Although the loss of that school is quite saddening :/ poor girls
I remember a speech at the UN, with a certain vial being held..
https://thecradle.co/articles/why-does-the-us-still-control-...
https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/us-control-venezuelan-oil-revenue-...
Classic Chappelle show skit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFERPDn3i0o
Is that what the Iranian state media is telling you?
P.S. I have no idea what is Iranian state media or how to watch/read it.
The last 5 years will be 5 chapters in history books
I am curious what did the world gain from this?
Seems "he tried to kill my father, now there's an excuse to take him out and turn his country into a democracy in the region, and a US-aligned entity" explains most of it.
Much like Trump, it's pettiness and prestige and a notion of more points on the board. (Though Trump did in fact attack Venezuela for oil, or possibly more so just to publicly boast about taking their oil and seem strong to his fans.)
Distracting people with the oil excuse gives cover to ppl who need it least.
Baath party is destroyed and no longer exists, political and underlying ethnic groups that propped it up are deeply marginalised and sidelined, political regime in place in Iraq is exactly the one America wanted to have there, and it WORKS: they have regular competitive elections (in the strictest sense of it: before the elections, no one can predict results in advance) and a well-functioning civil society where people can advocate for, or protest against things without it devolving to tribalism (not "Shia vs Sunni" riots or similar). Iraq as it currently is, is created by America and stands firmly on its feet.
Kind of crazy to lead with this. Talking about the Americans victims (mostly military) and ignoring the local Iraqi victims (mostly civilians).
What war happened in Afghanistan since? Or Korea? Or Vietnam?
Welp, sounds like it wasn't going to happen.
meowface•50m ago
I am not even necessarily disagreeing with it (I lean very anti-Iran and slightly geopolitically neoconservative) but the tone is not at all neutral and makes no mention of the possible downsides of troops staying in Iraq after decades.
actionfromafar•44m ago
It reports on some reactions.
mahboi•6m ago
shevy-java•42m ago
For instance:
> US forces leave country where 4,500 of them died in worst US war of 21st century
I am not even certain that this war was worse than the Afghanistan war. Perhaps the Iraq war was objectively worse, but since the sudden withdrawal in Afghanistan, leaving the Taliban in charge, I am not so sure which war was worse. I am not even sure how to qualify it, so Reuters stating this was the worst war is ... indeed a strange label to use. Wasn't Reuters indeed more objective in the past? And with that I mean objective at all times, not white-washing or black-washing.
I now finished reading the article and it indeed seems op-ed. The reader now thinks that the war against Iran must continue. I still fail to understand why the USA invaded the area. Other than some making enormous profits, of course. If 911 was used as a rationale, why was not Saudi Arabia attacked?
watwut•23m ago
Arainach•21m ago
Iraq was 4500 dead for one Texan trying to imitate daddy while listening to his CEO buddies.
arrrg•21m ago
Now, there are certainly other axis along which you can judge a war.
pathsjs•8m ago
fsh•36m ago
meowface•21m ago
dmurray•12m ago
Perhaps the US are trying not even to acknowledge it. A reputable newspaper would normally include "the Department of War was contacted for comment" but maybe that's not appropriate for Reuters.
latexr•13m ago
We have too many labels. That’s not good for a species which hates others based on different labels.
meowface•2m ago