And intense, unopposed U.S. air power over the battlefield, it should be added.

It is sick that you seem to almost be pining for a major US defeat -- anywhere.

Of course they are still officially referred to as "Advisers/Trainers." (Wink, wink . . . nudge, nudge.)

As to your suggestion that I am "pining" for an American "defeat": Rather I'm demanding an American government which respects international law and lives up to the treaties and agreements signed in the name of the American people. I will not remain silent as we continue to act as if we truly are an "Exceptional" power, destined to rule the entire planet by right of our (oh so temporary) military and economic superiority.

a large number of deaths --- and even Russia was unable to hide the deaths of their soldiers who were fighting in the Ukraine.

As to this effort, I think you missed the UN session where a resolution against ISIS was passed and you ignore that over 60 countries, including many in the region are fighting ISIS with us. In fact, the big difference between this and the past conflicts there is that the US is NOT taking the lead combat role and the reason is not just to prevent US deaths, but because a US victory has tended to disappear as soon as we leave.

Not to mention, I saw you justify Russia annexing the Ukraine and fighting in eastern Ukraine -- and they had no UN support for that.

Don't think that's the case.

It announced that Americans on the Kurdish front had just won their first combat engagement with the Islamic State forces. Here is a link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025980446

There may be 3,000 American troops in Iraq, but that doesn't mean all, or any of them, were in Dhuluiya. You don't say "the Iraqi army of 250,000 captured Dhuluiya", even though that's the total strength of the army. So "with just a little help from three thousand U.S. combat troops on the ground" is not a meaningful comment to make about this.

We have reporting coming out of that place locked down way too damn tightly.

We ought to be funneling arms and advisors to the Kurds. As much as they need to fight these dangerous fascist scum.

However, they are not fascists. That is a quite different kind of horrible, disgusting person.

Authoritarian: Check
Have engaged in ethnic cleansing of minorities: Check
Militaristic and expansionist: Check
Zealous defenders of the "old ways" and traditions: Check

Fascists.

And they embrace a Religious justification for their movement, not an ethnic or nationalistic one, don't they?

If the Islamic State is fascist, then so were the Huns and the Mongols. You are straining the definition well beyond its intended meaning.

Alright, your credibility is basically shot at this point.

It is a pan-arab movement.

We've been told by Pentagon types that defeating ISIS may take 30 years. That's a flat-out lie. Whether or not one believes the US should be involved, we are, and as such, there's no reason that every ISIS fighter couldn't be dead or incapacitated within a matter of months.

Or maybe it would be best to just kill everyone? It really is so hard to tell who is and who isn't an "Evil-doer" over there, and we can't risk not killing all of them, right?

Don't get me wrong, and I'm not disrespecting the OP. But I don't think it's a good idea to get up close to that mess over there, if one wants to come home in one piece, that is. Who do we trust to tell us what is going on there?

As you say, it's dangerous, and that means a journalist can't necessarily get to somewhere else within hours, when news comes from it, to verify it.

Iran's Press TV has a similar report, though it's not clear if that's also relaying what the Iraqi government says.