SNIP
>>
>>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.

In the case of Iran Saddam was aided and abetted by the U.S. I'd even say that there is an excellent chance that the U.N. tried a few resolutions to put a stop to it all. There may even be a chance that the U.S. vetoed.
>
>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 really sick of hearing people equate Europe 1939 to Saddam/Iraq today. There is not an iota of comparability between the two save that both countries were ruled by idiotic a-holes.
From an outsider's point of view President Bush has the same characteristics that you are ascribing to those others. What give President Bush the RIGHT to go about imposing his will and "democracy" on whoever he chooses?

>
>>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 ?

I'd be ready to fire back with everything I have. Now which border is it of the U.S. that is under such pressure???



>
>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.