I got more (Alot more)
… I call the guy in the last picture Commando Jack because I have no Idea what his name is
Last ones for now
You see the bridge in the background of this first picture they use a mortar(next picture) on that bridge every morning and A National Guard Unit had a weeny roast on that bridge.
Interesting Gallery sargeant. 
Hi Sergeant Dorr.
Thanks for the photos.
Who is this guy in black?
An insurgent that has been captured I presume…
He was actually caught planting IEDs (Improvised Exploading Divice) on the 10th Mountain’s Patrol Route.
That is right
Incidentally I was browsing Youtube yesterday and is very impressive the large amount of the so called “Insurgent videos” availables in the U.S.A based website.How intelligent is that ?
I mean provide images of how the US soldier are blasted away by Improvisated Explosives did not encourage the popular support for the War ( politics aside I am not saying that is the best cause) and also encourage other to made similar attacks. Crazy.I think Youtube should erase tose, or in case they didnt The US Goverment should take care.
Well, then we have to delete any pictures of knocked-out Sherman tanks from this forum?
In any case, I think banning video of insurgent attacks while the military propagates “cool rock’in ass!” photos of F-15E’s dropping ordinance on Iraqi ‘targets’ would only lead to a sanitized, fraudulent perception of this war. People should make their own decisions that are imperative for a democracy, especially in light of how sour things have gone there…
The WW2 was fought and won by the US. Sherman loses aside.
But this todays conflict ? , I dont know, I am not so convinced that the distribution of such images bring any profit to the democracy of the people in US…but to undermine the support and credibilities of the military in this already extremely difficult conflict.
The US military leadership and government have been doing a spectacularly good (or perhaps bad) job in that area, all by themselves.
In comparison, YouTube videos are a pinprick on an elephant.
Really ?
What was the last time when the US gave completely liberties to the media coverage ?
Vietnam. :rolleyes: …and it had to withdrawn without being defeated in the battlefield but completely wasted in the political/public opinion arena.
The US still has complete liberties for media coverage, beyond that even dreamt of in most of the rest of the world, even if the US military and the US government try to control it with rubbish like embedded journalists etc and getting wound up about things like unwanted published photos of servicemen’s coffins from Iraq in transport planes and revelations about Abu Ghraib.
The point is, unlike most of the world, these things were still published; the editors and journalists weren’t killed or disappeared; the papers weren’t shut down; and the military and government were and are held to account by a free press, no matter how unbalanced or ill informed the press might be at times.
It’s one of the things that makes America a paradox of freedom under the noble principles enshrined in its constitution which, despite the best efforts of American governments and the American military, still leaves America as a shining, if badly tarnished, beacon of freedom of expression and liberty that has no better in the world.
The Yanks are a pain in the arse when they trumpet their constitution and principles of liberty etc and we compare those things with their practices and sympathies in Europe and South America and Asia and the Middle East and Africa and within America over the past century and a half but, by God, I’d rather have a pain in the arse from America than a bullet in the back of the neck from so many of the regimes which exist in much of the rest of the world. Often, alas, with American support.
America didn’t win on the battlefield, either.
Nor was winning ever the strategic objective. Just preserving the SVN crooks in power to frustrate the communists. That was achieved, until the hysterically anti-communist Nixon decided that buddying up to communist China was the way to go.
Too many people forget that the Americans, Koreans and Australians were supplements to the SVN forces, which outnumbered the other forces in both men and casualties, as they should have as it was their war, albeit converted into a proxy war against communism by the Western and Korean governments who sent forces there.
South Vietnam lost the war. On the battlefield. It had bugger all to do with American popular opinion. The South Vietnamese weren’t winning when the the Americans were there and they lost when the Americans, Koreans and Australians left.
The reasons the external troops left had to do with popular opinion in those countries, but the reason that South Vietnam fell was because, from day one, it was a corrupt government which lacked sufficient popular support to survive and ran a deficient military system based on nepotism, patronage, and corruption rather than military ability. They deserved to lose. Not that you’ll find any of the emigres who’ll admit it, moaning about how NVN destroyed their beautiful and privileged lives in a system that offends every Western notion of fairness.
you know what I have to say about our so called “War on Terror” President “Trashpile” Bush is just a war hungary maniac. We have no reason to go over there of course I have aready been there and It is not like anything the media has ever showed you I’d have more pictures up there but they are to graffic for this forum.
Well Sargeant, that is Ok but…
Yo do think showing the attacks of the insurgents to the americas help the U.S.A cause or not ?