• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Is Bush a Psychopath without conscience??

dragonslayer

Counselor
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 2, 2005
Messages
1,856
Reaction score
139
Location
Pacific Northwest, Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Study of Bush's psyche touches a nerve

Julian Borger in Washington
Wednesday August 13, 2003
The Guardian

A study funded by the US government has concluded that conservatism can be explained psychologically as a set of neuroses rooted in "fear and aggression, dogmatism and the intolerance of ambiguity".


As if that was not enough to get Republican blood boiling, the report's four authors linked Hitler, Mussolini, Ronald Reagan and the rightwing talkshow host, Rush Limbaugh, arguing they all suffered from the same affliction.

All of them "preached a return to an idealised past and condoned inequality".
Republicans are demanding to know why the psychologists behind the report, Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition, received $1.2m in public funds for their research from the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health.


The authors also peer into the psyche of President George Bush, who turns out to be a textbook case. The telltale signs are his preference for moral certainty and frequently expressed dislike of nuance.

"This intolerance of ambiguity can lead people to cling to the familiar, to arrive at premature conclusions, and to impose simplistic cliches and stereotypes," the authors argue in the Psychological Bulletin.

One of the psychologists behind the study, Jack Glaser, said the aversion to shades of grey and the need for "closure" could explain the fact that the Bush administration ignored intelligence that contradicted its beliefs about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

The authors, presumably aware of the outrage they were likely to trigger, added a disclaimer that their study "does not mean that conservatism is pathological or that conservative beliefs are necessarily false".

Another author, Arie Kruglanski, of the University of Maryland, said he had received hate mail since the article was published, but he insisted that the study "is not critical of conservatives at all". "The variables we talk about are general human dimensions," he said. "These are the same dimensions that contribute to loyalty and commitment to the group. Liberals might be less intolerant of ambiguity, but they may be less decisive, less committed, less loyal."
But what drives the psychologists? George Will, a Washington Post columnist who has long suffered from ingrained conservatism, noted, tartly: "The professors have ideas; the rest of us have emanations of our psychological needs and neuroses."


http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1017546,0.
 

Connecticutter

Active member
Joined
Jun 25, 2005
Messages
432
Reaction score
0
Location
New Haven, CT
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Instead of using taxpayer's money to fund pseudo-science experiments designed to publish propoganda for the liberals, why don't you just come out and say why you think that conservatives are wrong.

Or do you just have a phychological fear of debate?

See thread "liberalism is a mental disorder." Both sides do the same thing. It proves absolutely nothing.

Also Hitler and Mussolini were not conservatives, and had many ideas in common with today's socialist left.
 
Last edited:

dragonslayer

Counselor
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 2, 2005
Messages
1,856
Reaction score
139
Location
Pacific Northwest, Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Everyone in the world realizes what an Asss bush is, but it is more fun to quote from Gauardian. Since the Gaurdian is in Britain, it problably did not involve taxpayer money. yet what a great idea. do you think congress would appropriate some taxpayer money to bash Bush?
 

Connecticutter

Active member
Joined
Jun 25, 2005
Messages
432
Reaction score
0
Location
New Haven, CT
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
dragonslayer said:
Everyone in the world realizes what an Asss bush is, but it is more fun to quote from Gauardian. Since the Gaurdian is in Britain, it problably did not involve taxpayer money. yet what a great idea. do you think congress would appropriate some taxpayer money to bash Bush?
The first line in the article says, "a study funded by the US government." So, in a word, yes, the congress has already appropriated taxpayer money for that purpose. They probably didn't realize it - these congressmen have no clue where all that money they take from us is going. Think about this - Bush signed off on it.
 

IValueFreedom

Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2005
Messages
168
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
I didn't read anything but...

the title of the thread is true.

Oh, and he doesn't have any morals.
 

Billo_Really

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Here's Bush by the numbers:

Bush By Numbers: Four Years of Double Standards
By Graydon Carter Independent U.K.


