Blair had his own sources of information from which to draw.

How convenient you ing clown, that you seem to forget that the primary dispute in the international community wasn't whether Saddam had WMDs or WMD capabilities. The dispute was on how to deal with him. To come in after the fact knowing what we know now and say that the decision to go in was irrational because it turned it the intelligence was wrong is blatant dishonesty.

Observing you, I see that, like every other liar/idiot who's tried defending this war and its rationale on this board, you just ignore the inconvenient fact that the "intelligence" was under serious dispute at the time Bush and co. were beating the war drums if not being actually exploded as false even while at the time Bush and co. were beating the war drums. That war was not the necessary resort in any case does indeed make the decision to go in anyway irrational; doubly so since the case for Saddan's alleged vast WMD arsenal was dubious at best even at the time Bush and co. were beating the war drums --nevermind the White House's and false linkage of Iraq with 9-11 on top of it all. To keep trying to argue otherwise in the face of the facts is the blatant dishonesty here.