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.

[Dinner]

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.

[Dinner]

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.