Friday 03 September 2004
1 Number of Bush administration public statements on National security issued between 20 January 2001 and 10 September 2001 that mentioned al-Qa'ida.
104 Number of Bush administration public statements on National security and defence in the same period that mentioned Iraq or Saddam Hussein.
101 Number of Bush administration public statements on National security and defence in the same period that mentioned missile defence.
65 Number of Bush administration public statements on National security and defence in the same period that mentioned weapons of mass destruction.
0 Number of times Bush mentioned Osama bin Laden in his three State of the Union addresses.
73 Number of times that Bush mentioned terrorism or terrorists in his three State of the Union addresses.
83 Number of times Bush mentioned Saddam, Iraq, or regime (as in change) in his three State of the Union addresses.
$1m Estimated value of a painting the Bush Presidential Library in College Station, Texas, received from Prince Bandar, Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the United States and Bush family friend.
0 Number of times Bush mentioned Saudi Arabia in his three State of the Union addresses.
1,700 Percentage increase between 2001 and 2002 of Saudi Arabian spending on public relations in the United States.
79 Percentage of the 11 September hijackers who came from Saudi Arabia.
3 Number of 11 September hijackers whose entry visas came through special US-Saudi "Visa Express" programme.
140 Number of Saudis, including members of the Bin Laden family, evacuated from United States almost immediately after 11 September.
14 Number of Immigration and Naturalisation Service (INS) agents assigned to track down 1,200 known illegal immigrants in the United States from countries where al-Qa'ida is active.
$3m Amount the White House was willing to grant the 9/11 Commission to investigate the 11 September attacks.
$0 Amount approved by George Bush to hire more INS special agents.
$10m Amount Bush cut from the INS's existing terrorism budget.

George Bush: Military Man
1972 Year that Bush walked away from his pilot duties in the Texas National Guard, Nearly two years before his six-year obligation was up.
$3,500 Reward a group of veterans offered in 2000 for anyone who could confirm Bush's Alabama guard service.
600-700 Number of guardsmen who were in Bush's unit during that period.
0 Number of guardsmen from that period who came forward with information about Bush's guard service.
0 Number of minutes that President Bush, Vice-President Dick Cheney, the Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, the assistant Defence Secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, the former chairman of the Defence Policy Board, Richard Perle, and the White House Chief of Staff, Karl Rove (the main proponents of the war in Iraq) served in combat (combined).
0 Number of principal civilian or Pentagon staff members who planned the war who have immediate family members serving in uniform in Iraq.
8 Number of members of the US Senate and House of Representatives who have a child serving in the military.

Saviour of Iraq
1983 The year in which Donald Rumsfeld, Ronald Reagan's special envoy to the Middle East, gave Saddam Hussein a pair of golden spurs as a gift.
2.5 Number of hours after Rumsfeld learnt that Osama bin Laden was a suspect in the 11 September attacks that he brought up reasons to "hit" Iraq.
237 Minimum number of misleading statements on Iraq made by top Bush administration officials between 2002 and January 2004, according to the California Representative Henry Waxman.
10m Estimated number of people worldwide who took to the streets on 21 February 2003, in opposition to the invasion of Iraq, the largest simultaneous protest in world history.
$2bn Estimated monthly cost of US military presence in Iraq projected by the White House in April 2003.
$4bn Actual monthly cost of the US military presence in Iraq according to Secretary of Defence Rumsfeld in 2004.
$15m Amount of a contract awarded to an American firm to build a cement factory in Iraq.
$80,000 Amount an Iraqi firm spent (using Saddam's confiscated funds) to build the same factory, after delays prevented the American firm from starting it.
2000 Year that Cheney said his policy as CEO of Halliburton oil services company was "we wouldn't do anything in Iraq".
$4.7bn Total value of contracts awarded to Halliburton in Iraq and Afghanistan.
$680m Estimated value of Iraq reconstruction contracts awarded to Bechtel.
$2.8bn Value of Bechtel Corp contracts in Iraq.
$120bn Amount the war and its aftermath are projected to cost for the 2004 fiscal year.
35 Number of countries to which the United States suspended military assistance after they failed to sign agreements giving Americans immunity from prosecution before the International Criminal Court.
92% of Iraq's urban areas with access to potable water in late 2002.
60% of Iraq's urban areas with access to potable water in late 2003.
55% of the Iraqi workforce who were unemployed before the war.
80% of the Iraqi workforce who are unemployed a Year after the war.
0% Number of American combat deaths in Germany after the Nazi surrender in May 1945.
37 Death toll of US soldiers in Iraq in May 2003, the month combat operations "officially" ended.
0 Number of coffins of dead soldiers returning home that the Bush administration has permitted to be photographed.
0 Number of memorial services for the returned dead that Bush has attended since the beginning of the war.

