>>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.

I really dont get you continually repeating that he attacked Iran, yes he did & did the US try to stop him, no, at that time you wanted him to attack. You supplied him with the weapons to do so.

Past behaviour does not mean that he is likely to do somethying again. If he were bringing his troops together in one of those regions, maybe you might consider that he might be going to do so. But he isn't.

>
>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'm sure I could eaually match every one of your instance where diplomacy failed with one where it worked.

>
>>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.

So should Iraq launch an attack now or should it take a diplomatic route (ie compliance with the UN) to avert war ? If you agree with the latter, then maybe there are instances where diplomacy can avert the threat of war in the instance of a build up of troops on your border too.