Inconclusive and skewed

The country has a future now?

I thought that the "alliance" had destroyed it. Hell if you think it's such a great place why don't you go and live there? If a foreign suicide bomber doesn't get you the occupying soldiers will

I have to disagree. Documentaries are not opinion polls they are not asked to show the entire reality of anything just an aspect that maybe the viewer didn't know about, they are documenting something not everything. It is true that the viewer must keep in mind that there are still many voices in Iraq that are unheard and are not heard in this film.

On it's own however this documentary was unlike anything I have ever seen. The reality is that Iraq is breaking along three lines :Kurd, Shia and Sunni. America is not breaking along: Neo Nazi, Black panther and gangmember. That would be a skewed vision of America. Perhaps a comparable american film would show American on three lines: urbanites, middle america and immigrants.

This film was a vision of the secular city dwellers who want peace and business to carry on, the religious zealots who want victory and the ethnic minorities who want a flag.

So so beautiful.

So many more people should see it just so that they can know on whom these bombs are falling.

Why do the Kool-Aid-swilling BushBots even bother to watch a film like this? All of their views and opinions on Iraq have been spoon-fed to them by the likes of Rush and Fox. These are people who're incapable of rational clear thinking. They're the people who make me ashamed to be an American. Listening to their heros like Rush ("Abu Grahib was just frat house pranks") and Ann Coulter ("We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity") makes it clear exactly why "they" hate us and why large sections of the Muslim world now detest America's policies.

I can kind of see what you're saying about the first two segments but the Kurds in the last segment supported the occupation. That's what made me think he didn't necessarily pick people who supported his views. Also, there were parts of the movie that he shot before the occupation which makes me think Longley's original purpose may not have been to paint his own picture of post-occupation Iraq.

YOu are right, cheney was right- they will greet us as liberators and throw garlands of flowers and annoint our feet with oil for mercilessly butchering their families in seek of riches.

I, for one, am glad Bushbots are taking an interest in this film. I'm more moderate than many liberals, but this war has been ridicilous from Day One. These right wing Yosemite Sam types need to be more educated, and they should watch or listen to the BBC_ but, of course, they never will. They need to squirm in their lazy-boys more often! This film proves what I've known for many years: there is no 'middle ground' in Iraq and that essentially goes for the whole region as well. The neo-cons have delighted me by proving that conservatives can be as or more naiive than those on the far left, who I frequently take issue with. This is a brave, insightful film which is not a predictable documentary at all. I think the second part is far and away the most compelling part of the film_ we really see how militant the Shiite movement in Iraq is and the film helps understand how we could very well replace Saddam with a new Khomeini in our efforts to 'democratize Iraq.' It makes a good companion to "The War Tapes" and "Iraq in Fragments" is clearly better than "Gunner Palace." I think this should be the film shown in all schools in America instead of "An Inconvenient Truth" for in my view_ and I differ with Al Gore here, negligent foreign policy is much more of a threat to our survival than any current environmental crisis_ of course, that could change.

A.F. "Tilly" Gokbudak

Inconclusive and skewed maybe, but that still does not change the fact that the events that take place in the movie did actually happen. I think that the movie could have been considered a complete work with the first and third segments removed entirely. In my opinion it was a cheap ploy to use children as narrators to build some sort of obligatory sympathy for them.

The middle segment was by far the best and conveyed the most raw, brutal information about the state that Iraq is in. The way that the US presence has caused people to turn to such fanaticism and violence is quite unnerving. What's the most unsettling is that their anger is not directed towards the occupying US force, but towards their own countrymen. Beating people mercilessly for selling alcohol? Absolutley nothing good can come of that for anybody; Sunni, Shia or Kurd. It brings them no closer to establishing a unified Iraqi controlled government nor does it bring them closer to ridding themselves of the US. The only thing that it does is cause more hate and violence between Iraqis in a time where what is needed most is cooperation across religeous divides.

What a strange review. The film does not interview three members of different extremist organizations. Its first segment follows a little boy, relatively apolitical, though we hear some commentary about the U.S. presence from surrounding adults. The second segment focuses on the Shi'ite militia but doesn't just show them to be (justifiably or not) anti-American, but also intolerant extremists. The third segment is about Kurds, who are thankful for the occupation and live peaceful lives, condemning the suicide bombers of the south.

Ben_71, did you see Iraq in Fragments?