Making the Country Safer
$3.29 Average amount allocated per person Nationwide in the first round of homeland security grants.
$94.40 Amount allocated per person for homeland security in American Samoa.
$36 Amount allocated per person for homeland security in Wyoming, Vice-President Cheney's home state.
$17 Amount allocated per person in New York state.
$5.87 Amount allocated per person in New York City.
$77.92 Amount allocated per person in New Haven, Connecticut, home of Yale University, Bush's alma mater.
76% of 215 cities surveyed by the US Conference of Mayors in early 2004 that had yet to receive a dime in federal homeland security assistance for their first-response units.
5 Number of major US airports at the beginning of 2004 that the Transportation Security Administration admitted were Not fully screening baggage electronically.
22,600 Number of planes carrying unscreened cargo that fly into New York each month.
5% Estimated of US air cargo that is screened, including cargo transported on passenger planes.
95% of foreign goods that arrive in the United States by sea.
2% of those goods subjected to thorough inspection.
$5.5bn Estimated cost to secure fully US ports over the Next decade.
$0 Amount Bush allocated for port security in 2003.
$46m Amount the Bush administration has budgeted for port security in 2005.
680 Number of suspected al-Qa'ida members that the United States admits are detained at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.
42 Number of nationalities of those detainees at Guantanamo.
22 Number of hours prisoners were handcuffed, shackled, and made to wear surgical masks, earmuffs, and blindfolds during their flight to Guantanamo.

More Like the French Than he Would Care to Admit
28 Number of vacation days Bush took in August 2003, the second-longest vacation of any president in US history. (Record holder Richard Nixon.)
13 Number of vacation days the average American receives each Year.
28 Number of vacation days Bush took in August 2001, the month he received a 6 August Presidential Daily Briefing headed "Osama bin Laden Determined to Strike US Targets."
500 Number of days Bush has spent all or part of his time away from the White House at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, his parents' retreat in Kennebunkport, Maine, or Camp David as of 1 April 2004.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/090404K.shtml


Our Votes have Created a Frankenstein
 

vergiss

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
2,356
Reaction score
1
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Erm. Don't psychopaths have to be smart? I mean, come on - this is the guy who fell off his Segway because he'd forgotten to turn it on.
 

drinch

New member
Joined
Apr 9, 2005
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
Location
kiev Ua
It’s all about prosaq, or some other drugs used by high ranking politicians of this generation from all over the world. Look on George W, Chainy, or Condy. Look at the Russian president, British PM. It’s all about pharmaceutics experiments. And famous Lance is just a guinea-pig for those prosaq addicted new generations of politicians.
Pharmaceutics is crating real Frankensteins.
 

vergiss

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
2,356
Reaction score
1
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
drinch said:
It’s all about prosaq, or some other drugs used by high ranking politicians of this generation from all over the world. Look on George W, Chainy, or Condy. Look at the Russian president, British PM. It’s all about pharmaceutics experiments. And famous Lance is just a guinea-pig for those prosaq addicted new generations of politicians.
Pharmaceutics is crating real Frankensteins.
An anti-depressant medication (spelt prozac, by the way) is turning politicians into psychopaths? Um. Right. :lol:

Been hanging out with Tom Cruise lately?
 

dragonslayer

Counselor
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 2, 2005
Messages
1,856
Reaction score
139
Location
Pacific Northwest, Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Wasn't our country attacked at Pearl Harbor by Japan. Isn't it true that German U Boats started sinking American ships before were at war with Germany
Didn't North Korea invade south Korea in 1950? Isn't it true that absolutely true that no evidence of Weapons of Mass Destruction (Chemical, Biological, Atomic) have been found since the invasion, because UN inspectors destroyed the Scud missles (Burned about 100 Scuds). After the first gulf war.

