Will the French and/or Russians veto?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Azazel

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

That makes six (and Mexico may well hum and ha like Chile). They need three more. Chile looks like they are out so they need all the others to make nine. If they don't get nine, they lose no matter what else happens. I wouldn't bet on them getting all three of them.

The anti war party have the advantage that an abstention is effectively a vote for them, some of the undecideds may actually choose to abstain.

[Oerdin]

I'm prodicting two vetos with China abstaining and with U.K./U.S. not reaching the nine votes any way. Bush knows he doesn't have the votes but he wants to take the vote any way so he can mark the no voters for retaliation at a later date.

The Coalition of the willing goes forward with war in any event and Saddam launches a few chemical & Biological attacks against Kuwait and Israel before quickly failing apart through mass surrenders and defections. Baghdad and Kirkuk (I think I got the name right it's Saddam's home town) are the last two to fall and there is some amount of urban fighting but nothing near Saddam's promised blood bath.

The unknowns:
1) How will Israel respond to the inevitable Iraqis chemical scud attacks?
2) How will the U.S./U.K. respond if their soldiers are hit with chemical weapons?
3) Will Al Qaeda use the invasion of Iraqi as a trigger to launch terror attacks in the west? How badly damaged has the anti-terror campaign left Al Qaeda?
4) Will the Iranians us the fall of Saddam as an oppertunity to grab land in southern Iraq? This is doubtful but possible.
5) Will Turkey's parliment vote on the promised second attempt to allow soldiers to be stationed in Turkey without a U.N. resolution? I suspect if the U.S./U.K. gets nine votes but is vetoed the vote will still pass but if it loses badly then this will be a one front war.

Did I leave anything out?

[Agathon]

Oerdin: How will there be two vetos if the vote fails? Kick me if I'm wrong but doesn't a motion have to pass before it can be vetoed? This explains why the French are being coy about using their veto. If the vote fails anyway then they can say they were never going to and score more political points.

The real question are the ones you don't ask.

6) How many human rights violations will the US have to be party to in order to prevent the Kurds, et al from declaring their own state or mounting a guerilla action against "the liberators"?

7) How do US forces prevent guerilla attacks against themselves without committing mass human rights violations like the ones Israel commits in the occupied territories?

[Buck Birdseed]

Depends if they win the diplomatic contest over the rest of the members. If they play their cards right they won't need to veto.

[SlowwHand]

In a rare act, I picked Banana.

When it gets down to nut cutting time, I think any U.N. country that continues to vote No, will end up looking even more ignorant than they have to date.

[Oerdin]

Agathon: You may be correct about the French not vetoing if the vote was going to fail any way but as a technicality a veto can occur even if the vetoing power is in the majority. If a veto power votes no then a veto has occured reguardless of how the other member states voted..

For six the question is a good one and raises valid points. I am still hopeful that we can bribe and conjol the Kurds into remaining as an autonomous part of Iraq just like we were able to bribe/cajol the Kosovar Albanians into not declaring the independence they so desperately wanted.

Seven depends on how you define a legal military action and how you define a human rights violation. I think the definitions are sufficiently fuzzy that reasonable men can engauge in legitament disagreements about what constitutes a human rights violation. Your basic point remains, however, how do we avoid getting into this problem? How do we minimize the necisity of military action against terrorists and unlawful combatants?

The key is going to be establishing a government which the Iraqi people see as legitiment. We must have a short occupation, the creation of a constitution, and a real election. This will minimize internal resistence and our main concern will then become external enemies such as Al Qaeda who will have much less simpathy amoung the people then a home grown movement.

[SlowwHand]

"The key is going to be establishing a government which the Iraqi people see as legitiment. We must have a short occupation, the creation of a constitution, and a real election. This will minimize internal resistence and our main concern will then become external enemies such as Al Qaeda who will have much less simpathy amoung the people then a home grown movement."

I agree, 100%

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Agathon: You may be correct about the French not vetoing if the vote was going to fail any way but as a technicality a veto can occur even if the vetoing power is in the majority. If a veto power votes no then a veto has occured reguardless of how the other member states voted..

Yes, I looked and you are right and I was wrong. That seems strange since a country could well want to vote against a motion but also respect the decision of the majority. I suppose abstaining is the way to do this.

For six the question is a good one and raises valid points. I am still hopeful that we can bribe and conjol the Kurds into remaining as an autonomous part of Iraq just like we were able to bribe/cajol the Kosovar Albanians into not declaring the independence they so desperately wanted.

I don't know if they can be bribed to give up their independence. They've already threatened to kill Turks if they try anything.

Seven depends on how you define a legal military action and how you define a human rights violation. I think the definitions are sufficiently fuzzy that reasonable men can engauge in legitament disagreements about what constitutes a human rights violation. Your basic point remains, however, how do we avoid getting into this problem? How do we minimize the necisity of military action against terrorists and unlawful combatants?

