3 ms·
I think "Bloody opposition" in this context is a sensationalized way to say "military involvement", it doesn't refer to the magnitude of the blood spilt nor of
by Svettie 9y ago
I think "Bloody opposition" in this context is a sensationalized way to say "military involvement", it doesn't refer to the magnitude of the blood spilt nor of oppression.
- myrandomcomment 9y ago“But to present the article as the US being the rescuing heros without mentioning their bloody opposition in the years immediately leading up to the famine I do consider rediculous.” I do not think so. Pretty much is an direct statement accusing the US of it. So I say again, proof please?