Isn't it true that Saddam and the secular Ba-ath Party, were enemies of Osama Bin Ladin and El Qaida? Isn't it true that El Qaida had set off Bombs in Saddam's Iraq?

Pearl Harbor and Uboats = justified defense. :mrgreen:

War in Iraq = unjustified aggression.

:2wave:
 

Billo_Really

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally posted by dragonslayer:
Wasn't our country attacked at Pearl Harbor by Japan. Isn't it true that German U Boats started sinking American ships before were at war with Germany
Didn't North Korea invade south Korea in 1950? Isn't it true that absolutely true that no evidence of Weapons of Mass Destruction (Chemical, Biological, Atomic) have been found since the invasion, because UN inspectors destroyed the Scud missles (Burned about 100 Scuds). After the first gulf war.

Isn't it true that Saddam and the secular Ba-ath Party, were enemies of Osama Bin Ladin and El Qaida? Isn't it true that El Qaida had set off Bombs in Saddam's Iraq?

Pearl Harbor and Uboats = justified defense.

War in Iraq = unjustified aggression.
True, true, true. All true!
 

Connecticutter

Active member
Joined
Jun 25, 2005
Messages
432
Reaction score
0
Location
New Haven, CT
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
dragonslayer said:
Wasn't our country attacked at Pearl Harbor by Japan. Isn't it true that German U Boats started sinking American ships before were at war with Germany...

Isn't it true that Saddam and the secular Ba-ath Party, were enemies of Osama Bin Ladin and El Qaida? Isn't it true that El Qaida had set off Bombs in Saddam's Iraq?

Pearl Harbor and Uboats = justified defense. :mrgreen:
War in Iraq = unjustified aggression.
Question: If we went into Germany when the Nazis were in their first phases of land-grabbing and such, would you consider that unjustified aggresion.

I'd find it hard to believe that Saddam wasn't up to no good. He was firing at our planes, kicking out our inspectors, and he is the only world leader to take over and forcibly annex a fellow UN nation. We thought he could be contained after the war with Kuwait - however, our containment policies failed miserably.

I'm skeptical of the argument that we shouldn't bother Saddam if he is the enemy of Al Queida. After all, this is the belief that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." That's gotten us into trouble before, as we once worked with even Saddam and Al Queida to fight Iran and Russia. And besides, Saddam and Osama weren't bitter enemies. They'd work together to fight us.
 

Billo_Really

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally posted by Connecticutter:
I'd find it hard to believe that Saddam wasn't up to no good. He was firing at our planes,
I'd fire at them too if you were dropping bombs in my backyard! In 2002 and early 2003 allied aircraft flew 21,736 sorties, dropping more than 600 bombs on 391 "carefully selected targets" before the war officially started.

In a...July [2002] meeting [where the contents of the Downing Street memo wer recorded], made it clear allied aircraft were legally entitled to patrol the no-fly zones over the north and south of Iraq only to deter attacks by Saddam’s forces on the Kurdish and Shia populations. The allies had no power to use military force to put pressure of any kind on the regime.

...since Congress did not authorize military action against Iraq until Oct. 11, 2002, "the revelations indicate Bush may also have acted illegally

http://csmonitor.com/2005/0630/dailyUpdate.html

Originally posted by Connecticutter:
kicking out our inspectors,...
This is not true. They left on their own because Bush would not guarantee their security past the date he gave in his bogus deadline to comply.

Originally posted by Connecticutter:
...and he is the only world leader to take over and forcibly annex a fellow UN nation.
After receiving a green light from the Bush Sr. Administration. As we now know in recent interviews with Hussein's translator Al-Zubaydi.

Sa'adoon Al-Zubaydi was Saddam Hussein's presidential translator. In a special interview, he provides previously unknown details on the overthrown dictator.

