Why the hell would you bring up the decision of the US government to illegally invade Iraq as an excuse for a British newspaper endorsing and calling for that invasion and promising it would be a boon to the Iraqi people? Is “Of course the Economist supports whatever Washington decides” is your argument for their being unbiased?
We can move on to my opinions on the Economist’s Gaza coverage once you explain why you believe their coverage of whether the U.S government should invade Iraq was justified by the U.S government’s decision to invade Iraq. You seem quite desperate to move on from this argument because it’s inexcusable and proves my point.
I didn’t say it was justified because of politicians, just that it wasn’t a crazy position
Actually it was crazy to everyone who didn’t exist in the bubble of US and UK elites that The Economists coexists in. Way to prove my point again.
but it’s pretty darned weak
It’s “darned weak” for me to point out that The Economist is biased in the exact way you keep revealing yourself to be lol? Who could’ve questioned the Iraq War, I mean it only inspired the biggest single day global protest in human history!
Admit you were caught with your pants down, that you insisted on outsourcing indepedent or critical engagement with press to a subjective barometer website and that your particular range of political and historical knowledge is quite limited and should be expanded.
Why the hell would you bring up the decision of the US government to illegally invade Iraq as an excuse for a British newspaper endorsing and calling for that invasion and promising it would be a boon to the Iraqi people? Is “Of course the Economist supports whatever Washington decides” is your argument for their being unbiased?
So, no actual complaints about the Gaza coverage then?
Edit: You might also actually read some of their articles about invading Iraq.
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2003/02/20/why-war-would-be-justified
You can go ahead and justify your bizarre politician argument before you jump to another topic.
… Proceeds to not do so at all.
So, no actual complaints about the Gaza coverage then?
It’s okay to admit that you just assumed you’d dislike the coverage and haven’t actually read it.
We can move on to my opinions on the Economist’s Gaza coverage once you explain why you believe their coverage of whether the U.S government should invade Iraq was justified by the U.S government’s decision to invade Iraq. You seem quite desperate to move on from this argument because it’s inexcusable and proves my point.
I didn’t say it was justified because of politicians, just that it wasn’t a crazy position.
I have no idea how this validates or invalidates the Economist. I get that you think this is some sort of gotchya but it’s pretty darned weak.
Stillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll waiting for your critique of the Gaza coverage. (I know, silly to ask, it’s never going to come.)
Have a pleasant new years.
Actually it was crazy to everyone who didn’t exist in the bubble of US and UK elites that The Economists coexists in. Way to prove my point again.
It’s “darned weak” for me to point out that The Economist is biased in the exact way you keep revealing yourself to be lol? Who could’ve questioned the Iraq War, I mean it only inspired the biggest single day global protest in human history!
Admit you were caught with your pants down, that you insisted on outsourcing indepedent or critical engagement with press to a subjective barometer website and that your particular range of political and historical knowledge is quite limited and should be expanded.