The Bush Administration has stated that Monday March 17 is the last opportunity for diplomacy with the situation in Iraq. Not looking for opinions here, just facts, but exactly what diplomatic means has the administration used up to this point? I don’t recall any Iraqi officials visiting the White House lately, I don’t remember Colin Powell or anyone traveling to Baghdad for any discussions. Obviously Bush is not patient enough to allow the weapons inspectors to do their jobs. So what “diplomacy” are they talking about?
There was plenty of diplomacy, just not successful diplomacy.
Here’s a recap:
A Long, Winding Road to a Diplomatic Dead End
Okay, so it’s not that we haven’t tried anything, it’s just that we’ve managed to paint ourselves into a corner. Not that that’s any better… 
We? You’re in a corner? I’m not there. I thouht only Bush & Co. were there, unless you would like to be in the dock with them in the future war crimes trials.
Anyway, there has been no diplomacy in the classical sense; only an attempt to bully and strongarm other countries to provide a fig leaf for imperialist agression. The whole world knows this except
the majority of US people.
Children of the boob tube.
This is a touchy subject that’s likely to end up in Great Debates anyway, so I’ll move it over there now.
bibliophage
moderator GQ
If I recall, some Democrats went to Baghdad to discuss matters with the government of Iraq. They were pretty much painted as traitors at the time.
Oh yeah, Sean Pen went to Iraq also.
Perhaps if we all hold hands and sing then all of this will go away.
How many UN resolution were passed over the last 12 years? Was it 17 or 18? I lost count. No diplomacy indeed.
what about 12 years of diplomacy?
You can harangue all you want about the technical definition of diplomacy, how much was done and homw much more can be done and who didnt do what and so on but the fact will still remain,
Saddam is internationally viewed, not just by the western christian nations but surrounding muslim nations, as a despot and tryrant of his people. It is a worldwide consensus that Saddam should get out of Iraq and only the US and Britain have the guts to make sure that he does.
I certainly agree that Saddam is a despot and tyrant and his people are oppressed. I’d be more than happy to see him gone. I just don’t believe that the course that the US has taken has been a “diplomatic” one by any means and was just curious if anyone was aware of any actual diplomatic steps that had been taken by the Bush administration to resolve the issue without war. Doesn’t seem like it’s much of a debatable issue, either they have or they haven’t.
And when I use the term “we” I mean the US in general. I definitely did not mean to imply that I am in favor of the current course of action being taken.
“Watch out now, take care/ beware of greedy leaders/who take you where you would not go.” – G. Harrison
I certainly agree that Saddam is a despot and tyrant and his people are oppressed. I’d be more than happy to see him gone. I just don’t believe that the course that the US has taken has been a “diplomatic” one by any means and was just curious if anyone was aware of any actual diplomatic steps that had been taken by the Bush administration to resolve the issue without war. Doesn’t seem like it’s much of a debatable issue, either they have or they haven’t.
And when I use the term “we” I mean the US in general. I definitely did not mean to imply that I am in favor of the current course of action being taken.
“Watch out now, take care/ beware of greedy leaders/who take you where you would not go.” – G. Harrison
X-Slayer: “It is a worldwide consensus that Saddam should get out of Iraq and only the US and Britain have the guts to make sure that he does.”
Pardon me, X, but you seem to have only part of the story. There is indeed a worldwide consensus that Iraq would be a better off with a different leader, and there is consensus around the idea of peaceful disarmament. But there is also a worldwide consensus that US and Britain have not exhausted peaceful alternatives and that any war fought in the absence of consensus will be counter-productive and arguably in violation of international law. The Chileans offered a timetable of three extra weeks; the French offered 30 or 60 days after which force would be used. Guts have absolutely nothing to do with it.
In at least some western nations, Bush is seen as more dangerous than Saddam. The world consensus is that now is not the time to remove Saddam via force.
And it is now questionable about whether Britain will have the “guts” to go forward (sure, Blair would, but his ability to make that call is now in jeopardy, short of facing a charge of war crimes within his own country).
The consensus of the world is clearly against the war. Only the US and Australia seem to have the stomach for it.