The invasion of Kuwait on the night of August 2, 1990 brought Al-Zubaydi back to the center of activity. This was the turning point in the history of Iraq, which paved the way for two wars, leading up to the fall of the dictatorship last April.

"I was present at all three meetings between Saddam and then U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie, during her three-year term. I can say with certainty that the Americans had in fact been notified of the intention to attack Kuwait, and responded with tacit acquiescence. Furthermore, as late as mid-July, the State Department sent a telegram with personal apologies to the president after the latter had protested against certain broadcasts on the Voice of America that were critical of the Ba'athdictatorship.

"But she had good news for us. It was a message for Saddam from President Bush [senior]. `It is not U.S. policy to interfere in inter-Arab affairs,' she said to us in English.


http://www.activistsreader.com/articles folder/lost-in-translation.html

Originally posted by Connecticutter:
We thought he could be contained after the war with Kuwait - however, our containment policies failed miserably
Now this one throws me. Where did he expand after Kuwait?
 

Connecticutter

Active member
Joined
Jun 25, 2005
Messages
432
Reaction score
0
Location
New Haven, CT
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Okay, I've got a lot to respond to here...

Billo_Really said:
I'd fire at them too if you were dropping bombs in my backyard! In 2002 and early 2003 allied aircraft flew 21,736 sorties, dropping more than 600 bombs on 391 "carefully selected targets" before the war officially started.

In a...July [2002] meeting [where the contents of the Downing Street memo wer recorded], made it clear allied aircraft were legally entitled to patrol the no-fly zones over the north and south of Iraq only to deter attacks by Saddam’s forces on the Kurdish and Shia populations. The allies had no power to use military force to put pressure of any kind on the regime.

...since Congress did not authorize military action against Iraq until Oct. 11, 2002, "the revelations indicate Bush may also have acted illegally

http://csmonitor.com/2005/0630/dailyUpdate.html
Are you forgetting about operation Desert Fox? When Clinton Bombed Iraq, almost no one said that he was acting illegally. Saddam had broken the terms of his treaty, and it was up to us to enforce that treaty.

Saddam would fire at us over the no-fly-zone.

Billo_Really said:
This is not true. They left on their own because Bush would not guarantee their security past the date he gave in his bogus deadline to comply.
Maybe they were in Iraq, but they weren't allowed to do anything. That doesn't count.

Billo_Really said:
After receiving a green light from the Bush Sr. Administration. As we now know in recent interviews with Hussein's translator Al-Zubaydi.

Sa'adoon Al-Zubaydi was Saddam Hussein's presidential translator. In a special interview, he provides previously unknown details on the overthrown dictator.

The invasion of Kuwait on the night of August 2, 1990 brought Al-Zubaydi back to the center of activity. This was the turning point in the history of Iraq, which paved the way for two wars, leading up to the fall of the dictatorship last April.

"I was present at all three meetings between Saddam and then U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie, during her three-year term. I can say with certainty that the Americans had in fact been notified of the intention to attack Kuwait, and responded with tacit acquiescence. Furthermore, as late as mid-July, the State Department sent a telegram with personal apologies to the president after the latter had protested against certain broadcasts on the Voice of America that were critical of the Ba'athdictatorship.

"But she had good news for us. It was a message for Saddam from President Bush [senior]. `It is not U.S. policy to interfere in inter-Arab affairs,' she said to us in English.


http://www.activistsreader.com/articles folder/lost-in-translation.html
You seriously can't be listening to this guy. Saddam would spin anything we say in order to justify his attack on Kuwait. George Bush did not give him the green light. The ambassador was tricking into saying that we did not hold an opinion on the border dispute between Iraq and Kuwait, which was true. She never said to go ahead and attack Kuwait. Note - All of our sources here come from Saddam's notetakers - the US ambassador did not have a note-taker.

The real reason Saddam went into Kuwait is that he owed them Billions of dollars from his war with Iran and he figured if he took them over, he wouldn't have to pay. It was also because Kuwait would not play ball in the oil cartel. Saddam also used extreme Pan-Arab nationalism to justify his cause.

