Why didn't they investigate to make sure it was or wasn't?

Sounds like a shit article

Gentleman.

LMAO THE SCHOLARS DON'T KNOW DEY STOOPID

Did research but oh I can't say if it's exclusive to capitalism or not

The Jews are to blame.

Appeal to authority, what a brainlet

not this time I'm afraid, RFZ

In other words

Even happier i didn't read that trash

>178 new messages
>only 1 meme image
Wew, if only chopin was here to see this

<:feels:312925727475499008>

"I didn't read the article I gave to try and refute you, I don't plan to read it, and I don't care if it gives a strong argument that I'm wrong"

this is your brain on /pol/

No I know it's dumb since it even implies it's exclusive to capitalism

It's such a dumb statement it makes it all worthless

"is a more predominantly (*if not exclusively*) capitalistic feature"

I may as well make this my username

And you don't even know why it implies it

"is a more predominantly (*if not exclusively*) capitalistic feature"

@Deleted User "exploitation and domination of other nations is a capitalist phenomenon"

<:thronking:321284126332420097>

IF NOT EXCLUSIVELY

hurr durr I don't know, i just did the research but what do I know?

Like the image above says, it's blatantly not the case

@frie delet

<:pandabbing:250341158516031488>

Such a wrong statement smh

incentives for exploitation was the purpose of the article

And you expect me to read such trash

not scope or scale

Trash you posted

military exploitation

is what it said

Which is 100% wrong

US intervention in Vietnam to expunge communist elements hostile to their economic influence

the US intervention in Vietnam was to preserve the independence of South Vietnam

This is why the primary goals of all peace efforts was the preservation of South Vietnam, rather than the annexation of North Vietnam

no uh it's so they can make shekels t. mental manlet

<:shekels:341025620781826050>

thus had nothing to do with US access to Asian markets or the South China sea