[quote="Rex" post=267324 Neither were side were aided by the US or USSR in the Iran-Iraq war, in fact the article you mentioned confirms this: the US provided mostly intelligence on Iranian troop movements, and these even stopped after Iraqi aircraft accidentally attacked the USS Stark. Both the US and USSR sold materiel through intermediaries to Iraq, but that goes against the narrative of fomenting conflict between puppets.[/quote]
I don't follow you Rex - both sides were using equipment and information supplied by the US and/or the USSR. The fact they were sold through intermediaries just means that these governments were trying to do this 'subtly'. Whether it is overt or covert support, it is still 'aid'! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_war#Support
I don't think anyone has seriously classified Hussein or Khomeini as puppets - although their conflict may well have been exploited by both super-powers.
Anyone who says to ignore what you've learned, and instead listen to their narrative really is exactly what they're claiming others to be: a twisted view. You can't base these views either a priori or posteriori.
I'm not sure anyone is saying to ignore what you've learned. Rather what is being suggested is that the simple narratives we are sold are never the whole story, and rarely a truthful representation. They need to be augmented by other explanations too - where evidence suggests that a situation is far more nuanced than initially suggested. Different explanations are not mutually exclusive. The Iran-Iraq war was both a proxy for cold war geopolitical struggle, and a way for the US to prevent the Middle East forming a more cohesive union against the West (irrespective of the cold war), and a mechanism for the US to negotiate the release of US hostages held in Iran - it seems that all are probably 'true', based on the evidence.
Just because the media is biased doesn't mean you should counteract it by taking stuff like this, TYT, or Infowars seriously imo
I agree - but because the mainstream media contains (at least some) falsehoods and the alternative media (Infowars etc) contains some truth (e.g. the story that our own governments are spying on us) we reach this hypernormal situation (that has been going on for decades, if not across history) where we need to retain a healthy skepticism about what we are told, irrespective of the source. Often it makes sense for opposing political or military parties to agree on a narrative that is completely false because it suits the agenda of both sides. These aren't planned conspiracies - the falsehood is perpetuated by all parties, merely because it has perceived utility.
Maybe the situation is more obvious here in the UK than in the US or Australia, where there have been so many scandals regarding the untruths told in the media and by politicians. I don't know, but the 'truth is out there' . . . somewhere!