Billo_Really said:
Now this one throws me. Where did he expand after Kuwait?
His political power, not his territory. We could not contain Saddam's political power over his people. The sanctions failed, and the inspectors were -fine, not kicked out - neutralized.
 

Debate4life

New member
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
vergiss said:
An anti-depressant medication (spelt prozac, by the way) is turning politicians into psychopaths? Um. Right. :lol:

Been hanging out with Tom Cruise lately?
I LOVE this! LOL

Bush is a very smart man who plays dumb very well. Psychopath, no. Conscience? Well, does any politician actually have one of those? No.
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Debate4life said:
I LOVE this! LOL

Bush is a very smart man who plays dumb very well. Psychopath, no. Conscience? Well, does any politician actually have one of those? No.
Welcome to Debate Politics, Debate4Life!:2wave:

Are you saying that GWB is "crazy like a fox"?
 

Debate4life

New member
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
cnredd said:
Welcome to Debate Politics, Debate4Life!:2wave:

Are you saying that GWB is "crazy like a fox"?
Thank you for the welcome.

And yes, that sums it up quite well.
 

Bestial_Pagan

Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2005
Messages
61
Reaction score
0
Location
Scandinavia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Is Bush wise? Compared to who? What if Bush would have been president when the catastrophy was in Yugoslavia? Well Clinton did take care of it, but could have been earlier. Bush would have saved many bosnians in there, but Clinton of course had to calm the alcoholist Yeltsin. I think the most stupid thing about all US presidents is that they always come to rescue Europe, and that´s why europeans, especially french are jealous to USA. Underground army in my A**. Did french ever fought against nazis? Hitler marched in, french people waving their hands in ecstasy... My suggest is, next time there is war in Europe, don´t bother to save us but say: "We aren´t allowed to come to other side of the world with weapons."We have learned our lesson.
Please, let us perish in flames!
Europe = a poor degenerated place, that can not take care of itself.

Presidents don´t need conscience, politics does not have nothing to do with morals.
 

dragonslayer

Counselor
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 2, 2005
Messages
1,856
Reaction score
139
Location
Pacific Northwest, Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
"My suggest is, next time there is war in Europe, don´t bother to save us but say: "We aren´t allowed to come to other side of the world with weapons."We have learned our lesson. Please, let us perish in flames!"

:rofl don't worry Pagan, your fascist buddy Bush will just attack and make phoney excuses just like he did in Iraq.
 

dragonslayer

Counselor
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 2, 2005
Messages
1,856
Reaction score
139
Location
Pacific Northwest, Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
psychopath/sociopath

Pronunciation: (sō'sē-u-path", sō'shē-), [key]
—n. Psychiatry.
a person, as a psychopathic personality, whose behavior is antisocial and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.
Two words mean exactly the same thing, sociopath and psychopath. They both mean a person without a conscience who is capable of >antisocial and criminal behavior without remorse. Yet sociologists usually use >the former and and biologists usually use the latter. (Of course others use >both words in varying degrees.) Some sociologists still believe it is a learned >behavior and can be changed, most biologists, (but certainly not all) believe >it is an innate characteristic and cannot be changed. >


I never claimed that Bush is Crazy or really stupid. I claim that Bush, is a psychopath/sociopath, and he uses good writers, a fake, or an old stammer to take the heat off of himself and haves other feel sorry for him. Bush is a psychopath/sociopath, and a consumate actor. So Bush lies and deceives with almost everything he says publically.


In many ways Bush seems to like Charlies Manson of Helter skelter fame. He has leadership ability, he just has no morals, or ethics. Bush obviously enjoys having power over people(ordering our troops to kill and be killed), and talking unsuspecting Americans in to following him, and creating profits for himself, Cheney, and his corporate buddies around the world. There nothing christian in Bush's behavior, only in his talk sometime.

[/SIZE]
 

Billo_Really

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally posted by Connecticutter:
Are you forgetting about operation Desert Fox? When Clinton Bombed Iraq, almost no one said that he was acting illegally. Saddam had broken the terms of his treaty, and it was up to us to enforce that treaty.

