[reply]Looks like a group of people are a little miffed because a word was used in a creative way that they can't seem to understand or want to understand.[/reply]

What?!?! You used an online DICTIONARY to DEFINE a word - where's the creativity in that? Again, there are certain words that shouldn't be used lightly. It's like calling consensual sex "rape" - isn't that just using the word creatively? Or is that ok too?

Here's what dictionary.com says

trea·son    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (trzn)
n.

1. Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
2. A betrayal of trust or confidence.

First off you are hiding behind the definition - I think a better way to say it would be "A betrayal of A trust or A confidence."

Secondly, you chose definition 2, but you are ignoring, or at best not acknowledging, definition 1. You have to accept that in doing so it implies that you are embracing the first definition within your use of the word.

All you have to say is that you are NOT stating that you think Vitus is acting treasonably within the confines of the first definition, but you repeatedly decline to do that. Which I think is pretty weak. You can agree to disagree, but you shouldn't make accusations using a serious word and then blow off the consequences.

Nick

"First off you are hiding behind the definition - I think a better way to say it would be "A betrayal of A trust or A confidence."

Take that up with the folks who write the dictionary. That's not the stated definition. Similar in structure, but way apart in meaning. Don't twist the words.

I acknowledged the definition stated in "1." See post #206.

"You can agree to disagree....."

I agree to disagree.

Uh, bullshit. Why do people think that any old country can become a nuclear power, just given the room to do so? Iran and Libya have (or in Libya's case, had) tried for decades, and they are not nuclear powers.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

i am beginning to think that "treason" was on his word of the day toilet paper and he felt compelled to use it in everyday conversation. wonder what today's will be?

---

f/k/a mclamb6

Thanks for clarifying.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

"...wonder what today's will be?"

obtuse:

ob·tuse:

1. Lacking quickness of perception or intellect.
2. Characterized by a lack of intelligence or sensitivity: an obtuse remark.
3. Not distinctly felt: an obtuse pain

1. Not sharp, pointed, or acute in form; blunt.
2. Having an obtuse angle: an obtuse triangle.
3. Botany. Having a blunt or rounded tip: an obtuse leaf.

Examples:

"some people posting on this thread are either normally stupid or being deliberately obtuse"; "worked with the slow students"

that's a real zinger.

i disagree that people posting on this thread are stupid or deliberately obtuse. guess i just committed a treasonous act towards brian...

---

f/k/a mclamb6

Excellent use of your new words. Congrats!

Ken, I'm not talking about "any old country". After the first Gulf War it was discovered thgat Iraq's nuclear program was much farther advanced than previously thought. It was widely claimed that Iraq was 6 months to 2 years away from obatining a nuclear weapon on the eve of the first Gulf War.

Are you seriously suggesting that absent UNSCOM's verification and dismantlement programs after Gulf War I Iraq would likely not have nuclear weapons today?

---

_______________________________________________

   

And it was widely claimed that Iraq had vast stockpiles of WMDs, which could be used within 45 minutes. I'm willing to bet cash dollars that the claims of the imminence of Iraq's nuclear capability were based on "intelligence" gleaned from the same sources that hoodwinked the administration into believing all the other claims that have either been falsified or not yet proven (can you say Iraqi National Congress?), and are just as erroneous. I don't believe it.

Yes, that is what I am seriously suggesting. Why doesn't Iran have nuclear weapons, despite the lack of bombing and other interventions? Why didn't Libya succeed? How long, and at what cost, did it take for North Korea to develop nuclear weapons? Why do you think Iraq would have been successful?

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

Yeah, lets try this the third time. It will not take my edits. Maybe it is a sign to log off. My question was, are you saying that if "any old country" is developing or consistently working on a program we should not be concerned or consider it a threat? I understand the development is not easy but it is becoming easier for countries like Iran (which I don't consider "any old country") to buy components and technology from countries like NK or Pakistan, or just to pay a scientist from any number of countries with functioning programs.

At what point do we get alarmed? Once the roll one of the production line? It just seems like you are stating "they will never figure it out so don't worry about them"

Sorry for the technical malfunction.

Am I missing something here, or are you so enamored of my posts that you want them to appear multiple times?

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

And it was widely claimed that Iraq had vast stockpiles of WMDs, which could be used within 45 minutes. I'm willing to bet cash dollars that the claims of the imminence of Iraq's nuclear capability were based on "intelligence" gleaned from the same sources that hoodwinked the administration into believing all the other claims that have either been falsified or not yet proven (can you say Iraqi National Congress?), and are just as erroneous. I don't believe it.

Apples and oranges. I'm not talking about recent (and shoddy) intelligence about Iraq's capabilities is 2003. I'm talking about UNSCOM's assessment of Iraq in 1991 based on post-war inspections.

