Why isn't NATO dealing with ISIS once and for all?

[Deleted]

Maybe because ISIS is financed by the US ?

/discuss

[Aernath]

Maybe because ISIS is financed not just by US but by NATO and all the weapons industry?
NATO does not need to exist if there are no "devils" to fight against, so what better way to frighten people than some head chopping dark terrorists who are geniunely "designed" to look as terrifying as they could.
In the special effects and video editing age even their propaganda videos are questionable and well produced.
If they're that ignorant fundamentalists, they seem quite educated for propaganda and imagery, right?

[Deleted]

Because the last two wars in the middle east caused nothing but resentment.

We intervened in afghanistan/iraq and got hated
we intevened in libya and it went to shit
we dont intervene in syria and get hated/it goes to shit

west cant really win, just gotta hope rich muslim countries step up and help

[Slant]

The job of NATO is not to play world police. It's a defensive pact with the sole purpose to protect its members against attacks from the outside.

/thread

[Deleted]

If there's any force in the world that should deal with Daesh, its the UN peacekeeping force, but their job is not to search and destroy, but to keep the peace. They wouldn't be effective against those lozers with AK's, because they aren't interested in keeping peace and stability, they're only interested in raping, pillaging and destroying.

[Calfredd]

Why isn't NATO dealing with ISIS once and for all?

What do you mean? Like bomb them? If so I hope you can understand the many ramifications (including moral) that would come with it.

[Seranthor]

Maybe because ISIS is financed by the US ?

/discuss

Because the leaders of the US and the other NATO nations dont have the desire to do enough to accomplish it. It's easier to posture and look the other way.

[Serenais]

Speculations aside, just landing troops in Syria and Iraq again could get rid of ISIS, but it would be only a short term solution - once the NATO troops would leave, the situation would repeat itself - NATO troops leaving would create a power vacuum, and there is ALWAYS someone VERY eager to fill that. Therefore ISIS being brought down by armies of Iraq and whoever currently is in Syria (considering the situation there is ... complicated) is prefferable, because that will leave some powerbase in place.
Also, there will be the psychological effect of it being the "victory of the locals", instead of "the US/crusaders/colonisers/infidels invaded us", as is frequently used around those places (I said FREQUENTLY, not always, or even in majority, mind you) by those who use "external enemy" to get their own foothold among local population. ISIS being brought down would leave very little space for that.

[phitness]

what I dont understand is that the people of the country dont even try to protect their own. Just think if during the civil war in the US everyone just said fuck this country and immigrated away. If they cant fight for their own country why the fuck should anyone else. Call me heartless but when people would rather leave than fight for their home I cant really care that much.

[Ulmita]

The job of NATO is not to play world police. It's a defensive pact with the sole purpose to protect its members against attacks from the outside.

/thread

Lol dude... wth did you just write.

Cough Kosovo, went in even though UNSC told them NOT TO GO IN.

NATO is an instrument of the US. Thus why France had left it.

[namecraft]

Because the last two wars in the middle east caused nothing but resentment.

We intervened in afghanistan/iraq and got hated
we intevened in libya and it went to shit
we dont intervene in syria and get hated/it goes to shit

west cant really win, just gotta hope rich muslim countries step up and help

there are people/companies with billions of dollars.
why is our country still paying?

[Xeones]

They would rather get flooded by refugees than attempt to take out the terrorists.

[Slant]

Lol dude... wth did you just write.

Cough Kosovo, went in even though UNSC told them NOT TO GO IN.

NATO is an instrument of the US. Thus why France had left it.

Just cos NATO forces went in doesn't mean they invoked NATO triggers to justify it.

[Kurioxan]

just gotta hope rich muslim countries step up and help

They wont, they know what they are dealing with and want nothing to do with the countries affected and their populations. They will only act when the war is in their borders.
See how many refugees Muslim countries are taking in, shows exactly how much they care about it. Then again, its their right, and they live in the region.

[Serenais]

Lol dude... wth did you just write.

Cough Kosovo, went in even though UNSC told them NOT TO GO IN.

NATO is an instrument of the US. Thus why France had left it.

France withdrew, in the 60s, because de Gaulle wanted a way to get a separate peace with Soviet Union should a war between NATO and WP have arisen in Europe. He was unhappy that the most influential powers in NATO were US and UK, but France left even after de Gaulle was offered a deal to change the situation. Mind you, France never fully left NATO, it just effectively stopped participating in the administration structure of it and did not allow nonFrench NATO troops in France.
France also restored its full membership in NATO in 2009, so France is now a full NATO member again.