Saddam would fire at us over the no-fly-zone.
Did you read the source I provided? The one with the statement of Lieutenant-General Mosely. If you did, why would you continue to say that Hussein "...fire[d] at us over the no-fly zone"...as if it was un-provoked. Let's review:
Lieutenant-General Mosely (commander of US air forces in Iraq):
In 2002 and early 2003 allied aircraft flew 21,736 sorties, dropping more than 600 bombs on 391 "carefully selected targets" before the war officially started.
This goes way beyond simple enforcement of the no-fly zone. In fact, Mosely stated that they did these bombings to provoke Hussein under the cover of no-fly zone enforcement. I don't see how the he..."fire[d] at us" defense is a valid one. Nor do I understand why you would bring it up in the face of this evidence.
Originally posted by Connecticutter:
Maybe they were in Iraq, but they weren't allowed to do anything. That doesn't count.
This is not true. They were doing something. Maybe not enough in your eyes. But progress was being made. And it should of counted, except Bush wanted to attack, as DSM proved. UN inspectors weren't even a factor.

Originally posted by Connecticutter:
You seriously can't be listening to this guy. Saddam would spin anything we say in order to justify his attack on Kuwait. George Bush did not give him the green light. The ambassador was tricking into saying that we did not hold an opinion on the border dispute between Iraq and Kuwait, which was true. She never said to go ahead and attack Kuwait. Note - All of our sources here come from Saddam's notetakers - the US ambassador did not have a note-taker.
All give you the benefit of the doubt that you did not afford me. Can you provide any proof to back up your assertions? Between the two of you, that guy was there, present in the meetings. Unless you know George Sr. personnally, my tendancy is to go with the more credible source, in this case Saddam's translator. Keep in mind this was a recent interview. This guy has nothing to gain. He has no role in the new government, and is just an ordinary citizen now. So what would be his motive for lying? In any event, you weren't there, he was!
Originally posted by Connecticutter:
His political power, not his territory. We could not contain Saddam's political power over his people.
Why do you think we have a right to contain a tyrannical dictator within his own sovereign land? This is not a legal excuse for a regime change. We violated international law in attacking Iraq. This was (and is) an act of aggresion on our part. I hated Saddam too. I would have loved to seen him go. But its not our right to dictate to sovereign nations whats what within their borders.
 

Connecticutter

Active member
Joined
Jun 25, 2005
Messages
432
Reaction score
0
Location
New Haven, CT
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Billo_Really said:
Did you read the source I provided? The one with the statement of Lieutenant-General Mosely. If you did, why would you continue to say that Hussein "...fire[d] at us over the no-fly zone"...as if it was un-provoked. Let's review:This goes way beyond simple enforcement of the no-fly zone. In fact, Mosely stated that they did these bombings to provoke Hussein under the cover of no-fly zone enforcement. I don't see how the he..."fire[d] at us" defense is a valid one. Nor do I understand why you would bring it up in the face of this evidence.
So you feel that Saddam Hussein had a right to fire at our planes? I know you said "I'd do it to if they were dropping bombs...," but you wouldn't get yourself in that situation in the first place. Saddam's actions against the international order caused him to be punished, and he push aside those punishments as if he were innocent.

Billo_Really said:
This is not true. They were doing something. Maybe not enough in your eyes. But progress was being made. And it should of counted, except Bush wanted to attack, as DSM proved. UN inspectors weren't even a factor.
What kind of progress? And the DSM didn't prove that Bush "wanted" to attack, it only showed that he understood that an attack may be neccessary, and would prepare for such an event.

Billo_Really said:
All give you the benefit of the doubt that you did not afford me. Can you provide any proof to back up your assertions? Between the two of you, that guy was there, present in the meetings. Unless you know George Sr. personnally, my tendancy is to go with the more credible source, in this case Saddam's translator. Keep in mind this was a recent interview. This guy has nothing to gain. He has no role in the new government, and is just an ordinary citizen now. So what would be his motive for lying? In any event, you weren't there, he was!
Okay, I'll admit that I am not a personal friend of George H.W. Bush, but I have spoken with a high-level American diplomat who has worked in the middle-east and knows what goes on in the diplomatic realm. I'm not just making this stuff up.

