Whoah. I read this same article in print earlier this morning and decided it might be worth tossing onto Flare for perusal. Gwynne Dyer is a brilliant foreign affairs columnist, actually... he guest-lectured my year three years ago or so. Quite the pseudo-celebrity as far as being a syndicated intellectual goes, and definitely worth paying attention to.
In any case Sharon v. Saddam would be pretty much a worst-case-scenario. But the bulldozer has previously shown little adeptness at taking the long view of things, and policies we've seen over the last couple of days are exactly the sort of thing that's going to bait even more idiotic leaders into destabilizing the whole region.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Exceedingly odd... it would appear that the Toronto Star edited out the passages about Hussein that I was referring to. They're in the version of the column printed in the Hamilton Spectator.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Interesting, if a bit sketchy. I'm not convinced about how he's reached some of his conclusions, but then I'm not the expert this guy seems to be.
I mean, would Saddam really see Israeli nuclear bombardment as a lesser evil than an US-led coalition invading?