Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bela_ghoulashi who wrote (5810)	10/17/2001 1:44:30 PM
From: HG	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I agree. Democracy takes a long time to root. And the years in between are filled with tremendous public unrest and crime. This is especially true for countries which are used to being governed with an iron hand. The 'good' people are used to law and order and can't seem to handle the unrest very assertively. And slight slack in law and order makes the 'bad' ones go overboard. Thus the emerging elite and influence is that of the 'bad' ones. One look at the disintegrated USSR and Pakistan, and you know what I mean. India has been chugging along, just a step above the two, primarily becoz of the self imposed isolation thru the last few decades, a gamble which paid off some, but which is impossible to implement in this changed world of global cohesion. Someone also mentioned breakup of Afghanistan as a permanent post war solution. It really depends on the objectives behind the strategy. If the objectives are to leave the continent unstable, so West can always have an influence....thats a great, superb idea. Subdivisions of Afghanistan like Germany, Korea, India/Pakistan - it would work perfectly and protect US interests in the region. For centuries, the British used the Divide And Rule strategy to their satisfaction. But I personally think that the world has become a much smaller place in the last 50 years, and whatever ails Asia, will eventually come around and hit the West. At this point in time of history, this, IMO would be a very short sighted act. If the objectives are to stabilise the region, I would vehemently oppose the subdivision, for the results of a subdivision are obvious in the India Pakistan breakup which British orchestrated. The subcontinent would have been a very powerful nation if their humungous defence budgets could have been diverted to better usage and their collective intellect utilised for progress rather than destruction. Maybe an unstable region and a weak subcontinent is exactly what the British hoped for ? But is that something which US wants, especially now ? Food for thought. HG@PoliticsIsADirtyGame.com