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.

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.

You can go ahead and justify your bizarre politician argument before you jump to another topic.

Big difference between a paper (ime FT, Guardian, Independent) and a rag. Those two aren’t really on my radar.

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?

deleted by creator

I can reach back to literally today with their Gaza coverage. And no, “most” politicians didn’t back it - this is exactly where you’re falling short. I’m not British or American. An overwhelming majority of politicians in my nation and even my continent thought it was a criminal endeavor. Yet to you, that bias is baked into your national politics - “of course they supported it, everyone did!” I’m supposed to stake their credibility on how much they conform with the opinions of the British government? LOL! And exactly why I find your approach and trust in that website silly.

Oh, the mods at c/politics! Let’s do a quick census on how many of them are Russian, African, Asian, can read news in more than one language etc.

Thanks to that website, I no longer need independent thought or skepticism. So long as a website reports technical facts, I can’t dislike their editorial decisions, range of opinions or their record of fuck-ups like becoming advocates for the invasion or Iraq. I will defer to the “unbiased” label slapped onto them subjectively by a website not necessarily ran by someone who can even read non-English language news from around the world or who uses a benchmark of bias that is partocular to their national, ideological and cultural context, which is likely very different from mine. Thanks!

They are the worst British paper. Besides the BBC, which is essentially subtle state propaganda.

Every time I look up a topic I get a Google ad from them and the headline always something not-so-subtly pointing to their ulterior motives.

It is slowing down. Whether we should be thankful or concerned depends basically on your views on climate change.

“PSA I reported an account because they have bad arguments in my opinion” seems like a terrible precedent of a post for this sub. Why are people upvoting this junk.

My argument is and continues to be that the Ukrainian government is more accountable to it’s population than the Russian government. Therefore the Ukrainian government must value the opinions of the Ukrainian population more than the Russian government values the opinions of the Russian population.

And I, once again, have explained why this doesn’t matter because the draft has nothing to do with democratic input. You refuse to address this.

You’re argument about Syria is a red herring fallacy.

Your*

And no it isn’t.

I’ve been arguing that the more authoritarian a government, the less accountable the government to their population.

Do you know what MARTIAL LAW means? What the hell are you even talking about? Take a step back - you are arguing that Ukrainian draft officers are having to beat and kidnap men to send to the front line because Ukraine is more accountable to its people. I am arguing that it is necause they have a manpower shortage. You are ridiculous.

VOA does do propaganda and the occasional bullshit story, but also mostly real reporting. You should deal with the article’s content and not just the source.

They’ve destroyed the Indonesian hospital (there is a video of an Israeli soldier celebrating over its rubble) and turned Kamal Adwan into an abatoir. They’re currently demolishing dozens of buildings around KA and have demanded all patients and staff leave, but are also murdering those who step outside or come near windows.

There was nothing “unwitting” about it. There was deliberate ass-covering and the unaccountable slaughters of civilians by US forces and allies continued until the last day of withdrawal. We still only get little hints and glimpses of the countless atrocities. When my uncle went to Afghanistan to cover the withdrawal and the new Taliban government, he heard personal stories that most Americans would still scoff at as “anti-American propaganda.”

If a marine kills a child and NYT isn’t around to document it, did it really happen?

You’re asking questions we have answers to and you seem to have totally missed some key facts.

Ukraine is under martial law and has been since the invasion. There are no elections, they’ve been cancelled due to the needs of the state. There is no concern of the government being replaced.

Ukraine isn’t a proper democracy but a “hybrid”, e.g an oligarchy anyways. The popularity or unpopularity of policies doesn’t translate into political outcomes so easily or transparently.

But your argument about authiritarian regimes is faulty. We just saw the complete opposite of that in Syria. Authoritarian regimes do not necessarily command loyalty and they also live in constant fear of popular unrest or dissatisfaction. In fact, there are many analysts who point to Putin’s current domestic policy choices as desparate attempts to placate the Russians that have lost something due to the war.

I’d prefer you respond to my arguments instead of rehashing what’s already been discussed. Or we could just stop here.

And I was disagreeing with you on that point, so I don’t know why you challenged me on the very first point you made, which I agreed with.

I don’t agree that the democracy index is really a quantifiable measure as it has several arbitrary criteria, but you could just assert that Ukraine is more democratic than Russia anyways, which is a matter of common sense.

Your argument that “democratic accountability” has something to do with it doesn’t make any sense and doesn’t follow. Ukraine has a draft. Drafts are drafts, there is no “democratic” objection to being drafted for war. Russia also drafts men as needed and the process looks quite similar sometimes, but in Ukraine it has become a severe social phenomenon.

This is how it went:

You said Ukraine values its manpower more than Russia.

I agreed with you, and added that it is because they have less manpower.

You then brought up some democracy index like that was relevant to the topic.

I inferred from this that you were explaining that you believe they value manpower more due to their hybrid regime versus Russia’s authoritarian regime and disagreed with you on that cause.

You called my inferrence a “strawman” and then asked for evidence against your first claim, that I agreed with.

Please read more carefully.

As a person from the Middle East… well, I’ll leave it at that.