You STILL don't respond directly, so I'll repost:

Triguy42, suffice to say, you originally asserted that "Only an idiot or someone with an agenda could read the full Kay report and not conclude that Iraq had a pattern of development of delivery systems and WMDs to go with them. Just because the stockpiles have not yet been found does not mean there was no active program waiting for sanctions to end/loosen." I responded that the war was about WMDs that posed a significant and immediate threat to us, not Saddam's fantasy arsenal.

What is your response? What was the war about? WMDs? or the possibility of WMDs?

Nowhere did I use the word "traitor." Totally different word, totally different meaning. Don't make it out more than it is.

You have betrayed the trust and confindence in our current leadership by your current views and writings. In doing so, you are being...by definition of the word...treasonous.

You're not breaking the law by doing so....in fact....many brave men and women have died for your right to do so. As an American..which I assume you are...or as a member of the free world...you can do that.

In fact, if you were a citizen of Cold War Russia, or the regime under Hussein, your very words in this forum would make you to be a traitor...punishable by penalty of prison or death.

Understand the difference?

No, I was not arguing that we went to war for the children, and please don't put words in my mouth (after all this talk about strawmen ;). Just asking a simple question. If you didn't like the sanctions, what would you have prefered? Saddam wasn't fulfiling his obligations to give UN inspectors full access to weapons sites and to verifiably dismantle his WMD programs.

I ask this because although I can understand a lot of points made by the anti-war camp, the assertion that the status quo befor the war was just fine bugs me.

---

_______________________________________________

"Pony up, Brian286. There are other words you could have chosen to use - you picked treason."

Yes...probably...but I chose treason. Which by definition is correct. Is it not?

By definition, labeled correctly.

By definition, the word was used correctly.

The constitutional definitional was not cited or used.

Nowhere did I use the word "traitor." Totally different word, totally different meaning. Don't make it out more than it is. Someone who commits treason is a traitor. They aren't totally different words. Don't make it out more than it is? You think accusing someone of treason is trivial? I do not. I most emphatically do not.

You have betrayed the trust and confindence in our current leadership by your current views and writings. In doing so, you are being...by definition of the word...treasonous. How have I betrayed the trust and confidence of our current leadership? Do they have some right or expectation to my blind allegiance?

You're not breaking the law by doing so....in fact....many brave men and women have died for your right to do so. As an American..which I assume you are...or as a member of the free world...you can do that. I am an American. Treason is, in fact, against the law.

In fact, if you were a citizen of Cold War Russia, or the regime under Hussein, your very words in this forum would make you to be a traitor...punishable by penalty of prison or death.

Understand the difference? What I'm starting to understand is that you are incredibly ignorant, and that your grasp of the English language is tenuous, at best.

The next time you have the urge to accuse someone of something as serious as treason, find a responsible adult and ask for their supervision.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

but see, in my mind the fact that n. korea presents "a special set of risks" that requires a coalition and/or a more delicate approach whereas we could simply enter iraq unilaterally and run roughshod over their forces is indicative that n. korea is a legitimate and imminent threat while iraq was not. if iraq was such a threat, shouldn't it have needed similar treatment as n. korea? if not, why not?

and as a follow up, somewhat off topic question--after the u.s. disregarded many countries' objections with respect to invading iraq, isn't it somewhat hypocritical if the u.s. then asks those same countries to join them in forming a coalition to assess/diffuse the n. korea issues?

---

f/k/a mclamb6

Reread the definition in dictionary.com and get back to me. You're overthinking this....I know you can do it...

No, I was not arguing that we went to war for the children, and please don't put words in my mouth (after all this talk about strawmen ;). Just asking a simple question. If you didn't like the sanctions, what would you have prefered? Saddam wasn't fulfiling his obligations to give UN inspectors full access to weapons sites and to verifiably dismantle his WMD programs.

I ask this because although I can understand a lot of points made by the anti-war camp, the assertion that the status quo befor the war was just fine bugs me.

I didn't put any words in your mouth- you're the one who brought up "starving Iraqi children."

With regards to the sanctions, I think that once Iraq was beaten back behind its own borders, we should have simply come home and gone about our business. I could give a rat's ass about the UN and its desires.

And while the status quo was not just fine before the invasion, waging war to alleviate conditions created by the sanctions which we enforced in the first place seems a bit unreasonable, doesn't it?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

no brian, we are not overthinking this. you made a very serious and ridiculous accusation/assertion. now you are trying to hide behind the dictionary.com definition of the word when you know damn well that you were implying a lot more than simply "a betrayal of trust". treason has several negative connotations that go well beyond a "betrayal of trust".

