world

Islamic State ambushes, kills up to 50 Iraqi troops

31 Comments
By QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2015 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

31 Comments
Login to comment

America's bombing campaign has been ongoing for over a year now and the ragtag army of ISIS is seemingly unscathed.

What a joke of an Air Force the US has.

They can't even hamper a defenceless army of poorly trained goons riding around in pickup trucks in a wide open desert.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

One thing the US often gets right is how misinformed our self-righteous foreign policy can be.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

The best airforce in the world BB! If the Commander in Chief permit them to do their job, it wouldn't take long.

Last I heard a strategy has not yet been determined by the Commander in Chief. How can the U.S. Military accomplish anything.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

What a mistake the Iraq War was...A waste of lives, money and now Iraq is worse off.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Burning Bush, MarkG, how much more of your money are you willing too donate, to continue making weapons makers even richer? Also you might want to research past wars and look at the amount of bombs dropped and the armies that still survived and kept fighting.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Those who blame the USA rethink what you say. The Iraqis were overjoyed when Sadam was gone. It was themselves who destroyed the country. They allow all this to take place.

Half hearted efforts result in half completed objectives ngf.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

We hear stories of how many sorties they fly or how many combatants they killed but we have no proof of nay of it, just like the death of Bin Laden, which never happened because he had died way before because of health problems. Lies and deception.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Aside from minting currencies and (possibly) performing mail deliveries, Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Libya and Yemen have ceased to exist as countries and are essentially places in which armed militias or independence-minded religious and ethnic groups have staked out their own turf. In other words, the middle east is emulating Africa, which has been that way since countries began gaining independence in the 1960s. My eyes wander over maps of the middle east and I ask myself which country will be next to crumble. Jordan? It's easy to see why IS appeals to young Arabs, who probably regard it as an alternative to the current state of anarchy.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

'Those who blame the USA rethink what you say. The Iraqis were overjoyed when Sadam was gone. It was themselves who destroyed the country. They allow all this to take place.'

It's truly amazing that a hardcore of apologists for the arguably the worst US foreign policy decision in history still exists in dark corners of the US rightwing. An unmitigated disaster which even the clear-thinking members of the US rightwing are now attempting to distance themselves from.

Stop flogging this dead horse - you're disturbing the flies.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

They allow all this to take place.

Whether anyone likes it or not, the Iraqi's squandered the chance to improve their situation. But all that tribal bickering and power mongering just put them right back at square one. While the US may have opened this can of worms, only fools dig deeper into a hole instead of out.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

What a joke of an Air Force the US has.

@BB. But look at the commander in chief. Heck, the usn even got punked in the black sea on two occasions. The su-24 and russian radar jamming are no joke.

If the Commander in Chief permit them to do their job, it wouldn't take long.

Right. If bombed IS to kingdom come . . . we'd never ever hear the end of it from libs & pacifists.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

"If the Commander in Chief permit them to do their job, it wouldn't take long."

Conservative hawk Nixon unleashed the US air force in the early 70s to "do their job." it dropped more bombs on tiny, rural and impoverished Laos in a few months than it did on Europe throughout World War2.

And what an amazing result! The communist peasants were able to take power shortly afterward, and they are still there running the country. And Nixon is long gone.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Any armchair quarterback just wants the US to unleash the scorched earth policy that's performed to a lesser extent by Assad in Syria and Saudi Arabia in Yemen, then decry how many civilians are killed on how far they're going to go.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Conservative hawk Nixon unleashed the US air force in the early 70s to "do their job." it dropped more bombs on tiny, rural and impoverished Laos in a few months than it did on Europe throughout World War2.

Maybe if the Rules of engagement wouldn't have been so binding, they would have done their job and more.

And what an amazing result! The communist peasants were able to take power shortly afterward, and they are still there running the country. And Nixon is long gone.

So you want to entirely blame the US for that tragic outcome? Like with the Iraqis, the South Vietnamese just would fold and not fight as hard as the North did, otherwise the outcome would have been very different.

It's truly amazing that a hardcore of apologists for the arguably the worst US foreign policy decision in history still exists in dark corners of the US rightwing.

That depends on how YOU choose to see it.

An unmitigated disaster which even the clear-thinking members of the US rightwing are now attempting to distance themselves from.

