What if the US loses the UN vote?

[Urban Ranger]

First of all, Hans Blix has just said that weapons inspection will need more time. This bolsters the case for France, Russia and the PRC and weakens that of the US. Secondly, the US still has not been able to produce any convincing evidence that Iraq should be attacked.

If you look at the real motives (oil, power, water, etc.) it is even less likely for the other side to budge.

[Comrade Tribune]

Re: Re: Re: What if the US loses the UN vote?

Originally posted by Spiffor
Had Bush's diplomacy not been so brash and humiliating for its vassals allies, the war would have started already, with UN approval.

You are not really wrong here.

However, why not look 3 turns ahead, instead of 2, for a change? Bush´s diplomacy may be a blessing in disguise.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by DuncanK
I think Bush would actually rather see Chirac veto.

No.

Even one veto would dramatically boost anti-war public opinion; and there is a chance there will be three vetos.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by DanS
A veto in the UN would delight almost every Frenchman

It would ultimately harm France's interests, however.

It would not.

France´s interest is to lead a de-atlanticised Europe.

Be a little imaginative. Just possibly Chirac is.

[Capt Dizle]

Chirac is welcome to it. Next time France gets in a war it can't win maybe ole Saddam will bail them out.

[Spiffor]

Re: Re: Re: Re: What if the US loses the UN vote?

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
However, why not look 3 turns ahead, instead of 2, for a change? Bush´s diplomacy may be a blessing in disguise.

That may be true. Unfortunately, Chirac's and Schröder's clumsiness completely botched it. European countries reaffirmed their vassalization to the US, despite the outstanding opposition in their public opinions.
Chirac and Schröder have acted too early to really build a Common Foreign and Security Policy, whose backbone would have been the opposition to the US.
We'll have to wait several years for such an occasion to oppose US so vehemently can appear.

(erm, scratch that ; with Bush, we'll have to wait several weeks )

[optimus2861]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
Even one veto would dramatically boost anti-war public opinion; and there is a chance there will be three vetos.

I think China would be most likely to actually use its veto, of the three, though even then it's not a sure thing. Russia will likely be bought off; Putin would like to continue portraying Chechnya as part of the "War on Terror", and Russia still needs economic aid that isn't worth jeopardizing over Iraq.

Some members of France's National Assembly have spoken out that it's not worth France vetoing a USA resolution, and worsening their relations even more, for the sake of Saddam Hussein. Chirac can bluster all he wants, but even he has to see that a French veto won't stop the USA, and in fact stands a good chance of sending the USA out the UN's door. Fat lot of good France's veto would do then. I'd expect them to abstain if they ultimately can't be brought on board.

China, however -- they don't really stand to gain or lose much from an Iraq war, and they'd rather see Washington dealing with North Korea anyway. I'm not sure which way they'll go, though again I think they'd probably abstain rather than veto.

[DanS]

Had Bush's diplomacy not been so brash and humiliating for its vassals allies, the war would have started already, with UN approval.

Please remember that Clinton went down this path before in '98. He backed off because our allies didn't want a war and UN approval wasn't in the offing. Instead Clinton bombed Iraq.

Bush knew that there was a lot of inertia on the issue. Given this, he used the correct tactics and tone.

[Japher]

First of all, Hans Blix has just said that weapons inspection will need more time. This bolsters the case for France, Russia and the PRC and weakens that of the US. Secondly, the US still has not been able to produce any convincing evidence that Iraq should be attacked.

First:
Hans Blix needs more time because Iraq is not cooperating. A contingency that was set, and we therefore need no more time.

Second:
You really are blind aren't you? How do you read the screen?

If you look at the real motives (oil, power, water, etc.) it is even less likely for the other side to budge.

Water? Do they have a lot of water in Iraq? In that case why wait any longer!

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Japher

Water? Do they have a lot of water in Iraq? In that case why wait any longer!

I think its a reference to the Tigris and Euphrates, both major water supplies for the otherwise arid region.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Japher
First:
Hans Blix needs more time because Iraq is not cooperating. A contingency that was set, and we therefore need no more time.

Hans Blix explicitly said that even with Iraq in full cooperation, they can't go through everything in so short a time.

Originally posted by Japher
Second:
You really are blind aren't you? How do you read the screen?

Is that why Mexico and Chile have called for more time for weapons inspections after the latest SC meeting, that they are blind?

Present the evidence and let other decide. Where is it? Hmm? Powell didn't show any. W. has kept saying the same thing over and over again.

[chequita guevara]

It's clear Iraq isn't in compliance. Then again, neither is the US, so where does that leave us? The resolution called for all countries to supply the inspectors with any information they had that would help them do their job, and the US didn't. I guess we have to be bombed and invaded also.

[Urban Ranger]

Of course Iraq is not in compliance, that's not the issue. The issue is how to deal with it. The W. admin is very trigger happy about it, although the front line soldiers are hoping that they don't have to fight. Other countries, France, Russia, the PRC, Mexico, and Chile at least, think that war is not necessary.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Hans Blix explicitly said that even with Iraq in full cooperation, they can't go through everything in so short a time.

If Saddam was in such full complience then why did Blix give him a C during his first ass kiss of a paper and a C- in his second ass kiss of a paper? The reason is everyone knows Saddam isn't cooperating but blix wants to pander to the appeasing French, Arab, & German governments. If he fails Saddam then he knows the game is over and he is out of a job. Plus he wants to give Saddam every chance (read twenty more chances on top fo the twenty he's already recieved) to change his mind and come clean.

The sane people say enough is enough and the lies must end. It is time to say good bye to Saddam and his lies and the money he gives to Palestinian terrorists to commit suicide bombings.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Of course Iraq is not in compliance, that's not the issue. The issue is how to deal with it.

Even an appeaser like urban ranger admits to the basic facts of the issue. That Saddam is not in compliance. The U.N. promised "severe consequences" if Saddam didn't comply, now, what will it do? It must act or it will be proved to be an incompetent organization which is incapable of matching deeds with words. The League of Nations couldn't stop Italy from ignoring it when it invaded Ethiopia or Albania or Greece, it couldn't stop Japan from ignoring it when it invaded China or Indo-China, it couldn't stop Germany from rearming or invading 90% of Europe or commitng genicide, and now the U.N. seemingly can't force Saddam to give up his chemical & biological weapons, nor his nuclear ambitions.

Somebody must stop Saddam while there is still time or we will see a wider blood bath in the future.