I'm not using a special definitions - just the notion of something that would be regarded as an atrocity by most people - like bulldozing people in their homes, etc.

The key is going to be establishing a government which the Iraqi people see as legitiment. We must have a short occupation, the creation of a constitution, and a real election. This will minimize internal resistence and our main concern will then become external enemies such as Al Qaeda who will have much less simpathy amoung the people then a home grown movement.

Iraq isn't a viable state. It kind of needs a tyrannical regime or it needs splitting up. The latter is unthinkable to the US so it looks like the former.

[Ned]

I predict only France will veto. (Assuming we get nine votes.) Powell (and indirectly Bush) made it clear that the French will suffer because of their behavior. Russia and China are not as bold or as stupid as France.

[Agathon]

The French will suffer because of their behaviour.

Dream on. The price of defying the US is usually nothing. I know this because New Zealand was threatened with all sorts of dire consequences for telling them to keep their nukes out of our country.

Guess what? Nothing happened.

[Felch]

Originally posted by Azazel
With countries like Angola and Mexico onboard I tend to disagree.

This is an important point. Although I am going along with the war on Iraq half-heartedly, I think that the fact that the Security Council has so many bribable countries on it is destablizing.

All Security Council members should be permanant, or there should be an exclusive club of greater nations (those wealthy enough to not need aid) that are eligible. Most African governments lack the expertise to run their own countries, much less have a voice in international affairs.

[Felch]

Originally posted by Agathon


Dream on. The price of defying the US is usually nothing. I know this because New Zealand was threatened with all sorts of dire consequences for telling them to keep their nukes out of our country.

Guess what? Nothing happened.

Wait til the 2023 RWC. I know America may suck now, but come twenty years we'll be able to field a XV that'll make you **** your pants.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by Felch X


This is an important point. Although I am going along with the war on Iraq half-heartedly, I think that the fact that the Security Council has so many bribable countries on it is destablizing.

All Security Council members should be permanant, or there should be an exclusive club of greater nations (those wealthy enough to not need aid) that are eligible. Most African governments lack the expertise to run their own countries, much less have a voice in international affairs.

[Shi Huangdi]

If France does veto the US resolution, it will mean a big blow to France's remaining power. THeir power is based on the UN Security Council, and if the US and UK decide to go to war without it, it will undermine the security council and help to make it worthless. France's power is based on its UNSC Veto, with the UNSC undermined so will France's power be.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
If France does veto the US resolution, it will mean a big blow to France's remaining power. THeir power is based on the UN Security Council, and if the US and UK decide to go to war without it, it will undermine the security council and help to make it worthless. France's power is based on its UNSC Veto, with the UNSC undermined so will France's power be.

Only if you believe that the US can derive absolutely no political advantage from the UN in the future. Next time they want to complain about someone else defying the UN or they want something from it hey will be rightly scorned. The US is losing a large amount of its "soft power", which was considerable, over this matter.

[Shi Huangdi]

Originally posted by Agathon


Only if you believe that the US can derive absolutely no political advantage from the UN in the future. Next time they want to complain about someone else defying the UN or they want something from it hey will be rightly scorned. The US is losing a large amount of its "soft power", which was considerable, over this matter.

The US isn't losing anything. The UNSC being weakened is to the benefit of the US- it is not in our interests to let France, Russia, or China have a veto over our foreign policy. It isn't in our interest to make sure people don't defy the UN, it has been used as a pretext before but with th UNSC getting the old Leauge of Nations treatment(that is, to be made worthless by the ignorance of it) Because the US is so far ahead of the world in real power, it helps us to delegitimize institutions which favor a multipolar world, which the UNSC does. France looks pretty big now standing up to the US, but it means nothing if they can't deliver. They are going to fail to stand up to the US and all their efforts will come to naught. France does have alot of political advantage to keeping a strong and relevant UN, so they are the ones with everything to lose in the UN proceedings.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Lancer
Well?

You are assuming that the resolution will carry without a veto. This is false.

Russia, France, the PRC, Germany, and Syria will vote against. Both Mexico and Chile will vote against in all likelihood. That's six against. Pakistan is likely to vote against, that's seven.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Azazel
With countries like Angola and Mexico onboard I tend to disagree.

The US can't even bribe Turkey, which seems to be a priority.

[Caesar the Great]

am i the only one who thinks they won't veto???

france and russia want to feel important - after all france was a world power for decades, so was russia; they don't want to admit they've lost status. but they don't have any good reasons for not going to war.

they might vote against it or abstain, but i doubt they will veto it

[Urban Ranger]

Yes they have very good reasons of not wanting a war: vested businesses interests.

