Will the French and/or Russians veto?

Lancer · March 9, 2003, 17:00

Well?

Nubclear · March 9, 2003, 17:03

Your missing one important country on there.....

General Ludd · March 9, 2003, 17:05

Banana.

Who can predict what polticians do? I certainly can't.

chequita guevara · March 9, 2003, 17:05

France, Russia, and the Chinese.

Az · March 9, 2003, 17:15

Putin has said that Russia won't veto.

Ted Striker · March 9, 2003, 17:17

Ya, I think Putin will abstain considering we've given him the green light to take the leash off the dogs in Chechnya.

Lancer · March 9, 2003, 17:18

Yeh, that's right, China. Oh well, lets go ahead with the poll as it is.

Ted Striker · March 9, 2003, 17:19

France may veto but who are they to talk considering they are running a War for Chocolate right now.

Oh the humanity!

GePap · March 9, 2003, 17:20

When exactly did Putin say that? He already has all the go ahead he needs from the admin. to go after the Chechens, even if he veto's the resoltuion. hearing Ivanon speak on friday, I think three vetos are possible.

Paul Hanson · March 9, 2003, 17:33

I have a feeling that, when push comes to shove, France won't veto. I should imagine that Chirac has people close to him telling him that it'd be a bad idea, and he'd be smart to listen to them.

DanS · March 9, 2003, 17:40

It wouldn't be in France's or Russia's interests to veto, that's why they've been pushing so hard to make sure the US doesn't have the 9 votes. If the US has nine votes, then France's position is totally hosed whether they veto or not.

I doubt the Chinese care enough to veto.

Ted Striker · March 9, 2003, 17:42

Paul Hanson's quote is making me sick to my stomach.

No offense Starchild.

Paul Hanson · March 9, 2003, 17:43

I think it's actually a reference to a type of drink, IIRC.

And I've been considering changing it.

Ted Striker · March 9, 2003, 17:45

Oh, I didn't know it was a drink.

No problem, it's your quote so your freedom to do what you want. (But you already knew that.)

Starchild · March 9, 2003, 17:48

It's only your inherent oversexed nature that makes you automatically assume the word "blowjob" refers to human male semen and not to a drink consisting of baileys, creme de cacao and whatever crap the barteder throws in when I drunkingly order five at a time.

Az · March 9, 2003, 17:49

He sure showed up fast, didn't he?

Starchild · March 9, 2003, 17:51

I am the One-in-All and the All-in-One. I am everywhere and nowhere. The Guardian and the Gate guarded.

oh wait, that's Yug-Suggoth. Silly me. I just keep my eyes out for my name.

Agathon · March 9, 2003, 17:56

I'll predict the French will veto. My reason for this is that the press has continually harped on about how this is just a French strategy to gain leverage and how they will back off soon (various pieces of evidence have been cited for this, including the deployment of the De Gaulle to the Middle East).

So far though, the French have not only continued to play hard, they have played harder and harder in spite of the predicitions.

Anyway, the French stand to gain a great diplomatic advantaged if the US goes to war without UN sanction - it means that the US will have difficulty in coming to the UN for things it wants and it won't be able to criticise other states for being in violation of international consensus.

In essence the French have managed to divert most of the "soft power" the US exercised internationally to themselves as the defender of democratic multilateralism. Cynical it may be, but it's working....

Az · March 9, 2003, 17:56

Ted Striker · March 9, 2003, 17:58

Quote:

Originally posted by Starchild
It's only your inherent oversexed nature that makes you automatically assume the word "blowjob" refers to human male semen and not to a drink consisting of baileys, creme de cacao and whatever crap the barteder throws in when I drunkingly order five at a time.

Jaguar · March 9, 2003, 18:04

France won't veto. Two situations are possible:

1. The US manages to get 9 votes, and the number of votes against is between 3 and 6. (Russia, Pakistan, and China all might abstain, or might vote against. Germany, France, and Syria will definitely vote against.) In this case, France has 5 or less allies, and the US has 8. I don't see them using their veto.

2. The US gets less than 9 votes. In this case, the veto isn't necessary.

Agathon · March 9, 2003, 18:09

I don't know about that, Jag. Public opinion outside the US and Israel is massively anti war and any country other than the US that votes for the resolution will be doing so in spite of the wishes of its citizens. The French could point out that they exercised their veto on behalf of the citizens of those countries whose governments had been bribed or threatened by the US.

I don't think they'll get the nine votes. The anti war party only needs two, the pro war party needs five.

Jaguar · March 9, 2003, 18:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Agathon
I don't know about that, Jag. Public opinion outside the US and Israel is massively anti war and any country other than the US that votes for the resolution will be doing so in spite of the wishes of its citizens. The French could point out that they exercised their veto on behalf of the citizens of those countries whose governments had been bribed or threatened by the US.

I don't think they'll get the nine votes. The anti war party only needs two, the pro war party needs five.

The pro-war party has more

.

Jaguar · March 9, 2003, 18:32

IMO: If it comes to a vote on war, US will get either 8 votes, or 9. It will get its own vote, plus UK, Bulgaria, Guinea, Spain, Chile, Angola, and Cameroon. It has to get Mexico (40% chance of happening) and/or Pakistan (maybe 20% chance.) So the odds of UN support for war are about 50-50. (without vetos taken into account)

raghar · March 9, 2003, 18:33

Reason for China... If US could win UN sec council support they could attack NK next. > Problems south of China > veto.
It could be 7 against so no need for veto.

Strange, US is using more blackmail than money. Why?

Agathon · March 9, 2003, 18:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar Warrior

The pro-war party has more

.

That may not work.

GePap · March 9, 2003, 18:40

The only way this resolution passes is if the chorus of US threats agaisnt anyne who "dares" vote against it is lound enough ot make this a war of the intimidated: the President recently sated that there might be a popular anti-mexican backlash in the US is mexico did not vote as the white house wants them to.

Iam not so sure the US will get the Africans and Chile to vote for, and not abstain. Another posibility is more yes votes then no, but the abstains make it so there is no majority.

Az · March 9, 2003, 18:54

Quote:

That may not work.

With countries like Angola and Mexico onboard I tend to disagree.

GePap · March 9, 2003, 19:02

The vote could go like the Turkey vote..which most people tought was in the bag...

But I have to agree with azazel on this: the US will threaten the small states enough to get them to vote for, the Chinese might veto, but are more likely to abstain , which leaves the French and Russians, and if it looks like the US gets all 9 votes, the Russians might just abstain, and the French be left alone...

All this even if the March 17 ultimatum is really a joke, simply a nice deadline for us to know when the war wil start.

Which is still 12 weeks later than what I had predicted...

Az · March 9, 2003, 19:06

actually, I don't think they'll simply threaten. the best system is stick AND carrot.

Can one vote against but not enforce a veto?