Important Announcement regarding the Alternative Views Subforum

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

UN Ambassador Nikki Haley disagrees with you. She says there won''t be peace without removing Assad.

It would only take one Tomahawk to do so.

They want to remove him by diplomatic means, not force, and they have set fighting ISIS as a higher priority. So I guess that means I was right after all.

Returning to the WWI analogy -- Russia was viewed as a country that was growing unchecked both in population and wealth. They seemed like an unstoppable force. It may seem weird to us today, but this was definitely the feeling of Germany and others. That is not unlike the view of China today.

Germany felt that war was inevitable and the longer they waited the more likely they would lose.

England and France were so caught up in their own security they did not regard the security of Germany. I think this is called the "security dilemma" where one country increases their feeling of security at the expense of another which then feels less secure.

But in the mix of these four you had the "Austro Hungarian" empire which was a patchwork quilt of different ethnicities who were the most miserable -- Serbia, Kosovo and Montenegro being the foremost. These countries were the only ones who actually wanted war.

Today that would be ISIS, Iraq and Syria.

If you take out Assad with a missile you also take out Russia's connection to the Middle East. That would greatly increase their feeling of insecurity. You can't do that unless you want to start WWIII. Syria and ISIS are fighting an ugly, no holds barred war to the death. We don't need to have these two misfits drag the US and Russia into a world war over the Middle East.

What we need is for a negotiated settlement where Russia removes Assad and replaces him with someone they are comfortable with.

The UN is today's "Austro-Hungarian" Empire and could easily be the lynchpin to another major war.