For example:

FIRST REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN UNSCOM

S/23165
25 October 1991

9. In the nuclear field, the IAEA-led inspections have disclosed three clandestine uranium enrichment programmes or activities: chemical, centrifuge and electromagnetic isotope separation as well as laboratory-scale plutonium separation. The sixth nuclear inspection finally obtained conclusive evidence of a nuclear weapons development programme, aimed at an implosion-type nuclear weapon linked to a surface-to-surface missile project. Given the information obtained about the advanced nature of Iraqi efforts to develop an implosion system, it appears that it is the availability of adequate amounts of fissile material that would have been the major factor in determining how soon Iraq could have produced a nuclear device. For example, if Iraq would have started with natural uranium using its electromagnetic isotope separation (EMIS) technology, that time could have been as little as 12 to 18 months. Further information will be found in appendix III to the present report.

Yes, that is what I am seriously suggesting. Why doesn't Iran have nuclear weapons, despite the lack of bombing and other interventions? Why didn't Libya succeed? How long, and at what cost, did it take for North Korea to develop nuclear weapons? Why do you think Iraq would have been successful?


Because the inspectors on the ground in Iraq documented an extensive and advanced nuclear program in place in 1991. Yes, I'm sure much of it was damaged during the actual war, but much was also subsequently dismantled by UNSCOM.

I'm actually quite suprised at your argument here, so much that I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing. Even the most adrent oppononents of the most recent Iraq war that I know agree that the original WMD inspections/dismantlement program in Iraq in the early 90's was pretty darn important to keep Saddam from acquiring WMD's. Certainly the UN thought so. Are you saying you don't?

---

_______________________________________________

Unlike some (one) in this thread, I'm willing to back off when shown the error in my thinking. I listened to a very persuasive interview (of whom, and where, I lamely can't place) of someone who said how unlikely it was that Iraq would be able to develop nuclear weapons, because of how hard it really is. I'm certainly not a nuclear weapons program expert, so I won't dispute that Iraq may have been able to do it without the GWI intervention (it still would have been difficult, and they may not have succeeded). My mistake in conflating your source of information and the Chalabi bullshit, not to mention the time frames. Heat of the moment stuff, you know.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

TREASON!!! you just betrayed the confidence you placed in yourself. fie and for shame!

---

f/k/a mclamb6

Name the punishment, and I'll self-administer. I hope it has something to do with chocolate...

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

didn't they used to execute people for treason? very well, death by chocolate....

---

f/k/a mclamb6

Actually, in certain circumstances, such as age, "consensual" sex is still rape.

It appears the words consensual sex and rape are two that should not be used so lightly.

No worries. Maybe the interview was referring to Iraq post-UNSCOM/sanctions/etc...?

I'm feeling pretty treasonous about it all now. I know that doesnt make any sense, but I like the word and I'll use it any way I see fit ;)

---

_______________________________________________

neither should treason.

---

f/k/a mclamb6

[reply]It appears the words consensual sex and rape are two that should not be used so lightly.[/reply]

Which TWO words are we discussing? I'm obviously being obtuse, but I don't understand your point. Are you agreeing with me, or disagreeing? My point is that you shouldn't use words interchangably unless you take on board all of their meanings and connotations.

Nick

[reply]"And in response I asked "how specifically has anyone here betrayed any 'trust or confidence' as relates to this war or administration?"

Examples below. No need to put names.

[b]"First of all, I don't particularly care about beating GW in November. I think he's doing a lousy job as president, but I don't think Kerry's any better."[/b]

[b]"Why are we at war? Regime Change? WMDs? Oil? All are ridiculous excuses for endangering the lives of Americans. There is not one shred of evidence that Iraq has anything to do with the war on terror. Whatever the Bush administration's motives are (oil, regime change, hastening the arrival of "The Rapture," stimulating the economy with juicy rebuilding contracts) you can not give one rational arguement that it was because they posed an imminent threat to the security of the United States." [/b]

[b]"however our leaders don't deserve on ounce of my respect.."[/b][/reply]

Dictionary.com define betrayal as:

1. a. To give aid or information to an enemy of; commit treason against: betray one's country.
b. To deliver into the hands of an enemy in violation of a trust or allegiance: betrayed Christ to the Romans.
2. To be false or disloyal to: betrayed their cause; betray one's better nature.
3. To divulge in a breach of confidence: betray a secret.
4. To make known unintentionally: Her hollow laugh betrayed her contempt for the idea.
5. To reveal against one's desire or will.
6. To lead astray; deceive. See Synonyms at deceive.

Again - where is the betrayal you are accusing people of?

Nick

It's not worth it. I should have known better myself.

---

_______________________________________________

It's kinda fun though.