10 years after the Iraq war.

[LastPoet]

Their own capitalism bited them in the ass.

(OMFG there comes Tibs)

[Minimalist]

It was an absurd war started by an absurd man.

The ramifications from it will haunt us for a century.... and sad to say at least 30% of the population of the US have learned absolutely nothing from it.

[frz]

It was an absurd war started by an absurd man.

The ramifications from it will haunt us for a century.... and sad to say at least 30% of the population of the US have learned absolutely nothing from it.

They should learn at least this simple lesson, big guns win over little guns, always.

[Psykhronic]

I remember my first thoughts being, as a 12 year old, oh shit that is not a good idea. Then everyone and their mom felt as though we should go to iraq, since i was in middle school i went along with it so as to not get a shitload of angsty hormonal kids pissed at me (what a pussy i was). But yeah, called it. Also knew George Bush Jr would be a shitty fucking president.

[The Grand Nudger]

I have a opinion on this subject and a answere to the question if the Iraq war was a success or not.
-snipped-
Well, what about yours?

Depends I suppose. Alot of money was made, and somewhere along the line there was bound to be someone for whom the entire purpose of such an endeavor (or any similar endeavor) was profit. The answer would depend greatly upon what one imagined the point of Iraq was in the first place. Theres a popular line about one-upping ones daddy.....for example, if this were the case, I'd say "Mission Accomplished".

[DeistPaladin]

It was an absurd war started by an absurd man.

The ramifications from it will haunt us for a century.... and sad to say at least 30% of the population of the US have learned absolutely nothing from it.

I would say a majority. If a majority of Americans HAD learned from it, we'd be calling for an indictment of W's cabinet.

I think even today, saying "Bush lied us into a war" is pooh-poohed as "shrill". I haven't checked lately but that was the consensus just a few years ago.

For those outside my country seeking to understand how that's possible, our corporate owned media cheer-led the war during the run-up and then swept it all under the rug when the dust settled and it turned out all of Bush's wild claims weren't even sort-of true. The media elites in America apparently studied "Pravda" (former Soviet propaganda ministry) carefully. How ironic then that today, to be an informed American, you have to go to foreign sources of media like Russia Today.

Forgive us world, we know not what we do.

[Autumnlicious]

Everyone is trying to yank the propaganda chain around.

Russia Today, for example, loves to make the US look bad and has a defined interest in it.

All private US media interests have a disturbing tendency of going where the money is, to the point that news is considered "entertainment" and something fine to lie about.

The only way you really stop it is for the population to say "No more".

But then again, look at the School to Prison pipelines in the Red States and their "Foster Child for Money" scams.

I have ardent conservative relatives who only went into foster care for the money.

They disgust me as a person, but their economic choices make me wonder greatly about how Red States survive.

These same relatives vote against contraception and abortion everytime for "religious reasons", but I really suspect it's only because it'd stem the tide of unwanted children they can make $$$ off of.

[Minimalist]

Just saw a discussion of a poll which indicates that 30% of democrats but 67% of republicunts think Iraq was a good idea.

Fortunately, the republicunts are dying off.

BTW, Obama's sprinkling of missiles from drones gives you some idea of why Bush and his gang were not indicted. The power-structure does not ever want to set that kind of precedent.

Of course, we are perfectly willing to enforce it on our alleged "enemies."

It is called hypocrisy and most Americans are quite comfortable with that.

[Something completely different]

I think the united states never signed the UN resolution which gave the high court for human rights the right to trial americans.
So in the end, there is no hypocracy coming from the US when it doesnt send Rumsfeld and dumbo to the Hague.

The hypocracy is that there havent been investigations into the matter within the US.

[DeistPaladin]

I think the united states never signed the UN resolution which gave the high court for human rights the right to trial americans.
So in the end, there is no hypocracy coming from the US when it doesnt send Rumsfeld and dumbo to the Hague.

The hypocracy is that there havent been investigations into the matter within the US.

If not at the Hague, than certainly in Washington, DC. They've committed crimes against the Constitution. Our constitution protects human rights universally, not just for American citizens. It says "no person" shall be illegally detained or denied the right to a speedy and fair trial and "no person" shall be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment.

But as Min has said, the powers that be don't want to see prosecution of criminal behavior, whether criminal is defined by our national laws and constitution or by international code. Prosecution against one party can be turned on another tomorrow and there's enough corruption going around that both sides seem to have agreed to mutually look the other way.

It is called hypocrisy and most Americans are quite comfortable with that.

Or oblivious.

For example, I wasn't aware that we hadn't agreed to prosecute our own international criminals or turn them over to the UN until TGAC pointed it out.

"International law for thee but not for me".

Yeah, I'm not comfortable with that at all.