Since we're talking about motives, what motive would the HW Bush Admin have in giving Saddam the greenlight to takeover Kuwait just so that we'd have to fight him back for it? Makes no sense to me.

Billo_Really said:
Why do you think we have a right to contain a tyrannical dictator within his own sovereign land? This is not a legal excuse for a regime change. We violated international law in attacking Iraq. This was (and is) an act of aggresion on our part. I hated Saddam too. I would have loved to seen him go. But its not our right to dictate to sovereign nations whats what within their borders.
Saddam Hussein does not respect the sovereignty of other nations, so why should we respect his sovereignty? I believe in individual sovereignty as well, but it doesn't mean that I think criminals should be let be.
 

Billo_Really

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally posted by Connecticutter:
So you feel that Saddam Hussein had a right to fire at our planes? I know you said "I'd do it to if they were dropping bombs...," but you wouldn't get yourself in that situation in the first place. Saddam's actions against the international order caused him to be punished, and he push aside those punishments as if he were innocent.
Hussein was anything but innocent. He's got a lot of blood on his hands. But running "...21,736 sorties, dropping more than 600 bombs on 391 "carefully selected targets" goes way beyond no-fly zone enforcement. Dropping this much ordinance effectively started the war. Fly-zone enforcement is air-to-air combat. Not an attack on ground targets.
Originally posted by Connecticutter:
What kind of progress? And the DSM didn't prove that Bush "wanted" to attack, it only showed that he understood that an attack may be neccessary, and would prepare for such an event.
Combine this with all the other lies he told, and you don't see a pattern.
Originally posted by Connecticutter:
Okay, I'll admit that I am not a personal friend of George H.W. Bush, but I have spoken with a high-level American diplomat who has worked in the middle-east and knows what goes on in the diplomatic realm. I'm not just making this stuff up.
Are you accusing me of making stuff up? Because at least, I try to provide sources that show how I draw my conclusions.
Originally posted by Connecticutter:
Since we're talking about motives, what motive would the HW Bush Admin have in giving Saddam the greenlight to takeover Kuwait just so that we'd have to fight him back for it? Makes no sense to me.
Me neither.
Originally posted by Connecticutter:
Saddam Hussein does not respect the sovereignty of other nations, so why should we respect his sovereignty?
Because it is against International Law to do the opposite.
 

Connecticutter

Active member
Joined
Jun 25, 2005
Messages
432
Reaction score
0
Location
New Haven, CT
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Billo_Really said:
Hussein was anything but innocent. He's got a lot of blood on his hands. But running "...21,736 sorties, dropping more than 600 bombs on 391 "carefully selected targets" goes way beyond no-fly zone enforcement.Dropping this much ordinance effectively started the war. Fly-zone enforcement is air-to-air combat. Not an attack on ground targets.
No - its not just air-to-air combat. There were anti-aircraft positions and control centers firing at our planes. Taking care of them is within the mandate of protecting the no-fly zone. UN sanctioned planes had the right to defend themselves from illegal anti-air craft installations and radar control centers.

Billo_Really said:
Combine this with all the other lies he told, and you don't see a pattern.
Look, you have no evidence of this conspiracy, its just something that you believe in like a religion. I don't know what to tell you.

Billo_Really said:
Are you accusing me of making stuff up? Because at least, I try to provide sources that show how I draw my conclusions.
I never meant to accuse you of making stuff up. You want sources? I've give you some sources.

Here's the Iraqi transcript of what went on in the New York Time. No "green light" to invade Iraq.
http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/glaspie.html

Here's another from Washington Report on Middle East Affairs:
http://www.wrmea.com/archives/august2002/0208049.html

I also got the same story straight from the mouth of US Ambassador Charles Hill. He described what he knew of the events in great detail.

Is that enough for you?

Billo_Really said:
Me neither.
If the position makes no sense to you, then why are you defending it?

Billo_Really said:
Because it is against International Law to do the opposite.
Name the international law that we broke.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom