Most dangerous to whom?
Not to us.
Personally, I think the Indian-Pakistani conflict is far more potentially dangerous than Saddam. They both have nuclear weapons, whereas Saddam isn't known to have any, they have a long-standing and long-simmering dispute with religious tensions a key, whereas Saddam seems driving mostly by quite pragmatic political considerations, maybe with a bit of meglomania tossed in (but to call him a nutcase is, IMO, seriously to underestimate him, he is actually a consummate political animal, obviously better than Milosovich was and maybe as good as Castro), and there is nobody on the outside other than us who is planning to attack him in a way that will provoke a major conflict, whereas in the Indian - Pakistani case it is quite possible, if not likely, that some incursion will take place that will set things off despite the best of intentions.
That is, I believe, by far the more dangerous potential conflict. Saddam isn't particularly dangerous to us. |
