3 ms·
> Since the other countries largely lack the ability to act, their support or lack thereof is irrelevant. How is their support, or lack thereof, irrelevant to
by ImPostingOnHN 5mo ago
> Since the other countries largely lack the ability to act, their support or lack thereof is irrelevant.
How is their support, or lack thereof, irrelevant to our discussion that is literally about whether they support the war? Here is a reminder of the topic, from the post you replied to:
> Assisting the US with regard to Iran is phenomenally unpopular. The increase in energy prices isn't outweighing people's desire not to have their country assist.
That poster and I are just explaining how things work. Seems like you might agree with us here? Indeed, since most other countries do not support the war, their ability to act is irrelevant.
- nradov 5mo agoYou're really missing the point. Whether they support the war or not is largely irrelevant because support doesn't count for anything.
- ImPostingOnHN 5mo ago> You're really missing the point. Whether they support the war or not is largely irrelevant Am I? No, I don't think so: Whether they support the war or not is literally the topic of discussion, so by definition it can't be irrelevant to the discussion. > support doesn't count for anything Whether or not you feel "support doesn't count for anything" is irrelevant to the discussion of whether the support is there in the first place. It's also sour grapes: the USA tried to gain the support of other countries, and because it failed, the support it failed to get is suddenly "irrelevant". Lol. It sure wasn't irrelevant when the USA was begging and threatening countries to help them.