Point of fact: The US did not go it alone.
Point of fact: There is more involved than just getting permission from the UN Security Council.
Point of fact: The other poster’s use of those two sentences seemed to me, and I suppose I should’ve mentioned it at the time, to be a non-sequitur (sp?), if that’s the correct term. At any rate, the two sentences the other poster used do not belong together.
Does that help?
Point of fact:
.
5. I pointed out that the poster was, indeed correct when they stated that the Security Councils opinion hadn’t been an issue when the invasion was first made, thus your “actually no” was incorrect when applied to the first statement the poster made*
Thus, while you are indeed technically correct when you state that the “US did not go it alone”, the point the poster was making was that the UN Security councils opinoin didn’t mean a rats ass to the administration prior to the invasion and they were willing (and did) go it (virtually) alone.
So, you get the half point for being correct that the poster left out the word “virtually”, and he was wrong about “going it alone” (vs. ‘virtually going it alone;), you also loose points for ignoring the main thrust of his point, which was that the UN Security Councils’ opinion didn’t matter to the Administration before. You also loose points for quoting his entire statement in your reply which made your “actually no” refer to both segments, and thus was misleading.
I believe you understand the point. I understand your point. why can’t you simply state "yes, I shouldn’t have included the first part of the posters comments, since my ‘actually no’ was not in fact, accurate relating to that part of the comment and was technically true only for the second part.
wrt: the difference between ‘going it alone’ and ‘virtually going it alone’:
If I given $25 towards the purchase of a piano, and 18 others each gave a buck or two, and you paid the rest, while it would indeed be correct to say “all 20 of us paid for the piano”, I wouldn’t so concerned had some one said “Monty paid for the piano”.
IOW, you’re suggesting we all ignore past performance and simply trust the Bush Administration will get things right this time. Are you secretly Bullwinkle J. Moose?
So, no matter what Bush does wrt Iran, it’s appropriate to Pit him over it. OK, now I get it. If he does things that are obviously worng, it’s becuase he’s an idiot. If he does something that looks right, then he’s just disguising his true, idiotic intentions. That about covers all the possibilities, and has the added bonus that it doesn’t require any thinking. No wonder you buy into that plan so readily.
Have a great weekend, and see you back here on Monday!
That makes little, if any, sense to me. I’d say that I’d paid $25 towards the piano. I’d also ask where Monty and his friends found such a good deal on a piano.
I apparently figured incorrectly that you would have some idea of the cost of a piano, or could do a tad bit of research.
Of course I should have given some description. I had in mind a basic upright piano, like this. so, back to the analogy - one person (the Britts) paid $25 towards the piano, 18 others give a buck or two, and one person (the US) paid the rest, while it’s not exactly accurate to say the one went it alone, it’s so nearly so that it shouldn’t cause a ruffle, unless, of course, you’re pedantic.
Perhaps if you hadn’t left a few words out of that first sentence, it would’ve made some sense.
Anyway, even if I’d paid $4699.99 towards a $4700.00 piano, and you had paid $0.01 towards it, then we would’ve both paid for the piano together. That’s assuming you and were to buy a piano together, of course.
Which, I guess, brings us back to “It’s Bush’s fault!” since any person in a conspiracy is completely guilty of that conspiracy.
I don’t think Dubya plays the piano.
I kinda agree; you might not be entirely wrong to start from the assumption you’ve made, but that’s all it is - a starting point. There is still, though, a whole lot of work yet to be done seeking actual facts and opinions relevant to this particular situation which support your assumption. All you’ve really done is start your argument with its conclusion and then tell us it’s very likely unavoidable. Can’t do that and still claim to be making an honest and objective argument.
Mebbe it’s the obvious; the Bush administration learned something from its past errors? I suppose that’s too much to ask you harpies to accept, tho’.
Lemme ask you, though. Do you care what Bush’s motivation is as long as he’s doing what you wanted last time out?