Disclaimer: This site does not store any files on its server.

Ver Homeland (Iraq Year Zero)

Chronicles of everyday life in Iraq before and after the U.S. invasion.

Abbas Fahdel

All Systems Operational

Product details

Genres Documentary
Director Abbas Fahdel
Writer Abbas Fahdel
Country Iraq, France
Also Known As Terra natal (Iraque ano zero), Homeland: Irak Année Zéro, 祖国 イラク零年
Runtime 5 h 34 min
Audio Português  English  Deutsch  Italiano  Español  Français  Gaeilge  Svenska  Nederlands
Subtitles Português  日本語  Čeština  Australia  한국어  Filipino  Tiếng Việt  हिन्दी 
Quality 480p, 720p, 1080p, 2K, 4K

Top reviews

Monday, 01 Jun 2020 08:53

In 2003, American forces invaded Iraq. War was not cheap and hard. No one seemed to have the will or resources to make a successful transition from a government-led system to a system of popular and private private action. The government's own report, commissioned by Congress, said that the plan was "not viable" and had to be changed. And so, in the end, President Bush had to take matters into his own hands. He turned to a team of highly skilled and experienced military professionals to take over the country's military. In this remarkable and revealing film, this team is revealed: Mike Morell, a veteran of the U.S. Marines; Col. Michael Vickers, a former army officer; Lieutenant Colonel Doug Tinsley, a former U.S. Air Force officer; and Colonel William Love, a former chief of staff to the U.S. Secretary of Defense. Morell and Tinsley are both brilliant military strategists. They are ready to make the transformation of Iraq into a more democratic, democratic nation. They know that the system they want will not work for the country they want to see succeed. But they do not want to just take the easy way out. They are willing to face the difficult problem of military success in Iraq. In an interview, Morell says that in Iraq, the military "played it very conservatively." And that this was necessary to keep the Iraqis under control. But, Morell adds, he and his fellow leaders "saw this as a kind of cautionary tale." They were right. The system they set up failed in Iraq. In 2004, President Bush received the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and many veterans of the military and veterans groups gave him their gratitude. Some criticized the Medal of Freedom for being too politically motivated, and many veterans and military personnel did not feel it was a sufficient honor. But these critics are not telling the whole story. Bush also received the Congressional Medal of Honor. This award is given to individuals who are "distinguished for acts of extraordinary heroism while serving their country," according to the White House. These acts are not always particularly heroic. But these acts are "so rare that they are among the rarest of all military achievements," according to the White House. For instance, during the Korean War, four American soldiers were awarded the Medal of Honor for their role in driving the North Koreans back from the Yalu River. The four soldiers were: Lieutenant Colonel Richard Hill, Major William H. "Bill" Walton, Lt. Col. James T. Curtis and Private First Class Jesse James. Other medals were also awarded to American soldiers in the first Gulf War. For example, U.S. Army Captain William L. "Bill" Muir, U.S. Army Captain John Fair, and U.S. Army Sergeant David D. Gross were awarded the Medal of Honor. These medals were given for acts of extraordinary heroism in combat. The Medal of Honor is given to the individual who "deserves the highest distinction for gallantry in the line of duty." The Medal of Honor is awarded to the individual who
Saturday, 16 May 2020 04:18

From the one who took us through the tear-jerker of films like "Tears of the Sun", "Demolition", "Palo Alto" and "Firstblood", "The Constant Gardener" does what it set out to do, and delivers in the finest possible way. A few years ago, during the height of Iraq War hysteria, I too thought that this country had finally lost its mojo. Now that the war has been over, it's hard to say whether we've made any progress or just regressed to our old ways. But in any case, it is hard to imagine that a film like this could be made, let alone be made so well. One of the major themes of the film is the necessity of collective action, that is, of an unselfish and more humane society. It's almost a moral dilemma: do we help those who are in need, or do we help those who are selfish and more interested in their own happiness? And how to achieve that? Here's the rub: one man's selfishness is another's good. One man's lack of patriotism is another's care. One man's lust for power is another's interest. One man's drive to live for the sake of his son is another's gift. And one man's insanity is another's gift. The film isn't afraid to show the extremes: the self-destructive tendency of many of the characters, and the fact that we all have our flaws and problems. The film also asks us to look beyond the idea of moral righteousness, and the idea of "good and evil" to the underlying moral concern of the world we live in. The idea of a fair world is one that can only be achieved through kindness and common sense. It's also an idea that can only be achieved by a well-guided society. I've come to the conclusion that "The Constant Gardener" is a film about the power of charity. The film raises questions about altruism, and shows that true charity does not need to be altruistic. Charity is an act of kindness, which brings out the best in others. It's also an act of love, which brings out the best in oneself. It is a simple, but yet important question: is it better to help people who need it, or to help those who are selfish? As I've said, the film is about altruism. And that, in turn, raises questions about morality. Is it right to lie to our fellow man, or to tell him what he needs to know about his own life, his friends, and his world? I think the film raises questions about morality that can be said of many other films, and is certainly the most controversial of all the films that I have seen so far. "The Constant Gardener" is a film that I would recommend to any person who wants to know more about the meaning of charity.
Thursday, 23 Apr 2020 10:36

This is the first film I have ever seen on the subject of Iraq War. I am not American and have lived in the Middle East for 15 years. This film is not about the war in Iraq but the war in Afghanistan. When I was living in Kabul I saw many atrocities committed by the Taliban. I am not opposed to the war in Afghanistan but in my opinion the Taliban are far more vicious and ruthless than the US. It is the whole story of the war in Afghanistan that I am not interested in. I only watch films that deal with the subject of the war in Iraq. I liked this film. It tells the whole story of the war in Afghanistan. As for the war in Iraq I am not concerned about it. I am not from Iraq and have no connection with the conflict. I do not care about the lives of people who are still living in the Iraqi war zone. The war in Iraq is one of the worst conflicts in the history of mankind. The US must get out of it. They have no business being in Iraq. Iraq is a country in the Middle East that has a much better economic situation than most other countries in the world. It is a country that is in danger of becoming a failed state. If the US has a problem in Iraq it is with the Iraqi people. They have become a victims of the war. The war in Iraq is against the people. They are the real victims. The US is the real victim. They have caused the suffering of people of Iraq. I do not agree with the use of the word genocide. I do not believe that there is any genocide going on in Iraq. The people are suffering in a terrible way. I am concerned about the humanitarian situation in Iraq. I have spoken to people in Iraq and heard their horror stories. The plight of the Iraqi people is a tragedy. I would like to have a bigger audience who do not have an interest in the war in Iraq.

Write a review