How it was fought perhaps, getting rid of Saddam, doubt it.

Stop flogging this dead horse - you're disturbing the flies.

So then why you libs keep bring this up? What difference does it make?

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

"Maybe if the Rules of engagement wouldn't have been so binding, they would have done their job and more."

What you meant to say was "Maybe if we could suspend the US constitution, like Repubs like to do, we could have extended the war a few more years"

3 ( +5 / -2 )

What you meant to say was "Maybe if we could suspend the US constitution, like Repubs like to do, we could have extended the war a few more years"

Seriously??? You are kidding right?

https://tisaboutfreedom.wordpress.com/2013/03/27/a-list-of-obamas-constitutional-violations/

Obama practically invented the practice and the art of unilateral obstructionism.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

LOLs...It's amazing how short Republican memories are...

2 ( +3 / -1 )

LOLs...It's amazing how short Republican memories are...

And the Democrats and libs are far worse not to mention selective....

https://tisaboutfreedom.wordpress.com/2013/03/27/a-list-of-obamas-constitutional-violations/

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Hasn't the atrocious approval rating Bush had when leaving office after leaving an absolute mess in the Middle East and a crashed economy entered your thinking?

Yes, sir and Obama is teetering on at 54% approval, but the way he's going, this Juggernaut will grow worse and especially now that with the new AP report that came out the other day about the REAL truth about the Iranian deal is such a shocker, but then again, not the least bit surprised why Obama and Kerry wanted this deal more than anything.

Let's be honest and non-partisan for a moment.

As always.

Are the American public that stupid?

They voted for Bush twice and Obama twice, a NON-partisan NO spin!

Just focus on that question rather than socialist tyrant/Benghazi/vegans/Hillary/Prius drivers.

No, they're all connected, sorry, I don't do selective liberal debates.

Why did Bush leave office with an atrocious approval rating?

Because of the war and like Obama he spent like a drunken sailor, but unlike Obama, he was feared and respected by his enemies at least and he wasn't seen as a weak president.

^ because he was an atrocious president

There are other euphemisms at how I would describe Obama's presidency, atrocious is not one of the words I would use.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

If you want to blame Clinton for his attempt to kill bin laden a decade before his cronies attacked the USA with our own airplanes maybe that's a start.

All this Bush blame is overboard. I honestly believe he thought Sadam will use his chem weapons again. He clearly did use them within Iraq. And FYI, it was not only Bush or the GOP who chose to invade Iraq, it was both sides of the isle. And best of all the Iraqis were dancing in the streets when that happened. Sadam and family were brutal killers. The aftermath was a stable force and a fantastic chance to start over nation building. They chose to allow everything to erode and now..... Now to top it off, Iraq has oil. They could be a wealthy self sustaining nation if they chose to move forward in making a stable strong Iraq. Just didn't happen. They chose something different.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

"And best of all the Iraqis were dancing in the streets when that happened."

The image I have of Iraqis "dancing in the streets" was after villagers attacked 4 American contractors, dragged their bodies thru the streets, set them on fire, cut off their limbs and then hoisted their mutilated corpses from a bridge in early 2004. There was plenty of celebration, indeed.

One of the most enduring images from immediate post-war Iraq.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Saddam & Asad were very "Gentlemen leaders" in the Arabs indeed, why toppled them? There were only western morons who were non Arabs but love lecturing flawed theory of "freedom" !Installing useless puppet commanders like that run away iraqi army to fight the Islamic state or Daesh… If you are a sunnis, which side you will choose?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

'I honestly believe he thought Sadam will use his chem weapons again. He clearly did use them within Iraq.'

Really? To be honest I doubt the Bush administration cared less if he did or didn't. After all it was the US who supplied him with chemical weapons in the first place. Perhaps they thought he wasn't such as monster and would only use them against Iranians. Saddam's worst crimes were long behind him after the US and its idiot lapdogs felt it was morally imperative to remove him.

'And best of all the Iraqis were dancing in the streets when that happened'

Until a car carrying explosives drove into them and turned them into flying mince.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

How many Sunni iraqis hate Saddam was because he gased the Kurds? Toppled saddam and let the Kurds have their de facto state in northern iraq is certainly a foolish idea.There you know why many sunnis sided with the "Daesh"!

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Really? To be honest I doubt the Bush administration cared less if he did or didn't.

