Calling it "dull" was a mistake because it tells everyone who did watch it that you never did, which is a really weird thing for you to lie about.

Amazon Studios is listed as a producer, not just a distributor. I don't know why you're so desperate to pretend that Amazon had limited involvement, but you're flat out wrong.

There is no evidence to support that claim.

It was a joint production between the BBC and Amazon. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_English_(TV_series)

The English is really good. Chaske Spencer nailed it.

They're also extremely intelligent. Build and arm strength get all the combine attention, but reading defenses is what makes a great quarterback.

Remember that Kingsbury had a losing record as a collegiate head coach. His appointment by the Cardinals was widely scorned.

Muhammad Ali, but Pelé is certainly near the top.

> The guy was saying that US propaganda is widespread and promotes US interventionist foreign policy for the benefit of US corporations, is that part nonsense or do you mean something else is nonsense?

I already explained this, so either you have spectacularly poor reading comprehension or you are pretending not to understand because you don't want to acknowledge my point.

He said: "Russian and Chinese propaganda is mainly aimed at keeping their own populations compliant, US propaganda is aimed at convincing the western world (and their own populations) that US imperialism is acceptable, and all of those dead foreigners is just the price the world needs to pay to allow US corporations to rule the globe."

The claim that Russian propaganda is mainly inward is clearly false, as Russia has engaged in sweeping measures throughout social media to promote foreign candidates (e.g. Trump) and causes (e.g. Brexit) that benefit Russian interests. Meanwhile, the U.S. is not even imperialist, much less using propaganda to justify imperialism. U.S. media coverage of military involvements has been mostly negative, spurring significant public resistance against them.

> You think US interventionist policy is justified because other countries are fucked up and need fixing.

I'm saying that Saddam Hussein and the Taliban are extremely different from Zelensky and the Dalai Lama.

> US interventions are ultimately for the benefit for the US

Again, the majority of Iraqi oil post-war has gone to China, not the United States. The U.S. could have easily just taken those resources and did not. Giving the Iraqi government that autonomy doesn't undo the civilians who died as a result of the invasion, but it does prove you wrong regarding the motives behind the invasion.

> You can't let your own population think you're the bad guy.

Yet the U.S. media is relentlessly negative toward U.S. actions abroad, and no one complains more about America than a certain section of Americans.

> Your points don't provide evidence for why you think that the existence of wide-reaching US propaganda that promotes US interventionist foreign policy is just Russian propaganda.

They wouldn't because I never said that. I pointed out that Russian propaganda on social media has influenced lesser minds into believing that the U.S. is "just as bad" as Russia when the facts conclusively show otherwise.

> you are being propagandised into legitimising US military interventions.

Pointing out the fact that the United States has never once militarily invaded a democracy is not propaganda, it is important context regarding the nature of its military interventions. Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator and the Taliban are a heinously repressive regime. Taking military action against them is in no way equivalent to Russia invading Ukraine or China invading Tibet.

> Also, is Iraqi oil not a resource?

Yes, and the majority of post-war Iraqi oil contracts went to China. https://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/03/world/middleeast/china-reaps-biggest-benefits-of-iraq-oil-boom.html

I never claimed that the United States behaved in an entirely benevolent manner, as the CIA has been involved in long list of nefarious behavior. But it is a fact that the U.S. military has never invaded a democracy, unlike Russia. It is a fact that the U.S. did not seize Iraq's resources when it very easily could have, unlike Russia and China. It is also a fact that the U.S. provides the most humanitarian aid to other nations by an enormous amount annually.

Your comment is proof regarding the effectiveness of Russian propaganda since most of what you're saying is nonsense.

The United States military has never invaded a democracy. Even in nations it did invade, such as Iraq, natural resources were not seized. The majority of post-war Iraqi contracts went to Chinese companies. India ranked second, then U.S. companies were a distant third.

The U.S. also supplies more humanitarian aid annually than the next four nations combined.

Ed Hochuli makes this guy look small.

Absolutely, but there has been a staggering level of denial from those groups regarding the nature and threat of the Iranian government. Reddit is complicit as well, as it has been infected with pro-Iranian propaganda for years.

The Iranian people themselves are young and progressive, so when the day finally comes that they get self-determination, I have very high hopes for Iran going from one of the worst regimes on the planet to one of the best influences in the region.