Angus
23/01/2008, 9:32 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_End_in_Sight
Anybody see this movie on More 4 last night ? Amazing piece of work. I attached this wiki reference because of the word "....enraging..." under Reception, as this captures it perfectly.
The sheer, crass incompetence of the post invasion planning is explored in a serious, thoughtful and very detailed way in this film. One criticism is that every half hour or so a note appears on the screen to the effect that "Rumsfeld / Cheney etc refused to be interviewed for this film..." I thought this was unnecessary but did not detrcat for the engorsisng nature of the thing.
It led me to pose the following question:
I think we can all accept that this was a war of choice, not of necessity. I think we can mostly alla ccept that the given reason, WMD, is not true - that was not the reason.
My question is:
Was the real reason for invasion valid ? Was there integrity and validity and a genuine aim behind the real reason ? (Assuming that the real reason was democritisation of the region) Did the guys have integrity in their pursuit of this aim (leave the false reason given to us to one side for this purpose) but just implement it staggeringly badly ?
OR
Was the administration deliberately pursuing a policy for the sole aim of assisting their political backers - arms companies, Halliburton, energy companies etc ?
In summary, were these guys crassly and criminally negligently incompetent at implementing a valid purpose or was the purpose itself heinous ?
Anybody see this movie on More 4 last night ? Amazing piece of work. I attached this wiki reference because of the word "....enraging..." under Reception, as this captures it perfectly.
The sheer, crass incompetence of the post invasion planning is explored in a serious, thoughtful and very detailed way in this film. One criticism is that every half hour or so a note appears on the screen to the effect that "Rumsfeld / Cheney etc refused to be interviewed for this film..." I thought this was unnecessary but did not detrcat for the engorsisng nature of the thing.
It led me to pose the following question:
I think we can all accept that this was a war of choice, not of necessity. I think we can mostly alla ccept that the given reason, WMD, is not true - that was not the reason.
My question is:
Was the real reason for invasion valid ? Was there integrity and validity and a genuine aim behind the real reason ? (Assuming that the real reason was democritisation of the region) Did the guys have integrity in their pursuit of this aim (leave the false reason given to us to one side for this purpose) but just implement it staggeringly badly ?
OR
Was the administration deliberately pursuing a policy for the sole aim of assisting their political backers - arms companies, Halliburton, energy companies etc ?
In summary, were these guys crassly and criminally negligently incompetent at implementing a valid purpose or was the purpose itself heinous ?