"Ungerman and Brohy spread themselves a little thin across the map of U.S. intrigue, abruptly losing sight of Iraq while retreading familiar ground about early American backing of the Taliban."
- LA Weekly

"The interviews are carefully augmented with speeches by President Bush and other administration officials, plus footage from Iraq and Afghanistan, and powerful graphics detailing the depletion of the global oil supply."
- Los Angeles Times

"It brings the truth about Bush's War to our attention. Many still believe Iraq attacked us on 9-11. The truth needs to be brought forth no matter what the means. I give the producers credit for having the courage to speak the truth in this time of censure and fear of the Bush Administration. Some may already know the facts, but some may be enlightened."
- Jason H.

http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/oilfactor

Honestly am sick and tired of snotty journalists in Los Angeles thinking that their personal level of knowledge equals the rest of society who have better things to do then watch documentaries and be caught up in Hollywood. They have collectively reviewed this movie negatively and that of course affected it's marketing across the wider US, even when it's not as slanted as Micheal Moore.

Sure it's slanted, however it puts forward wider geopolitical and economic issues that one would not know of unless they willing research those topics on their own.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unocal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_American_Century
http://web.amnesty.org/library/eng-irq/index
Short term energy assurances at the expense of long-term security and diplomatic relations IS not a valid reason for these steps.

Am sorry I guess it's bad for me to use the words "fair and balanced", I just remembered it's FOX News banner. I meant objective.

I know the wider geopolitical implications of the New American Century. However to mention them in this forum, with this video would sap it of it's actual gravitas. Furthermore, irregardless of the reasons that were outlined it is sad to see the day that politics now are no more then politics in times of Rome. Not a single person in their position of power could actually follow through how events would play out?

There hasn't been a single military foreign policy intervention under the use of force that hasn't backfired back to the US. CIA... BLOWBACK...

News documentaries like this one should always have a critical perspective. Intelligent people can discern the perspective. Sheep will be sheep even if you just turn on the camera and microphone.

Farhad, I also think that you vastly overrate a perceived unitary structure within the executive branch of the American Government. You offer compelling sites showing that evidence certainly existed (of the attacks, of the lack of WMD). The most highly trained and specialized intelligence unit does not have area specialists who are Arabs. The Federal Bureau of Investigation also does not have area specialists. And these two groups interact like Italian principalities in the 1500s. It takes coordination to use and apply evidence in an intelligent way and the Bush Admin. coordinates nothing. Finally, I don't believe that anyone working in the Congress or Executive Branch was "fooled" into going to Iraq. We all are aware that is a vast oversimplication to say that the U.S. is there for WMD. It is larger than that. The United States is there for much larger geopolitical aims of the New American Century

As sympathetic as I an toward the plight of the North Korean people, there are always the complexities of multi-national geopolitical realities to deal with.

How would one make a case for attacking NK? It could be done, but what would be the premise? Humanitarian...preemption...weapons of mass destruction?

In response to Choggie's post...simply for the sake of beating a dead horse, You could take every instance of North Korea and and replace it with Iraq and we would have exactly the same situation.

What if Bush says we're going to invade NK under the premise that we're going to take them out before they can use their WMD's on us? Is it a just cause or do we get politics as usual, like war is bad...what right do we have to impose our will on others...America is a fascist, imperialist nation bent on controlling the world...no blood for rice?

And if we do go in and knock over Kim Jong Ill's government and oops, we don't find any WMD's? Do we say 'my bad' and leave or do we get the same stay the course policy and fight bands of communists insurgents from Russia and China while CNN counts the death toll?

You're applying the situation only to Imran Khan and his ilk but think of your own arguments when it comes to issues of racism? Let's say tomorrow the KKK rallies in Washington DC for a cross burning would you defend their right to express their hate against another race? Because in your lines of arguement they would be just and so would the Nazi with their hatred of the Jews.

The popular rise of extremist muslims is not only due to propaganda but to the rise of military and political intervention in the West. When you have tanks rolling down your streets it's easy to be inflamed towards hate of the west, they are directly affected by it. How you would rationalize that activity just by saying "Oh they are all subhuman and their hate is misplaced" is ridiculous. The military and political intervention in the middle east is what exactly the global disaster, depriving human beings like you of valuable resources and imposing on your way of life by allowing radicalized hate to gain foothold because they create the right enviroment for that hate to rise.