---

f/k/a mclamb6

"By definition, the word was used correctly.

The constitutional definitional was not cited or used. "

---

Well, no it wasn't. The definition you gave was "A betrayal of trust or confidence." And in response I asked "how specifically has anyone here betrayed any 'trust or confidence' as relates to this war or administration?" You chose to ignore my question and respond with the above drivel which you've effectively demonstrated you can regurgitate repeatedly.

The reason I asked was that in order for you to answer it, you would need to identify any trust or confidence given to members of this forum which they then betrayed. If you can't show this, then you can't show that you used the word treason correctly.

Is the dictionary.com definition wrong?

no, but try this one from webster's 10th edition:

'the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the gov't of the state to which the offender owes allegiance...'

but i am sure that's not what you meant at all....

---

f/k/a mclamb6

No, I meant the dictionary.com definition. I've always relied on their service and found their definitions reputable.

I'm certain I used it correctly.

Thanks for trying to read my mind though.

CONFIRMED!!! The USA has WMDs, tons and tons of them.

OK, for kicks I'll ask another question which you won't answer: how was I trying to read your mind?

If that had happened, Iraq would be a nuclear power today. When dealing with maniacs who are determined to acquire WMDs (Iraq and NK) the "leave well enough alone" approach just doesn't cut it.

I really don't want to get into this - I only posted on the topic to correct a blatantly incorrect post about Israel using WMDs. But since I did, here's my opinion:

Saddam was a brutal dictator hell bent on acquiring WMDs, and had shown he was willing to use them. During the decade since Gulf War I his WMD program took a huge hit, but he never fully cooperated with inspectors nor showed any willingness to abandon WMD programs. Even with US troops on his border, he still didn't fully cooperate with inspectors. Saddam posed a real, if not imminent" threat to the world and for that reason I support the regime change. I will say that a lot of the arguments for the war by the Bush admin were BS. I don't think there's any good evidence linking Saddam to Al Qaeda, certainly not to 9/11. And I don't think we've found any WMD smoking guns. But I do think in the long run, a new Iraqi government will be in everyone's best interested.

(Before the war I didn't know whether he had WMDs. Turns out he probably didn't have much of anything, but if sanctions were lifted, he sure as hell would have restarted his programs.)

By the same logic, I think taking out Kim Chong Il would be justified as well. It's just not practical for a lot of obvious reasons.

---

_______________________________________________

Treason, in the definition you claim to have used, is a non-specific noun that can be used in any manner "you commited treason against me by sleeping with my wife."

But, Brian, by specifically linking treason with "country" you either intentionally or unintentionally used a more specific definition of the word:

"the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family "

As you may or may not know, the English language has many words that can mean several things. For example if I said my friend was a rabbit in a mile race, I don't mean he's a fuzzy-tailed, long-eared rodent. A dictionary can be a dangerous thing in the hands of someone who doesn't know how to use it and/or is trying to backpedal out of an argument.

By "backpedal" I don't mean rotating your legs in the reverse direction as your bike's drive train.

---

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~





No sidewindin bushwackin, hornswaglin, cracker croaker is gonna rouin me bishen cutter!

No, your usage was.

The "treason" accusation was complete bullshit and you know it.

---

_______________________________________________

If that had happened, Iraq would be a nuclear power today. What, like Iran? And let me know where you got your crystal ball, I wouldn't mind having one myself.


But I do think in the long run, a new Iraqi government will be in everyone's best interested.

By the same logic, I think taking out Kim Chong Il would be justified as well. It's just not practical for a lot of obvious reasons. This is where we disagree. I don't think it is within our authority to judge the suitability of another nations type of government. Is Iraq going to be better off in the long run now that we've overthrown Hussein? It remains to be seen, doesn't it? And it isn't our call to make. Would North Korea be better off without Kim Jong Il? It would depend, really, on what the replacement is, but again, it isn't our decision who should lead another nation.

If we're going to go around deposing governments that we deem unacceptable, we're looking at a long list of countries that need invasion, aren't we? Even if we narrow it down to objectionable governments that are also weak. By what right do we make that decision?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Thank you for the English lesson. I'm aware of how the word is used and by definition I used it correctly.

I honestly don't see a reason to "backpedal" out of an argument. What argument do you have if the word is used according to it's stated definition?

Thanks but I don't agree.

"And I don't think we've found any WMD smoking guns. "

We find detailed plans, chemical suits, facilities and equipment, and an artillery shell but you still think he doesn't have WMD's?

Talk about "bullshit."

Did you not learn how to connect the dots when you were young?