Just to get facts straight.

Also, besides the fact that most (not all - the intervention in Libya was actually initiated by France, and taken over by NATO only after UNSC said "Okay") NATO actions are initiated by the US, where does it specifically say that NATO is a US tool? NATO is dominated by the US, but the reason there is simple - European countries (with exceptions) pretty much stopped investing in their armies, resulting in the only one really pulling weight being the US. I don't want to play down the roles of other member nations (since some of them are actually doing their part in what is in the NATO charter), but the US alone is paying for more than 66% of NATO's combined military expenditures. On top of that, US Navy is by far the largest on the planet.
Under these conditions, there is simply very little that NATO can do with no US involvement. And it's pretty much the fault of the European states that sit by and let their armies go to rot (my country would be a pretty good example).

[Deleted]

In World war 2, both Britain, America and Germany used week long bombing runs.. It was so extreme that the cities looked like hell, because of all the buildings that were on fire from fire bombing, etc.

So why can't we do it now?

Because you aren't allowed to deliberately kill civilians anymore.

[Slant]

In World war 2, both Britain, America and Germany used week long bombing runs.. It was so extreme that the cities looked like hell, because of all the buildings that were on fire from fire bombing, etc.

So why can't we do it now?

Because we realised it's a shit thing to do? See, perhaps you don't know this, but those things were called fire storms in Germany. The British have developed a method to bomb a city in a specific way to create an effect that has the inner city burning out of control while sucking fresh air in from the outside further heating the storm up. You cannot stop it once it's going until there's no more fuel (ie, buildings, people) left to burn. It's utter destruction. Like a furnace on a city scale.

This is nothing you do to "remove IS". This is something that was created with the sole purpose to hit the civilian population, hit them hard and kill as many of them as possible. Strategically, the value is less than you think it is. US and British officials have both said this, those fire storms had little effect on the actual outcome of the war, they didn't hit any military targets, they did not change any plans of the German military. They only demoralised the German population (which at that point was not having a say in how things are run in the country...).

Think before you post.

[Low Hanging Fruit]

One big reason is over 2/3rds of the nation's in NATO are utterly useless in any sort of military affair. Once the battle becomes more than admiring themselves in a mirror and listen to themselves ramble on in an echo chamber they might as well fall on their own swords if they even have weapon capabilities of that level anymore. I wouldn't doubt if next to every flag pole they are required by law to have a white flag stored just in case a hang nail is detected.

Next is until other fucking nations in the middle east are willing to invest in their problems the rest of the world shouldn't either. For far to long the bigger powers in that region have either been sidelined unwilling to do anything or prefer to remain as limited as possible while western nations fight their battles for them.

[Deleted]

Isn't the cities that are controlled by ISIS in favour of them anyways? Besides, Its kinda the only way to kill ISIS, a full invasion using ground troops could work, but it'd cost us a lot of lives due to guerilla tactics by ISIS surely.

The cities controlled by ISIS are controlled by fear and an active military. So no killing civilians wouldn't help, in fact it'd be more likely to make people join the ISIS military.

[Serenais]

In World war 2, both Britain, America and Germany used week long bombing runs.. It was so extreme that the cities looked like hell, because of all the buildings that were on fire from fire bombing, etc.

So why can't we do it now?

Because
1) electorates in NATO countries would very quickly force their governments to end it
2) massive civilian casualites would VERY quickly turn the locals against foreign involvement, effectively strengthening ISIS' manpower
3) even if 2) would not set in place, it would offer little to no result regardless

It has to be kept in mind that ISIS isn't a "nation" with industry oriented at war per se - it is, in effect, a very large guerrila group (militarily speaking), and weeding it out via a military operation requires different steps than destroying an enemy regime like the WW2 Germany. There are no "war factories" to destroy, since ISIS gets their main source of armament in a different way. There are no military bases - ISIS uses houses for small numbers of troops at a time (at least as far as my information goes), therefore targetting "just military targets" en large is pretty much impossible. They lack a normal military structure, therefore targetting military units is tough, if at all possible.
That pretty much leaves the military actions possible to denying logistics and supporting allied local militaries during military engagements already in place. Which is pretty much what is being done.