Historically this is exactly how a mad man was allowed to rise in Germany. When another power imposes on the political and economic way of life. After the disastrous Treaty of Versailles. In Iran that is how a popular elected was deposed by the CIA, leading to the Islamic revoluition and radicalization of hate against the US. The US then supported extremist Saddam Hussein in a prolonged war against Iran. Is it so hard to see why people are mad at the West? At the UK involved in all of this? There is no escape we pay for the sins of our fathers. It's time we acknowledge that in our national policy decisions allowing us to make realistic decisions beyond the abuse of power. Where have the tenants of the cold war intelligence gone in favor of naked aggression?

You are simplifying this geopolitical issue to black and white in a real world of grey.

One thing I loved about the sift is the discussions that emerge from such topics, I want the Sift to be such. I don't want it to become the next MetaCafe with funny videos and all that only, while you believe that everyone knows about all the avenues of the internet the fact is that they don't. This is why posts like TED Talk, BBC Documentaries and other knowledge sifts do so well.

And even if these videos get posted to the queue. There is an army of users ready to moderate. But it's good that there is place on the Sift to discuss this issue. Because we sure as hell can't expect the same from the mainstream media outlets. To who the hanging seemed to be a mere footnote.

I understand that you may be computer savvy and knowledgeable about geopolitical events but frankly most of population isn't, this is how a war on Iraq gets sold under the pretense of the war on terror. I find it shallow of you to think that you represent the majority thinking. You downvoted the PMC video I posted ages ago without even reading the comment thread about it, another issue that is not at all covered in the media. And falling back on insults like moron and all. What do you want this to become? Youtube?

I don't think any military engagement should be santizied from the media these and other events must be known of, you want to go to war you have to accept everything that comes with it and not lie to the public by embedding the reporters with the aggressors.

The Saddam video, Hiroshima video, Pearl harbor video, the countless records of World War 2, the 9/11 video, the Daniel Pearl video, Beslan video, the countless PMC videos out there (am looking at you Blackwater) are all important. I don't understand why 9/11 has to consitute history and this doesn't. If Osama Bin Laden was caught tomorrow are you really telling me they would give him a fair trail and let him live eternally in a federally funded prison? Hell no.

The public must know of them all and make their own call, just like they were allowed in Vietnam. Political thinking is flawed, the only time one can sell a military engagement to a populace is when it is of utmost importance to national securtiy, the lack of unbiased analysis by the media concentrated in New York contributed to the beating of the drums of war.

I don't see how pulling a 1984 cleansing event is of benefit. I agree that the actual execution video should not be shown. But coverage should be. These events have incrediable impact on geopolitics. Already there are questions as to the legality of the verdicted reached, which could pan out to make Saddam seem like a Sunni matyr and further inflame secterian violence.

It's interesting how the republican party is now criticizing the move to negotiate with Iran. What is their grand solution? Attack Iran and really entrenched the US in a prolonged conflict? Right.

This video shows a distinct lack of understanding of current geopolitical forces in the Middle East conflict.

Pretty ballsy to post a 45 minute vid as a first-timer post.

Gotta give it a watch despite wanting to go to sleep...

Oddly enough, this fairly deserves a *politics tag for the geopolitical intrigue.

"At least in ancient Rome incompetent political leaders got killed much more frequently..."

You know I often wondered about this too, why is that in mordern history the only times assasins struck presidents is when we had someone capable; Abraham Lincoln, John F. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy (candidate but still counts, though am not really counting Ronald Reagen).

I mean thinking about what has happened in terms of geopolitics, how could the USA ever recover the trust of the international forum? Especially after that stunt at the UN High Security Council?

Whoever comes after Bush will retain a goverment that has little credibility worldwide, a large deficit, 2 probably on going conflicts and a whole region destabalized, rampant spending in the military industrial complex and scant spending on basic social initiatives. Frankly if I was a politician I wouldn't want to be the next to be running.