Sure though in the how and when it did occur France was vital. One could also argue the Nazi's where always destined to lose or collapse under their own ineptitude after a victory, but that wouldn't stop Americans from tooting their own horn about WW2 either.
I would tend to the view that the USA stopped the French having to speak Russian rather than German. Because it's pretty clear which direction the eastern front was going well before the USA got any boots on the ground in North Africa/Europe. Granted, I think the USSR would not necessarily have invaded France and imposed a puppet regime, but it would have been the dominant influence everyone had to get along with.
Silvanus posts article with misleading headline.
The US was supplying the USSR, though, if not for that the Great Patriotic War would have struggled more.
Yes. And your little potted summary there-- rife with errors and recycled points that have already fallen apart-- is further indication.
It's a forum, anyone can read the entire exchange. You can say things have fallen apart, but the whole back and forth is right back there for anyone to read.
You are pathetic.
I am the only one of the 3 of us to ever concede that the other is right. You are projecting. This is the most minor point, and neither of you can say "well, the headline wasn't the best representation of the actual interview in context." How fragile must you be to still stand in absolute defense of a headline the site itself has changed?
The article was updated with more information, as explained to you. The original headline was accurate to the original article, and the updated headline accurate to the updated article, as explained to you.
I read the original article to find out the headline was crap. They explained the meaning of the conversation in the article, while isolating those few choice words in the headline. If all the information they had supported the implication they put front and center, at least one could say they were ignorant, which is forgivable even if your job is to inform people. If anyone who reads the article learns from the article itself that the headline is bullcrap, the headline is not accurate to the original article, and the click bait is assuredly deliberate.
"Brent crude hits $116 a barrel after Trump says he wants to ‘take the oil in Iran’"
You're taking too many steps further and skipping the first step: what does a regular person seeing that headline think it means? Words can have different meanings, sentences can lead to different conclusions, and a good effective headline will lead the reader to have a broad idea of the full information.
Correct, the goal is not to trick people, that is just a means to an end. The goal is to grab people's attention, to bait the clicks, even if the best bait is deceptive. Nothing is gained by leaving the misleading headline up longer than it is actually headline news.
Endless repetition of your grievance will not get you past the simple fact: he did say it. The headline is accurate. That is the end of it.
www.reddit.com
the best outcome is this amounting to a separate peace between Iran and the US and Iran just continues pummeling israel. (I don't think that's what was agreed, though.)
