>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.

As I have pointed out in other parts of these threads, supporting Saddam was a huge mistake on our part. But as far as trying to stop Saddam from attacking Iran? Are you serious? That really wasn't going to happen after they took our people hostage.

>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.

Right. Why should the Kuwaitis have had any reason to worry? Or the Israelis? All of this buying gas masks is just a waste of money.

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

Diplomacy does not work with some people. Saddam is one of those. Saddam did not end the war with Iran because of diplomacy. He did not leave Kuwait because of diplomacy.

>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.

Iraq should get rid of there leader, for a start. Isn't that the best solution? If Saddam were really concerned about his country, as he claims, wouldn't he leave to a nice comfortable retirement?

Second best option is to comply with the U.N. But they aren't doing that.

But no, Iraq should not attack us first. There best bet is to hope the rest of the world doesn't see through Saddam's charade. Of course there are instances where diplomacy works. But it's not going to with Saddam.