The talk of the diplomatic failure has ratcheted up now that military action has begun.

A question I've posed often, but never had answered from those against the war is this:

If military action against Iraq was not appropriate now, when would it have been?

Everyone keeps saying "We should have done more", "We should have let the sanctions work", and "We should have let diplomacy run its course".

Well, in your opinion, when would we have reached the point when all other options besides force had been exhausted? How much more time would you have given inspectors being stonewalled by Iraq? Three months? Six months? A year? More?

If you're a pacifist, fair enough. Just say you never think force is appropriate to solve a problem. I can have some respect for that view.

But the whole idea that force might have to be applied once all other measures had failed, but that this just isn't the right time? Well, that view simply seems incoherent. If this isn't the right time, tell us how much longer we should have waited.