Will the next UN resolution get 9 votes?
So we don't know exactly what the upcoming UN resolution proposal will look like. But we might as well try to keep things nice and tidy in here and make this a more pragmatic thread, an aspiration which will quickly dissolve, I'm sure.
Anyway, I think I know the answer to this, but I'm curious about why this upcoming resolution will succeed or fail in getting 9 votes from the Security Council, and whether it will be vetoed by either Russia or France. I'm looking for reasons in a strict sense, no one on soapboxes since we have enough of those. How do you think the vote will go considering the politics and tactical decisions that countries like Mexico and the African members of the Council will have to make? I guess we have to consider what you think the final form of the resolution will be too.
I think we will get 9 (reluctant) votes for the resolution that includes a deadline for using force, and a veto by France while Russia might "announce" their veto too, just to further bury the thing. I think if we fall short on votes in the first place, Mexico will vote against as a political thumbing to Bush and his comments the other day that sounded like mild threats. I think the wildcard African nation votes go for the US to try to ensure or encourage more aid.
Anyway, I think I know the answer to this, but I'm curious about why this upcoming resolution will succeed or fail in getting 9 votes from the Security Council, and whether it will be vetoed by either Russia or France. I'm looking for reasons in a strict sense, no one on soapboxes since we have enough of those. How do you think the vote will go considering the politics and tactical decisions that countries like Mexico and the African members of the Council will have to make? I guess we have to consider what you think the final form of the resolution will be too.
I think we will get 9 (reluctant) votes for the resolution that includes a deadline for using force, and a veto by France while Russia might "announce" their veto too, just to further bury the thing. I think if we fall short on votes in the first place, Mexico will vote against as a political thumbing to Bush and his comments the other day that sounded like mild threats. I think the wildcard African nation votes go for the US to try to ensure or encourage more aid.
Comments
I think, based on the current tone of the news and available information, that it will get the nine votes. I think it has a good possibility of being vetoed by France.
I would bet on these scenarios, in order:
1) Nine votes obtained, vetoed by France..possibly Russia. We go to war within a week.
2) Last minute compromise in wording so France can say the resolution doesn't trigger automatic force. The resolution passes, with Russia and China abstaining. We go to war shortly after March 17th.
3) The resolution fails. We go to war anyway.
Either way, it is not unilateral. Not by a long shot. If anything other than #2 happens, the UN stands in danger of becoming irrelavent.
[ 03-09-2003: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>
<strong>Resolution will fail, US will go to war alone. But then again, we've known this for months already, so it comes as no surprise.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'd like to add, and maybe 15% of the parliamentary Labour party will resign, and a fairly huge amount of civil disturbance will occur in the UK.
<strong>
I'd like to add, and maybe 15% of the parliamentary Labour party will resign, and a fairly huge amount of civil disturbance will occur in the UK.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why would that happen? Are the so in love with Saddam that they would take to the streets? I really don't understand why people want to keep Saddam in power. France will blow up the UN to save what? An anti-Semitic dictator that openly supports terrorism. History repeats?
<strong>Are the so in love with Saddam that they would take to the streets? </strong><hr></blockquote>
Who's in love with Saddam?
[quote]Originally posted by Scott:
<strong>I really don't understand why people want to keep Saddam in power. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Who wants Saddam to remain in power?
Oh yeah, no one. Scott just likes to make crap up when he has no argument.
The US won't go it alone, unless Spain, Britain, Bulgaria, Australia, along with most of Eastern Europe, African nations, Middle Eastern and some Pacific rim nations don't count. Out of those, Australia and Britain are also supplying troops. Now, if you want to say that no other nation's majority population supports the war, you would be more accurate, but then again, the same could be said of the US population.
Anyway, none of ths is the point of the thread, which, of the various scenarios, SDW laid out the most likely, do you think will happen and why? How will the resolution fail? Will it be 4-11 in the Security Council? 8-7? 9-6 with a veto? 9-4 with abstentions from China and Russia and a veto from France?
Let the war begin!
That's what like 50 MPs roughly? Wanna make an over/under and a bet?
Anyway we all know:
US Yes
UK Yes
Spain Yes
Bulgaria Yes
Germany No
Syria No
China Abstain
China won't say Yes and there is an outside chance they could veto if France and/or Russia were going to veto anyway but it doesn't really matter in that case. In the scenario in which neither France nor Russia vetoes which is the only one that could result in passage then the Chinese definitely will not veto on their own and will abstain.
That leaves:
Guinea
Cameroon
Angola
Chile
Mexico
Pakistan
Guinea will be in, they won't want their aid bitchslapped ala Yemen 91. Mexico, I was originally of a mind that they would abstain because of other reasons. But the more I think about, I just can't see them as anything but a yes. The US just has way too many ways to leverage them. Chile, Cameroon and Angola, if Bush can't bribe them adequately to Yes he should be shot for ineptness.
