U.S. Ground Troops Fighting Isis In Iraq
American troops are fighting ISIS on the ground in Iraq, something we were told would not happen.
Click here for reuse options!American forces were involved in their first ground battle with Islamic State fighters, according to Kurdish media outlet Shafaq News, near the Ain Al-Assad base in the Anbar province of Iraq early Sunday. The report could not be independently verified.US forces allegedly came to the aid of tribal fighters and the Iraqi Army battling Islamic State (also known as ISIS or ISIL) militants in the Al-Dolab area, 10 km (6.2 miles) from the Ain Al-Assad base, which is about 90 km (56 miles) west of Anbar’s capital, Ramadi.
“US forces intervened because … ISIS started to come near the base, which they are stationed in so out of self-defense, they responded,” said Sheikh Mahmud Nimrawi, a tribal leader in the area, according to Shafaq.
The base hosts about 100 US military advisers, the report claimed.
An Iraqi Army field commander in Anbar said that “the US force equipped with light and medium weapons, supported by fighter force model F-18” was able to hit Islamic State targets, forcing them to retreat from Al-Dolab.
The clash with Islamic forces lasted for more than two hours, as American jets also hit several Islamic State fighters, according to Colonel Salam Nazim.
Copyright 2014 Liberaland
42 responses to U.S. Ground Troops Fighting Isis In Iraq
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
edmeyer_able December 18th, 2014 at 13:49
The report could not be independently verified.
—————————————————————————————————————-
My outrage at US troops defending themselves cannot be independently verified.
Guy Lauten December 18th, 2014 at 14:16
and the story is filed by RT – Vlad the Invader’s personal Faux Noos – and they have no ax to grind, right? Hmmmmm.
edmeyer_able December 18th, 2014 at 14:49
The report could not be independently verified.
—————————————————————————————————————-
My outrage at US troops defending themselves cannot be independently verified.
Guy Lauten December 18th, 2014 at 15:16
and the story is filed by RT – Vlad the Invader’s personal Faux Noos – and they have no ax to grind, right? Hmmmmm.
Jones December 18th, 2014 at 14:06
If you’re there, you’re going to be attacked. How would it ever have been possible to not engage in combat?
Jones December 18th, 2014 at 15:06
If you’re there, you’re going to be attacked. How would it ever have been possible to not engage in combat?
Red Eye Robot December 18th, 2014 at 14:07
http://youtu.be/J_nxouSJq9c
Tommy6860 December 18th, 2014 at 16:06
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGDwvAbx_fg
Red Eye Robot December 18th, 2014 at 15:07
http://youtu.be/J_nxouSJq9c
Tommy6860 December 18th, 2014 at 17:06
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGDwvAbx_fg
amongoose December 18th, 2014 at 14:40
Looks like they were advisers who armed themselves and fought rather than depend on the Iraqi army to protect them.
Can’t say as I can fault them for that considering the less than stellar record of the Iraqi army in combat so far.
english.shafaaq.com/index.php/politics/12492-first-ground-clash-between-isis-and-us-forces-in-iraq
amongoose December 18th, 2014 at 15:40
Looks like they were advisers who armed themselves and fought rather than depend on the Iraqi army to protect them.
Can’t say as I can fault them for that considering the less than stellar record of the Iraqi army in combat so far.
english.shafaaq.com/index.php/politics/12492-first-ground-clash-between-isis-and-us-forces-in-iraq
mea_mark December 18th, 2014 at 14:51
So basically they were defending themselves. I think anyone with any intelligence would expect something like that.
mea_mark December 18th, 2014 at 15:51
So basically they were defending themselves. I think anyone with any intelligence would expect something like that.
Carla Akins December 18th, 2014 at 15:02
I don’t know what we’re seeing or whether it can be verified. American troops have every right to defend themselves. I understand why we had to send troops, it doesn’t mean I have to like it.
amongoose December 18th, 2014 at 15:31
I can’t, did the banksters bidding once, and generally don’t get fooled twice.
The first gulf war at least had some justification. The second, well if he indeed had violated so many the terms of the UN brokered cease fire for so long then it was their duty to form the coalition to punish him, line up the funding and troops from those who wished to go in, and do it, not ours. Afghanistan was the right war, fought the wrong way.
edmeyer_able December 18th, 2014 at 15:49
>did the banksters bidding once
Is that another way of saying w lied us into war in order to up his bank account?
amongoose December 18th, 2014 at 16:20
There was actually legal justification for that war in that Sadam violated the cease fire for 2 years. That however wouldn’t sell very well as it would have been a UN war, so, something else had to be done.
Some of the provisions he violated were the failure to allow inspections of chemical weapons like what he had used on the Kurds so him having them was used.
Did Jorge Bush lie to get us into war? Debatable, more like used pieces of the truth as fit the agenda.
Did he have them – probably.
Did he have capability to manufacture them after the air pounding he took, probably not.
Anything he had would have been over 2 years old and of dubious value.
ISIS is now according to US, Iraqi, Russian, Saudi, Iranian, and Syrian intelligence sources in possession of some of the old degraded weapons. So degraded that an attempt to use them a few months backfired and blew up in their faces.
But all sides concerned have an agenda in this one so it is hard to tell.
