>The troops on the border could be seen as a direct threat. Still not a complete reason to go to war, there has to be no alternative. The missile attack would be beyond a direct threat, appropriate retaliation could be considered, this should be aimed at eliminating any further threat - it should not be done as an act of revenge.
>
>In both cases, diplomatic means should be pursued.

Ah yes, diplomacy. Is it not clear from his past behavior that Saddam understands one and only one thing? Force. Saddam didn't attack Iran due to a breakdown in diplomacy. And he didn't invade Kuwait because because there was a diplomatic breakdown.

Did Hitler take over most of Europe because of a breakdown in diplomacy? No. I can assume that Neville Chamberlain would have had your vote.

>I'll return the question, if a foreign country were acting belligerently towards you & massing it's troops directly on your borders, what do you think would be an appropriate reponse ?

Canada? I would send them 100,00 tons of mayonaise. Mexico? I would let them win the next World Cup game.

Seriously, I would attack first.