You are flatly wrong. These countries are internationally recognized sovereign nations and members of the UN. They have independent, often conflicting interests and foreign policies. Meanwhile the US bases are held under formal leases, not through force.
> in order to extract resources from the local government in Iraq and Lebanon.
How evil of them to do that. They should have known only the United States of America has the divine right to invade countries and extract their resources. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4grxzxjjd8o
> That's called Imperialism and was common among european powers in the 19th century
> How evil of them to do that. They should have known only the United States of America has the divine right to invade countries and extract their resources
Yes, OP was already saying Iran is free to act because the US is an imperial power. I was merely stating that he is conveniently ignoring Iran's imperialist behavior
Equating Iran's struggle against a genocide in Palestine with Imperialism is misinformed at best, criminal at worst. Either way, only a zionist could say that, which makes this conversation completely useless.
The absolute hell that is looking for a place to live in the UK. I remember having to submit a copy of my passport to one of those letting agencies. I don't even know how they process it and how it is stored, but I am convinced it's just stored on some random personal OneDrive at this point.
Always a pleasure to see Republik being featured in the press ahah, even if its too social-democratic to my taste. I know they've been struggling for some time, so hopefully the Imperial Juggernaut that is Palantir won't manage to bleed them too severly.
Out of [genuine] curiousity - is there any media available that is "trustworthy"
When it comes to politically charged events (especially wars) both sides tend to only release articles that make themselves look brilliant, and the others as shite, and it's really REALLY hard to get an accurate picture of what's happening on the ground.
Purely yelling that everyone else is producing a "rag" isn't really helpful either, for the same reasons.
Imo, trustworthiness is all about which side represents best your material interests. As a worker, the Epoch Times, the Business Insider, or the Washington Post are diametrically opposed to my interests, because they are owned by and represent the interests of the Bourgeoisie. What's important is thus finding a source from your own class. CGTN, The Morning Star, or Mintpress being a workers-funded, they represent my class interests best, and are therefore trustworthy sources. To determine this is a bit tricky ofc, because 1) you have to know on which "side" you are, and 2) you have to follow the money and understand how those sources are funded.
TL;DR iranintl is a rag (if you are a worker!) because it's by and for the Saudi aristocracy. But if you are a powerful aristocrat, then I'd say its an adequate news website.
I already know which "side" I am on though, the side that's asking to be well informed of the facts, not something slanted to some "class warfare" idealogue.
reply