But your not sure, it's just a hunch.

After all it was the US who supplied him with chemical weapons in the first place.

So what's your point, allies can sadly become enemies as well. Nothing new about that...

Perhaps they thought he wasn't such as monster and would only use them against Iranians. Saddam's worst crimes were long behind him after the US and its idiot lapdogs felt it was morally imperative to remove him.

Which was a good thing.

'And best of all the Iraqis were dancing in the streets when that happened'

Until a car carrying explosives drove into them and turned them into flying mince.

No thanks to the sectarian violence!

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

'Really? To be honest I doubt the Bush administration cared less if he did or didn't.

But your not sure, it's just a hunch'

Yes, it's a hunch. That's why I used 'I doubt'. Not much gets past you.

Interesting morals. Are you saying it was okay to back Saddam against the Iranians and supply him with chemical weapons as long as he was using them against the Iranians and not the Iraqis?

Iraq is a country designed to fail. It was held together by a dictator who was tolerated and armed because the western powers rightly concluded that only a dictator could hold this mess of a country together through force. The idiots who marched into Iraq on the back of lies ( it never ceases to amaze me how a non-partisan like yourself gets irate to the point of incomprehensibilty over 'lib' lies but seems very blasé about this absolutely enormous lie ). We were told the invading forces would be greeted as liberators.

They were warned repeatedly that this country would collapse into civil war and a bloodbath after letting religious lunatics and racists off the leash. In Iraq religious nutcases and racists run around with Kalashnikovs. In the more civilised US, religious nutcases or racists become televangelists, appear on Fox or seek the GOP presidential nomination. Every country has them.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Interesting morals. Are you saying it was okay to back Saddam against the Iranians and supply him with chemical weapons as long as he was using them against the Iranians and not the Iraqis.

The enemy of my enemy....

Iraq is a country designed to fail. It was held together by a dictator who was tolerated and armed because the western powers rightly concluded that only a dictator could hold this mess of a country together through force. The idiots who marched into Iraq on the back of lies ( it never ceases to amaze me how a non-partisan like yourself gets irate to the point of incomprehensibilty over 'lib' lies but seems very blasé about this absolutely enormous lie ).

I'm not irate, don't need to be. We went over this before, out of the two evils and the relationship we had with Saddam at the time, it seemed logical to jump in bed with a man that could possibly be an ally, a fragile, looking over the shoulder ally, but one, nonetheless.

We were told the invading forces would be greeted as liberators.

We were in the beginning, then the 60% wanted revenge against the 40% after all the years of being under the thumb of Saddam what would you expect and we were caught right in the middle of a growing sectarian uprising.

They were warned repeatedly that this country would collapse into civil war and a bloodbath after letting religious lunatics and racists off the leash. In Iraq religious nutcases and racists run around with Kalashnikovs.

And there were mistakes made, sure. The U.S. didn't have a contingency plan for what happens next or how to stop the sectarian violence that ensued.

In the more civilised US, religious nutcases or racists become televangelists, appear on Fox or seek the GOP presidential nomination. Every country has them.

Hmmm, so how many of them killed, beheaded, try to establish a caliphate, destroyed ancient ruins and was responsible for killing and murdering millions of people within the last 13 years?

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

'Interesting morals. Are you saying it was okay to back Saddam against the Iranians and supply him with chemical weapons as long as he was using them against the Iranians and not the Iraqis.

The enemy of my enemy....'

Justifying the use of chemical weapons, eh?

'They were warned repeatedly that this country would collapse into civil war and a bloodbath after letting religious lunatics and racists off the leash. In Iraq religious nutcases and racists run around with Kalashnikovs.

And there were mistakes made, sure. The U.S. didn't have a contingency plan for what happens next or how to stop the sectarian violence that ensued.'

Stop using the passive - you sound like Bush. These people were warned time and time again before the invasion that sectarian violence was guaranteed. The lack of any clear plan was as criminal as the invasion itself.

'In the more civilised US, religious nutcases or racists become televangelists, appear on Fox or seek the GOP presidential nomination. Every country has them.

Hmmm, so how many of them killed, beheaded, try to establish a caliphate, destroyed ancient ruins and was responsible for killing and murdering millions of people within the last 13 years?'