Sadam was caught between a rock and a hard place. He could not admit he didn’t have them due to loss of face.
Couldn’t get rid of what old stock he may have had for same reason.
edmeyer_able December 18th, 2014 at 16:32
Willie had sadam contained w/the no-fly zone, w could have done the same thing w/o a full scale invasion.
http://billmoyers.com/2014/06/27/the-lies-we-believed-and-still-believe-about-iraq/
amongoose December 18th, 2014 at 16:49
No fly zone didn’t cover the helicopter gunships he used on the Sunnis in Bashra.
But like I said, it wasn’t our fight.
amongoose December 18th, 2014 at 16:33
my service was 40 years before that one.
edmeyer_able December 18th, 2014 at 16:42
’64 to ’70
amongoose December 18th, 2014 at 16:46
70-71 the “red headed stepchildren” 3/1 Cav.
The ones they left behind.
Welcome home brother.
edmeyer_able December 18th, 2014 at 16:55
I had it too easy, just cruised the east coast from Newport to Gitmo teaching midshipmen how to find subs.
amongoose December 18th, 2014 at 16:58
Get seasick, couldn’t do that.
edmeyer_able December 18th, 2014 at 17:07
Still do, lol but dramamine really works wish I had it back then.
Carla Akins December 18th, 2014 at 16:02
I don’t know what we’re seeing or whether it can be verified. American troops have every right to defend themselves. I understand why we had to send troops, it doesn’t mean I have to like it.
amongoose December 18th, 2014 at 16:31
I can’t, did the banksters bidding once, and generally don’t get fooled twice.
The first gulf war at least had some justification. The second, well if he indeed had violated so many the terms of the UN brokered cease fire for so long then it was their duty to form the coalition to punish him, line up the funding and troops from those who wished to go in, and do it, not ours. Afghanistan was the right war, fought the wrong way.
edmeyer_able December 18th, 2014 at 16:49
>did the banksters bidding once
Is that another way of saying w lied us into war in order to up his bank account?
amongoose December 18th, 2014 at 17:20
There was actually legal justification for that war in that Sadam violated the cease fire for 2 years. That however wouldn’t sell very well as it would have been a UN war, so, something else had to be done.
Some of the provisions he violated were the failure to allow inspections of chemical weapons like what he had used on the Kurds so him having them was used.
Did Jorge Bush lie to get us into war? Debatable, more like used pieces of the truth as fit the agenda.
Did he have them – probably.
Did he have capability to manufacture them after the air pounding he took, probably not.
Anything he had would have been over 2 years old and of dubious value.
ISIS is now according to US, Iraqi, Russian, Saudi, Iranian, and Syrian intelligence sources in possession of some of the old degraded weapons. So degraded that an attempt to use them a few months backfired and blew up in their faces.
But all sides concerned have an agenda in this one so it is hard to tell.
Sadam was caught between a rock and a hard place. He could not admit he didn’t have them due to loss of face.
Couldn’t get rid of what old stock he may have had for same reason.
edmeyer_able December 18th, 2014 at 17:32
Willie had sadam contained w/the no-fly zone, w could have done the same thing w/o a full scale invasion.
http://billmoyers.com/2014/06/27/the-lies-we-believed-and-still-believe-about-iraq/
amongoose December 18th, 2014 at 17:49
No fly zone didn’t cover the helicopter gunships he used on the Sunnis in Bashra.
But like I said, it wasn’t our fight.
amongoose December 18th, 2014 at 17:33
my service was 40 years before that one.
edmeyer_able December 18th, 2014 at 17:42
’64 to ’70
amongoose December 18th, 2014 at 17:46
70-71 the “red headed stepchildren” 3/1 Cav.
The ones they left behind.
Welcome home brother.
edmeyer_able December 18th, 2014 at 17:55
I had it too easy, just cruised the east coast from Newport to Gitmo teaching midshipmen how to find subs.
amongoose December 18th, 2014 at 17:58
Get seasick, couldn’t do that.
edmeyer_able December 18th, 2014 at 18:07
Still do, lol but dramamine really works wish I had it back then.
fahvel December 18th, 2014 at 15:38
“GOOD MORNING VIETNAM”!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
fahvel December 18th, 2014 at 16:38
“GOOD MORNING VIETNAM”!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ExPFCWintergreen December 18th, 2014 at 15:54
Special forces were always going to be on the ground. They’re always on the ground. When politicians use the execrable phrase “boots on the ground” — an artifact of the interminable “should we or shouldn’t we” humanitarian intervention debates of the early 1990s — they’re referring to conventional forces. It’s a weird, historical sop to the Vietnam era and debates about “escalation” and the like. Here’s the bottom line: Hardly a day goes by somewhere in the world where special operators are not shooting at somebody; it’s a constant, not a variable.
ExPFCWintergreen December 18th, 2014 at 16:54
Special forces were always going to be on the ground. They’re always on the ground. When politicians use the execrable phrase “boots on the ground” — an artifact of the interminable “should we or shouldn’t we” humanitarian intervention debates of the early 1990s — they’re referring to conventional forces. It’s a weird, historical sop to the Vietnam era and debates about “escalation” and the like. Here’s the bottom line: Hardly a day goes by somewhere in the world where special operators are not shooting at somebody; it’s a constant, not a variable.