I didn't say he was an irrational person - he is a person with irrational behavior(s).
I cannot think of any off the top of my head.
Unless you wish to argue that his [Saddam's] ultimate goal is to take things to the brink of war
Let's agree on one thing: It is Bush who took Iraq on the brink of war, and not Saddam. The latter was probably as surprised as the rest of us when Bush laid his eyes on Iraq right after Afghanistan. Saddam was being his petty mean little self, no different than the past 10 years, when this warmongering started.
I have made it clear in post after post that I do not like or trust Bush. And yet you try to slip this in.
...Shame on you again!
Oh please. Let's not start with the "Shame on you!". Are you under the impression that I read (and remember) all your posts? From what I gather it looks like you don't particularly like Bush, but at the end of the day he is your president, his entourage is your administration, and you would probably trust him more than Saddam. You certainly seem to have bought his propaganda re Saddam being a dangerous madman, irrational, etc...
Bush is going to invade me if I have WMD so I had better hang onto my WMD to fight the Bush invasion. I would call that unhealthy reasoning.
Not really. It has been quite clear for a while now that Bush WILL INVADE IRAQ no matter what. There is no proof Saddam has any WMDs and Bush is still invading Iraq. UN Security Council looks like it is saying "No", and Bush is still invading Iraq. North Korea SAID it is restarting nuclear program and Bush is still invading Iraq, saying they will go with diplomacy in North Korea. IF Saddam has WMDs (that's an "IF") and he turns them in, Bush will probably say he has more and invade...
How about because financial incentives deal with money and survival incentives deal with life. Hard to interchange those two.
Funny. I have never heard of anyone argue that survival has nothing to do with money. Have you ever tried to live without money? That's what Iraq has been doing for years now... I bet it is not fun.
By the way, "not mutually exclusive" does not mean "interchangeable".
And, again he is not aberrant - some of his behaviors are
Could you explain how that happens? It sounds like "That guy is not insane but some of his behaviour is insane". Or, since you have mentioned "deviations from the norm", i.e. "abherrant behaviour", it sounds very much like "He is not abnormal but some of his behaviour is abnormal", which is in fact the definition of "abnormal", since nobody can deviate from the norm in every single aspect of his physical and psychological being. |