Pakistan might abstain if we were to get to nine anyway. And voting yes will be a problem for htem. But they're knee deep in it anyway, Musharraf has already aligned himself with us on other issues. I think Pakistan will come up with a somewhat surprising yes. Although if they other five fall into place that is nine anyway so they may abstain if we know that we would ahve the nine in the first place as ten makes not too much difference.
Russia, hard to say. I thought they would abstain but they are the toughest one to read. They could veto. Not sure there.
France will obviously veto if Russia vetoes. If not then we'll see. They are playing it out like they are going to veto but I think it is a bluff. I think if the Russians are going to abstain then they will be in a tough spot and I don't think they will veto, I think they will abstain. But maybe Chirac wants to take it to another level.
My Prediction: 10-2 with 3 abstentions. Bush has to at least bring the nine home. If the Russians can't be brought on board or the French want to go balls out then that is one thing. But he needs at least some sort of political gain for Blair, Anzar, Howard, Berlesconi (sp?), E. Europe etc. If he doesn't get the nine he needs to be gangraped by rabid syphilitic gophers.
<strong>
Let the war begin!
Groverat,
Wasn't it you who were saying that 'no one wants war'?
<strong>
Who wants Saddam to remain in power?
Oh yeah, no one. Scott just likes to make crap up when he has no argument.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The actions of Paris et al only server to keep Saddam in power.
It's funny you accuse me of making stuff up when the post I replied to predicts massive civil action in the UK. Talk about making stuff up.
<strong>
The actions of Paris et al only server to keep Saddam in power.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's a lie and you know it.
<strong>
That's a lie and you know it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Granted it's an opinion but it's not a lie. But we now know that France has been selling spare parts to Iraq for its war planes. You really have to ask who's side they are on? I do think the actions of France et al act to take the pressure off Saddam and in the end preserve his dictatorship.
I no longer believe that France is acting in the interest of peace or global security or the Iraqi people. The only two reasons I can see are to assert them selves as a global power equal to the US (they are not) OR preserve a good business partner.
[ 03-09-2003: Message edited by: Scott ]</p>
<strong>
Granted it's an opinion but it's not a lie. But we now know that France has been selling spare parts to Iraq for its war planes. You really have to ask who's side they are on? </strong><hr></blockquote>
OK, opinion. Good enough for me.
As for France selling spare parts, it's a French company. I think if we really look into problems like this, we'll find that U.S. companies are just as deeply tied into the problem. Granted, maybe they weren't doing it in January of this year....
Either way, it's unfair to claim that 'the French' are selling parts when it's actually a French company. If the French government were found to be doing it, then there would obviously be a conflict of interest.
I have to admit that I can't articulate the French position. I'm thinking because they don't have one. Other than opposing force at this time. Why I don't know. France uses force when it suits them. Why doesn't this suit them? Anti-US or pro-Saddam. I don't know.
<strong>Thanks for the thread. I was considering one like this myself.
I think, based on the current tone of the news and available information, that it will get the nine votes. I think it has a good possibility of being vetoed by France.
I would bet on these scenarios, in order:
1) Nine votes obtained, vetoed by France..possibly Russia. We go to war within a week.
2) Last minute compromise in wording so France can say the resolution doesn't trigger automatic force. The resolution passes, with Russia and China abstaining. We go to war shortly after March 17th.
3) The resolution fails. We go to war anyway.
Either way, it is not unilateral. Not by a long shot. If anything other than #2 happens, the UN stands in danger of becoming irrelavent.
[ 03-09-2003: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
I could not say it better myself. I 2nd this view.
As a side note, If <a href="http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/news/news/page.cfm?objectid=12715943&method=full&siteid=1066 94" target="_blank">This</a> is true then the world has more reason to liberate the Iraqi people from Saddam's grip. He should not send such un-prepared people in a defensive role in the context of war. That is just plain sad.
Fellowship
[ 03-09-2003: Message edited by: FellowshipChurch iBook ]</p>
<strong>Originally posted by stunned:
Let the war begin!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Groverat,
Wasn't it you who were saying that 'no one wants war'?</strong><hr></blockquote>
He's being facetious.
<strong>
I could not say it better myself. I 2nd this view.
As a side note, If <a href="http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/news/news/page.cfm?objectid=12715943&method=full&siteid=1066 94" target="_blank">This</a> is true then the world has more reason to liberate the Iraqi people from Saddam's grip. </strong><hr></blockquote>
God I hope that's not true. Sending those men back would be inhuman. I hope they got some water and MREs before they left.
BTW like anyone, here i think that they will be a war.