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: Sam Citron who wrote (159776)	3/29/2005 1:41:38 PM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Many feel the world became destabilized with the fall of the USSR. And in a very real sense that is true. How would have iraq been dealt with under the old world order? The Soviets would have controlled Saddam at the extremes and the war may not have been necessary for that reason but also because the Soviets may have intervened at some level. Now China is off there as the new world superpower. US projection of naval and airpower is not enough to stop China from committing some excesses. But strong alliances on the periphery do just that. We dont need a new cold war but we do need a dose of realism in Beijing that at least makes them think seriously about what they do or may do. By the way there are some folks out there who think India will be the bigger story than china over the next few decades. English language, democratic traditions, and British history have something to do with that. And when i look at South Asia maybe 20 years or 30 years out, maybe the grand solution there is reunification of India and Pakistan, an end to fundamentalism and a Kashmir solution to boot. (Not a prediction on my part, but if you ever watched a criquet match between the two nations, you would know where i am coming from). Mike