Unlike Hitler, Saddam has NOT been appeased. When he made his first "unauthorised" territorial grab in Kuwait, he was immediately engaged in conflict and his forces driven back within their borders. A clear signal was given that he could not reach out beyond his borders.

(This, of course, acknowledges that his conflict with Iran was "authorised", which muddies the waters)

What has NOT been managed well is the continued hostility and sanctions. They have actually helped the Iraqi people unite behind Saddam, even if they don't much like him, in opposition to the "enemy outside". Had we been gentler with Iraq, the nation, we might have found that Saddam had a less strong grip by now.

Another war will not lessen his grip, unless it ends like Berlin in 1945. The suffering this would inflict on the Iraqi people would be immense.

Personally, I'd prefer to call Saddam names, but leave Iraq free to trade and integrate with the world (while monitoring its activities closely to make sure they don't succeed in any new international transgressions).

Frankly, the damage that Saddam is inflicting on his population is less than that which would be inflicted by the West in kicking him out. And do you think we would be loved for doing so?

If you want another Palestine on your conscience, then by all means attack again. If you want some degree of justice, and a hope for peace one day, then you have to accept the rule of international law.

And when you've started on that path, you also need to face up to the Israel/Palestine mess, the International Criminal Court, and Kyoto, all on a basis of parity and evenhandedness.

Playing the schoolyard bully isn't going to solve your problems, even if you start off by being right sometimes.