Oil and the War

"The Oil Incentive"

Behind the war on Terrorism

Propaganda and Lies

I was informed to approach this movie with an open mind. Having watched the movie

I've set about to see if the supposed Ð''facts' the movie was based on were in fact the truth. I found several troubling assertions and have researched them to find out the truth. The following is just a few of the falsehoods the movie stated as fact. In order not to be seen as biased, I am going to copy the facts of the case, which are from external sources such as the U.N. and The Congress of the United States, as well as other reputable sources.

Misleading falsehood number 1- "America's illegal war on Iraq".

The position of whether the invasion was legal under international law is clear. Article 2 of the United Nations Charter forbids UN members from employing "the threat or use of force" against other states in a manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. Two exceptions exist to the rule: self-defense (Article 51) or an authorization by the Security Council to protect international peace and security (Chapter VII).

On March 17, 2003, Peter Goldsmith, Attorney General of the UK, set out his government's legal justification for an invasion of Iraq. He said that Security Council resolution 678 authorized force against Iraq, which was suspended but not terminated by resolution 687, which imposed continuing obligations on Iraq to eliminate its weapons of mass destruction. A material breach of resolution 687 would revive the authority to use force under resolution 678. In resolution 1441 the Security Council determined that Iraq was in material breach of resolution 687 because it had not fully carried out its obligations to disarm. Although resolution 1441 had given Iraq a final chance (45 days) to comply "it is plain that Iraq has failed so to comply". Sadaam Hussein took this opportunity to once again manipulate the Weapons Inspectors. I submit to you the 45-day deadline mandated by 1441, and a quote from Hans Blix more than 85 days later.

"If Iraq had provided the necessary cooperation in 1991, the phase of disarmament under Resolution 687 could have been short and a decade of sanctions could have been avoided. Today, three months after the adoption of Resolution 1441, the period of disarmament through inspection could still be short if, I quote, "immediate, active and unconditional cooperation," unquote. This was in response to the finding of Chemical Weapons and Missiles the Iraq declared it did not have in an 18000 page report it issued to the U.N. That report did not mention disposal of Nuclear Materials, in fact it did not mention them at all though Sadaam himself had said he had them and would use them.(Hans Blix to the U.N Security Council in February one month before the war. Hans Blix was against the war, and attempting to keep the situation from escalating, and yet in his own words he declares that Iraq was in violation. Iraq had twice the allotted time to comply with resolution 1441, and was still undermining the process.)

"We have now commenced the process of destroying approximately 50 liters of mustard gas declared by Iraq that was being kept under UNMOVIC seal at the Muthanna site; one-third of the quantity has already been destroyed. The laboratory quantity of thiodiglycol, a mustard gas precursor, which we found at another site, has also been destroyed." (Hans Blix at the same February 14th, 2003 meeting, where he also discussed the discovery of Al-Samud II missiles designed to deliver chemical agents that expressly violated the U.N. sanctioned 150 Kilometer limit. It should also be noted that it took Iraq over 10 years to turn over this chemical weapon, and it was ready for transport (Weapons Grade and packaged to be used in a missile) when delivered. Since Anti-War protesters can be free to make assumptions, so can those for the war. I submit this as evidence that Iraq intended to hide their WMD development until the crisis was over.

Misleading falsehood number 2 - "there were no ties between the Iraqi Government and any

Terrorist Organization"

After the first Gulf War, Saddam Hussein re-established his rule with an iron fist by allowing the Mujahideen e Khalq, Iranian terrorist group, to base in Iraq. In return the group would help him subdue the Uprising of the Shiite majority. The group helped in killing an estimated 20,000 Shiites. Shortly before the war began, knowing that America had declared war on Terrorist's, Saddam himself declared to the world on Al Jazhera television that he would pay 25,000 U.S. dollars to the families of suicide bombers who carried out bombings on Israeli and Western targets. To me that is a clear support of Terrorism.

Terrorism is a wide-ranging problem for every Government in the world. From Russia (Chechen rebels killed 384 civilians, including 186 children in one attack on an elementary school), France (As of today 15 straight days of Rioting in Paris, where Muslims are said to be being pushed by terrorist cells, though I cannot confirm this, it is not unlikely), England (London bombings), Spain (Train bombings), and beyond in smaller but no less important countries. Terrorist cells are acting, being emboldened by the lack of a cohesive international community to stop them. If they continue to get support where does it stop.

Misleading comment number 1 Ð'- "The American Government has had its sights on Iran since (the Islamic Revolution)".

It is true that the American Government has long had its eyes on Iran, but not because of the oil. In 1979 and on into the early 1980's, the US, Germany, Russia, France, China, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia all either paid or offered to pay Iraq to attack and quell the revolution in Iran. America's interest wasn't the oil, but the fear of the spread of extremism. Russia, America, China, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait

...