Will the French and/or Russians veto?

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Yes they have very good reasons of not wanting a war: vested businesses interests.

UR I am proud of you. You finally got it! Not to prevent bloodshed or in a belief that Saddam will disarm, but simply over their business interests.

[Andrew1999]

Originally posted by Agathon


Sorry.

BTW were you typing one-fingered or are you just a stickler for style? After all it's not a long post?

1. Click Reply.
2. Type a few lines.
3. Look for source, since every post has to have a bibliography now.
4. Look for more sources.
5. Look at some other links.
6. Send an email.
7. Write another line in reply.
8. Hit submit.
9. Notice that somebody else posted the same thing while I was playing around.

[Agathon]

[Shi Huangdi]

"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."

Not really. People who oppose Saddam do so because he is a dangerous man who won't disarm and because he is a foul dictator with a nasty human rights record. If Blair's reason for going after Saddam was his failure to comply with the UN he wouldn't be ready to go to war without UN support.

""he must disarm and fulfill his promises to the international community""

The latter part of that is pretext.

"Also, as the US moves to confront NK, it will need the security council. "

No, it won't. Cooperation from China, Japan, SK would all be very valubale, but we don't need French approbal. We will work with other nations to act on this issue.

"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."

Alot of good it has done at stopping states such as NK and Iran from getting Nukes.

"The US is not omnipotent: "

No it's not. I don't mean to suggest we will always be able to act alone, though we should be able to under certain circumstanaces. But the UNSC is a bad framework for international cooperation because certain countries who have vetoes on it such as China are have interests very different from the US. The US is by the far the greatest power in the world and it would be a horrible precedent if third world dictators start to get the idea that we can't hurt them unless Paris, Moscow, and Beijing go along.

"Anyone here think the US could, if it wanted, get involved in a Indo-pakistani war, for example? "

Of course. US intervention on either side would grant that side naval and air superiority.


"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. "

I disagree. Right now the region in which it is most important to have the most influence in is the middle east. Installing a friendly government in Iraq will greatly increase our power projection ability in the Mideast, especially given Iraq's central location; if the US occupies Iraq we will have forces bordering some of the countries we are most concerned about right now. We will also be able to withdraw from Saudi Arabia and move our forces into Iraq, thus taking away one of OBL's greatest recruitment mechanisms.

"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."

Europe opposes military action against Iraq, that doesn't mean they are about to sign a military alliance with Russia and China. China is content to focus its influence on Asia, and Russia couldn't even stop military action against one of it's closest allies(Serbia)

"The recent election in Germany has shown how powerful anti-American sentiment is and no doubt desperate politicians will indulge it to get elected. "

Even the likes of Schroeder can't really be called anti-American. Germany is still assisting us in Afghanistan. Moreover, anti-Americanism in Europe comes in waves: during Reagan it was especially strong, during Clinton it died down again. Europe is not going to permanetly break with the US, and it most certainly is not going to try actively oppose the USA.

"He'll be eaten alive by:

a) The British public
b) His party
c) The press

if he does. Not that I'm saying he won't do it, but he'll have hell to pay if he does."

Parliamentry elections aren't until 2006. By then the war will have been won and Blair's ratings may actually have been increased, and Iraq won't be a big issue anymore.

[Agathon]

All I meant is that if the US becomes too aggressive the others will be compelled to ban together to check it.

[Arrian]

They can hold a vote of no-confidence, Shi. They don't have to wait for elections.

-Arrian

[Shi Huangdi]

Originally posted by Arrian
They can hold a vote of no-confidence, Shi. They don't have to wait for elections.

-Arrian

Given the size of Labour's huge majority and the strong chance that the Tories might vote for the government, Blair should stay on.

"All I meant is that if the US becomes too aggressive the others will be compelled to ban together to check it."

Maybe if we invaded Canada again or something that would happen. But the Euros aren't going to go running to Russo/Chinese arms over Saddam.

[Agathon]

Yes but I get the feeling that the Saddam business is just the start of an extreme unilateralist policy which IMHO would be a disaster.

Anyway, Blair will learn that he is not solely responsible for Labour's popularity, they would still win without him. However, he himself is deeply unpopular both in his party and in the nation at large due to his pro-war-at-all-costs stance. His own caucus can dump him and are making noises that they might. Apparently, Clare Short's attitude is that of several other cabinet ministers and Blair was so scared of the consequences this morning that he didn't sack her.

[Lancer]

Shi, great couple of posts. I wasn't aware that Blair didn't face election until '06. That's good news.

What would you consider the likelyhood of a no confidence vote, and when?

[Agathon]

Actually, if you're interested in why the French seem to be behaving so strangely take a look at this.

http://lincolnplawg.blogspot.com/

[Velociryx]

I don't think the French will veto, because if they do, then they'll not be allowed to participate in the war, which means they'll be totally shut out of any and all the restructuring (those who have supported the US position from the start will have a louder voice, and reap more benefits).

Given that France stands to lose all the rich oil contracts, the definitely do NOT want to get shut out of the process entire.

-=Vel=-

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Velociryx
I don't think the French will veto, because if they do, then they'll not be allowed to participate in the war, which means they'll be totally shut out of any and all the restructuring (those who have supported the US position from the start will have a louder voice, and reap more benefits).

Given that France stands to lose all the rich oil contracts, the definitely do NOT want to get shut out of the process entire.

-=Vel=-

If you read the blog I linked to Vel, it contains reasons that make your picture less compelling.

[The Vagabond]

Both France and Russia will veto. This is becoming more clear now.

If they've got at least some remnants of self-respect, they should veto.

[Velociryx]

Just read it....may be on the money.....maybe not.....who wants to take the gamble that the gun's not loaded tho?

-=Vel=-

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Agathon
Anyway, Blair will learn that he is not solely responsible for Labour's popularity, they would still win without him. However, he himself is deeply unpopular both in his party and in the nation at large due to his pro-war-at-all-costs stance.

The essence of his stance is not pro-war-at-all-costs. It is rather pro-US-at-all-costs. He is deeply convinced that that's in the ultimate national interest of Britain. And he might well be right.