> 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.