Overall, history really doesn't repeat itself. Certain themes do hold true throughout history and it pays to learn about them, but in the end, we have to make the best decisions possible based on fuzzy information.

Had the winning WWI Allies not been so vindictive with the terms of the Treaty of Versailles, it's possible post-war Germany might not have been thrown into such economic and political turmoil.

Had France and Great Britain slapped Hitler down in the mid 1930s when he first started making his terroritorial grabs, he might well have been overthrown or at least kept under control.

Had the US not stepped forward with the Marshall Plan to rebuild post-WWII Western Europe, they might well have turned to the Communists.

Since we don't have Sherman's Wayback Machine to go back and explore alternate timelines, all of this is just speculation.

There is some history that can prove very insightful about Saddam, himself. For example, it is a historical fact that he started the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s that killed about a million people. He has used chemical weapons against his enemies, both internal and external. He also invaded Kuwait, a small but oil-rich neighbor, in 1990. He has tried to develop nuclear weapons in the past. These are all proven facts. While they don't provide a definitive answer to what he'll do in the future, they suggest that if the gets weapons of mass destruction (chemical, biological, and/or nuclear), he'd very likely use them.

It's that possibility that makes him so dangerous. The US and Soviet Union/Russia have had nuclear weapons for over 50 years. The only two ever used in war were Hiroshima and Nagasaki, arguably legitimate given the circumstances. One thing about the former Soviet Union - their government and economic systems were screwed up beyond belief but they were otherwise rational. They were in no hurry to start a major war.

The same can be said for most other countries. Britain, France, and China also have a number of nuclear weapons but they have never used one. Israel almost certainly has quite a few nuclear weapons but has never used one. Apparently, South Africa developed nuclear weapons but then dismantled them several years ago. All of these countries tend to have rational leadership, so their liklihood of using these weapons is pretty small.

India and Pakistan are a different matter. Some say that they backed down from the brink a few months ago because both sides have nuclear weapons. If so, then possessing those weapons might well have stopped a war that would've killed a lot of people. However, their situation is a lot more unstable than the other nuclear powers, so it seems more likely that there may be a nuclear exchange.

The cases of North Korea and Iraq are much scarier to me simply because both countries are led by homocidal dictators who, by many standards, are practically insane. Both should be kept from developing weapons of mass destruction because they're both likely to use them, IMO.