Interesting that the US has not called for a vote on the second resolution - the vote that Dubya told us he would call for regardless “of the whip count”. If there was a consensus, this would be such a non-issue.
Where is that “coalition of the willing”?
This may be a repost of Squink’s link, but I’m not a member of nytimes so I don’t know. Sorry to copy and paste articles, but, here’s all the diplomacy in the world:
Bush’s Rush To War Was Several Years In The Making(Good Chronology of UN Resolutions on Iraq)
San Antonio Express-News | March 12, 2003 | By Jonathan Gurwitz
Insanity, goes a popular saying, is doing the same thing over and over yet expecting a different result.
By that nonclinical definition, the U.N. Security Council — and anyone who believes it can, in its current form, offer a meaningful solution to the Iraqi crisis — is certifiably nuts.
The Security Council has passed 17 resolutions related to Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, to which President Bush now feels compelled to add an 18th “final opportunity” for Iraq to comply fully with its international obligations.
Here, then, is an abbreviated version of President Bush’s “rush to war,” which has, in fact, spanned 12 years, three U.S. presidents and a series of unanimous Security Council votes.
Resolution 687, April 3, 1991: “Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of all chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities … (and) all ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers.”
Resolution 707, Aug. 15, 1991: "Condemns Iraq’s serious violation of a number of its obligations … which constitutes a material breach of the relevant provisions. … Demands that Iraq provide full, final and complete disclosure.
Resolution 949, Oct. 15, 1994: “Underlining that it will consider Iraq fully responsible for the serious consequences of any failure to fulfill the demands in the present resolution … demands that Iraq cooperate fully.”
Resolution 1060, Oct. 12, 1996: “Deplores the refusal of the Iraqi authorities to allow access to sites … which constitutes a clear violation of the provisions of Security Council resolutions. Demands that Iraq cooperate fully … and that the government of Iraq allow … inspection teams immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to any and all areas, facilities, equipment, records and means of transportation which they wish to inspect.”
Resolution 1115, June 21, 1997: “Condemns the repeated refusal of the Iraqi authorities to allow access. … Demands that Iraq cooperate fully.”
Resolution 1134, Oct. 23, 1997: “Condemns the repeated refusal of the Iraqi authorities … to allow access. … Decides that such refusals to cooperate constitute a flagrant violation. … Demands that Iraq cooperate fully.”
Resolution 1154, March 2, 1998: “Stresses that compliance by the government of Iraq with its obligations … is necessary for the implementation of Resolution 687, but that any violation would have severest consequences for Iraq.”
Resolution 1194, Sept. 9, 1998: “Determined to ensure full compliance by Iraq … condemns the decision by Iraq to suspend cooperation … which constitutes a totally unacceptable contravention of its obligations. … Demands that Iraq … cooperate fully.”
Resolution 1205, Nov. 5, 1998: “Demands that Iraq … provide immediate, complete and unconditional cooperation.”
Resolution 1441, Nov. 8, 2002: “Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions. … Decides … to afford Iraq … a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations … with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687.”
From the perspective of international law, the international community remains in a state of war with the regime of Saddam Hussein. The 1991 cease-fire was premised on Iraq’s acceptance of all provisions of Resolution 687, most notably the obligation to unconditionally disarm.
Iraq’s manifest failure to do so renders operative its diplomatic antecedent — Resolution 678, which authorizes member states “to use all necessary means to uphold and implement … all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area.”
With or without an 18th resolution, the United States and its coalition of the willing are fully justified in using force against the regime of Saddam.
That Russia, China and France, whose troops are today operating in Chechnya, Tibet and the Ivory Coast respectively in promotion of narrow, national interests — and often brutally so — without any U.N. sanction, might veto the legitimate use of force against Iraq is the proverbial nail in the coffin for a United Nations that has consigned itself to irrelevancy.
The first casualty of a war with Iraq may be, mercifully, the U.N. legacy of impotence and hypocrisy. May it, if nothing else, rest in peace.
(Sorry for the double-post back there folks. Stupid browser locked up on me a couple times. Must be a very busy day on the SDMB what with everything going on today…)