Reads a fact that China built a thousand schools in Iraq and proceeds to screech about Chinese propaganda exposing own biases. This is the brainrot we now have to deal with on daily basis here after the reddit migration.
Not sure what you think the gotcha here is. Making a deal to trade oil for infrastructure is certainly a lot better than having US empire invade you, bomb the shit out of your country, and then take your oil.
Janet Yellen said that the death of 500k Iraqi children was worth it to bring democracy to the region.
The US uses white phosphorous munitions, which causes phosphorus to bind to human skin and mucus membranes and burn them to death.
The US destroyed nearly all public facilities from water to hospitals to schools to sanitation to power.
Maybe the bias is in your conception of what happened in Iraq and when an article comes along that contradicts the narrative you were indoctrinated with it causes tension. Try researching the actual history of the conflict. Maybe listen to the Blowback podcast that does a great deal of work making things like this accesible.
To add on 6 years and they did absolutely nothing but destabilize a region that reinforced terrorism globally. 20 years and they replaced Taliban with Taliban. Osama dead but guess what? The passports from 9/11 came from the same exact entity that they have built an even stronger relationship with. If USA did anything its expend ammunition and kill a lot of people for a trillion dollar industry.
Reminding people of the atrocities US regime has committed in Iraq at every opportunity is good journalism. You keep on seething and coping there though.
Reads a fact that China built a thousand schools in Iraq and proceeds to screech about Chinese propaganda exposing own biases. This is the brainrot we now have to deal with on daily basis here after the reddit migration.
Iraq paid for those schools (a 2021 deal is referenced, where this was in exchange for oil - a fact the article specifically avoids mentioning).
This is essentially an article about someone ordering a product, paying for it, and getting it delivered.
Not sure what you think the gotcha here is. Making a deal to trade oil for infrastructure is certainly a lot better than having US empire invade you, bomb the shit out of your country, and then take your oil.
You didn’t read the article. It makes broad assertions about the US’s dealing in Iraq, calling it all atrocities. This is not good journalism.
Janet Yellen said that the death of 500k Iraqi children was worth it to bring democracy to the region.
The US uses white phosphorous munitions, which causes phosphorus to bind to human skin and mucus membranes and burn them to death.
The US destroyed nearly all public facilities from water to hospitals to schools to sanitation to power.
Maybe the bias is in your conception of what happened in Iraq and when an article comes along that contradicts the narrative you were indoctrinated with it causes tension. Try researching the actual history of the conflict. Maybe listen to the Blowback podcast that does a great deal of work making things like this accesible.
To add on 6 years and they did absolutely nothing but destabilize a region that reinforced terrorism globally. 20 years and they replaced Taliban with Taliban. Osama dead but guess what? The passports from 9/11 came from the same exact entity that they have built an even stronger relationship with. If USA did anything its expend ammunition and kill a lot of people for a trillion dollar industry.
Reminding people of the atrocities US regime has committed in Iraq at every opportunity is good journalism. You keep on seething and coping there though.
Sweeping generalizations have no place in good journalism. They are a tool of propagandists.
These are just plain facts buddy. The only propagandist tool here is yourself.