[Menlas]

Originally posted by Caesar the Great
they might vote against it or abstain, but i doubt they will veto it

As it was previously said, if a member of the Security Council votes no, then it is automatically a veto. They can't choose the "no but without veto" way.

That's why i think France will veto (voting no or abstain seems impossible now), and probably Russia too.

[Shi Huangdi]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


The US can't even bribe Turkey, which seems to be a priority.

There may be another vote on it now that Erdogan has become PM.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Menlas
As it was previously said, if a member of the Security Council votes no, then it is automatically a veto. They can't choose the "no but without veto" way.

Are you sure? IIRC, "no" and "Hell No" are two different options for them.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
There may be another vote on it now that Erdogan has become PM.

They might, but if Rufus is correct, the only supporters for the AP party are the commoners, and they are dead set against letting the US use Turkey to invade Iraq.

[GePap]

The notion that the US is better of with a weak Un is nonsense: the only reason anyone outside of the Us (even Tony) is able to back this war is because Saddam has done so much against the UN. Withoutt he trope about , "he must disarm and fulfill his promises to the international community" the coolition of the willing would number 1. Also, as the US moves to confront NK, it will need the security council. May I also add that the NPT, the only thing that makes it techinically illegal for states like NK to make nukes (and hence, the name rogue...), exists basically only under the whole UN system. So no, the Us would not be better of with a weak UN. The US is not omnipotent: hell, it has taken us 4 months to get ready to attack Iraq, something we can only do because we have basing rights with neighbors, and we are using half our regular army. Anyone here think the US could, if it wanted, get involved in a Indo-pakistani war, for example? anyone..even if we really really wanted? Or keep order in Indonesia if it melted down?

As for the resolution: I have had a minor conversion on it. As of now, i hope it passes, and this is why:

The war on iraq is a mistake in my eyes. The long term (10-20 years) consequences on overall US security and the stability of the world order will, in my view, be predominantly negative; the bad consequences of this war will most likely outweight the positive ones.

At the same time, it was obvious to me since december, and shouldbe more than opbvious to everyone today, that this wrong is inevitable, with a probability apporching 1.

Whichleads someone that opposes it with difficult questions: ow should you react. You could, for example, fight to the bitter end, making sure that the perpetrators will suffer as much as you can make them suffer while keepong your "dignity". Or you could hope and hope that the probability approches, but does not equal, 1, in which case it could still be averted. OR, knowing that the coming mistake is inevitable, you can try to see to it that the damage it will cause to the world is minimized, as far as possible.

Now, you might say that by "giving in", you only legitimize the action: perhaps, but given the circumstances, that this mistake is inevitable, should we not do what we can, that is, try to limit the damage? If the coming resolution fails, everyone will take a diplomatic hit, though how bad depends on how it loses. If it passes, only those that opposed war will suffer the hit, but they will also limit the dangers to all, and that, I think, is the best that we, the anti-war party, can do: seek to limit the hand of the chickenhawks, wrap them in the UN system, and thus limit their excesses.

So, I hope in the end France and Russia do not veto (the chinese will most likely abstain), if only to make the damage less.

[Kramerman]

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.

, if i ever told my friends I drank a blowjob...

[Kramerman]

anyway... back on topic. I dont know who will veto, i couldnt even make a guess, so many possibilities. I only hope the UN passes the resolution, if they dont... oh well, we'll have to go in anyway, but it would only make the US look even worse

[Agathon]

Am I the only one who thinks that the US is much less powerful in a unipolar world than with the UN? The power that the US has is severely overstated. Sure it has a huge military and a large economy, but it is hobbled by the fact that it's a democracy and that it, like other nations, has to rely on diplomacy and trade to get what it wants. As in all walks of life, acting like a s***head tends to make things harder. Moreover, given the type of market economy and open trade that marks the world system, vast wars are an economic disaster for all participants including the largest.

Moreover, it isn't in a position to compete with a Sino-Russian-European military bloc, quite simply because such a large scale war is not politically feasible except in the dreams of right wing nut cases.

The US also needs NATO far more than the Europeans do. They don't need protecting from anyone anymore, but the US needs Europe as a strategic bridgehead into Eurasia, just like they need South Korea. If the US keeps behaving as it has done, European countries will simply elect governments that will force US military units to leave. The recent election in Germany has shown how powerful anti-American sentiment is and no doubt desperate politicians will indulge it to get elected.

So just what is the US going to do to the French? Withdraw their troops from Europe? Stop buying French wine? Stop opening McDonalds in France?

[Lord Merciless]

Europeans need protections from themselves. It's pretty easy to incite them and get them on each other's throat. Those tribes over there will never learn.

[Urban Ranger]

What a racket!