As I said, the US is a more civilised country and your religious crackpots are constrained by a constitution and centuries of secular progress. They'd love to establish a Christian theocracy if they could get away with it. Many of them hardly bother to hide the fact.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Justifying the use of chemical weapons, eh

Not at all, quite the contrary and don't conflate the issue.

'They were warned repeatedly that this country would collapse into civil war and a bloodbath after letting religious lunatics and racists off the leash. In Iraq religious nutcases and racists run around with Kalashnikovs.

And there were mistakes made, sure. The U.S. didn't have a contingency plan for what happens next or how to stop the sectarian violence that ensued.'

True.

Stop using the passive - you sound like Bush.

I take that as a compliment!

These people were warned time and time again before the invasion that sectarian violence was guaranteed. The lack of any clear plan was as criminal as the invasion itself.

So why aren't you condemning the sectarian violence, after all, it WAS Muslims targeting and purposely killing other Muslims.

As I said, the US is a more civilised country and your religious crackpots are constrained by a constitution and centuries of secular progress. They'd love to establish a Christian theocracy if they could get away with it. Many of them hardly bother to hide the fact.

You didn't answer my question, so I'll say it! There are NO out of control religious Christian fanatics like the Islamic Jihadists that, like in Paris or anywhere else plotting to kill everyone that doesn't follow their beliefs. And don't come with the Tim McVeigh argument, libs try to make a sorry argument as if one lone gun man hanging on the mental fringe, hating the U.S. Government and was a separatist is equal to what is going on in the ME. Nice try.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

@Bass Your comprehension is beyond belief at times.

Me: 'Interesting morals. Are you saying it was okay to back Saddam against the Iranians and supply him with chemical weapons as long as he was using them against the Iranians and not the Iraqis.

You: "The enemy of my enemy"

What does that sound like to you? Does that sound like a reply decrying the use of chemical weapons? Why do you keep doing this?

'Stop using the passive - you sound like Bush.

I take that as a compliment!'

Bass, you do know Bush was mercilessly lampooned by many, including some of his own supporters, as clumsy, ungrammatical and at times utterly incoherent. Sounding like Bush would be an insult to a budgerigar with a stammer.

I do decry the sectarian crackpots. Again, please read what I said. I said your religious crackpots have left behind witch-burning and the like because they've been constrained by the constitution, the rule of law, a strong police force and secular progress - these ideas mean nothing in ungovernable Iraq and the ordinary people of this country are at the mercy of religious crackpots. Christianity has been tamed and domesticated to a nearly manageable level, although the US still has a large problem with it, for the time being in civilised countries but many Islamic countries haven't come near to this or even tried.

Letting lunatics out of the asylum isn't a good idea.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

you do know Bush was mercilessly lampooned by many, including some of his own supporters, as clumsy, ungrammatical and at times utterly incoherent. Sounding like Bush would be an insult to a budgerigar with a stammer.

As that all you Dems care about? Seriously?? I keep forgetting posing is the thing that Dems love to do and that's exactly the kind of president you all chose, A charlatan that loves to show off his smarts, but has nothing to show for it and add to that, since he's so smart, above everyone else and created the heavens and the Earth and the embodiment of all that is humanity, he still managed to run the country into the ground. Idolizing false prophets is not going to help the Dems or libs. At least Bush wasn't a coward, he followed through on his threats whether you agree with him or not. There is no way on Earth were he president today that, China, Russia or even ISIS would do the crap they are doing now, because they know Bush wasn't a pansy unlike Barack who's afraid of his own shadow.

I do decry the sectarian crackpots. Again, please read what I said. I said your religious crackpots have left behind witch-burning and the like because they've been constrained by the constitution,

No, they evolved, pure and simple. Also this isn't the 1860s or even the 1950s and even then, Christians didn't close the things that the radical Jihadists have been doing over the last 13 years, there is no disputing that.

the rule of law, a strong police force and secular progress - these ideas mean nothing in ungovernable Iraq and the ordinary people of this country are at the mercy of religious crackpots.

So why won't your president (that you love, keep forgetting, you're not American) do something about it or at least try?

Christianity has been tamed and domesticated to a nearly manageable level, although the US still has a large problem with it, for the time being in civilised countries but many Islamic countries haven't come near to this or even tried.

And they never will.

Letting lunatics out of the asylum isn't a good idea.

I agree.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites