Why would a country NOT veto?

[HarryKeogh]

since the security council members know the US is going to attack Iraq anyway why would they change their mind and decide not to veto? saddam gets removed from power and they don't have to provide troops, arms and money. Plus, they probably wouldn't be as prone to a terrorist reprisal. I guess i'm directing this towards those UN members who are not quite decided. I'm sure that i am oversimplifying but is it possible i'm a little bit right?

[subgenius]

There's a lot to what you are saying.
It's very much like controversial legislation, that a lawmaker doesn't want to go on record as voting for, if they know its going to pass anyway, and vice versa. Abstention is used in much the same way.
Being absent for a vote can also be misleading. McCain was criticized for missing a vote on an important matter to be on Saturday Night Live, but he knew the bill was going his way regardless.
The Bush Administration blew it in not being able to maneuver the situation to get the votes on the record. Ham fisted politics.
Good post Harry.

[Walter Wayne]

There are several reasons not to veto.

I think one is that many seem to believe it is better for the UN to narrowly approve of a war than it is for it to reject or veto the war and have the war occur anyways.

[Richard G]

Because we are going to take a giant **** on the ones that are against us. [read: no troops, foreign aid, trade]

[DanishDynamite]

Richard G:Because we are going to take a giant **** on the ones that are against us. [read: no troops, foreign aid, trade]:D Which of the permanent members of the Security Council do you think would be influenced by "no troops, no foreign aid, no trade"?

[Nasarius]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Richard G::D Which of the permanent members of the Security Council do you think would be influenced by "no troops, no foreign aid, no trade"?

Troops and foreign aid are clearly irrelevant, and cutting off trade is...sort of impossible, no? Unless Bush wants to mess around with tariffs, thus pissing off many US corporations and further screwing up the economy.

[Beausoleil]

They would not veto because there is no logical force to their arguments.

Saddam is cooperating slightly because the US and UK are sitting on his border ready to invade. The closer we get to war, the more he cooperates. When we didn't have these forces on his border, there were no inspections at all.

So waiting longer for inspectors to do their work relies on the US and UK keeping their armed forces ready on his border. The US and the UK are not going to do this - it's either force compliance by the end of March or leave him to his weapons of mass destruction. More time is not an option.

If France, Germany and Russia want inspections to continue as at present over the summer, they need to offer to foot the bill for the threat of force, since this is necessary to make the inspections continue to happen.

[belinda]

Originally posted by Richard G
Because we are going to take a giant **** on the ones that are against us. [read: no troops, foreign aid, trade]
This is just the sort of attitude that is leading to the rampant "anti-americanism" that you see in most of the world lately. "If you are not with us, you are against us" What sort of attitude is that to improve internation relations?

[DanishDynamite]

belinda:This is just the sort of attitude that is leading to the rampant "anti-americanism" that you see in most of the world lately. "If you are not with us, you are against us" What sort of attitude is that to improve internation relations? People like Richard G don't know and don't care about international relations, except if it involves guns and blowing stuff up.

[NullPointerException]

Any trade sanctions against the United States would be pointless because many of our corporations and such are foriegn owned or conduct huge business in foriegn countries. It would so cripple the already suffering global economy that no bleeding heart liberal or pandering moderate would be left alive that voted for such an amendment/resolution.

[Crossbow]

In many ways, what one is seeing is high-stakes poker.

Just about every side is outlining extreme positions, however when you get right down to it, everyone wants to be on the winning side.

So, in my opinion, the US actions will get a fair degree of approval (if not from the UNSC, then some other fashion) just because it is in the best interests of most nations not to be viewed as an opposer of the US.

In short, when the 800 pound gorilla acts, the weaker gorillas tend to follow along.

[Q-Source]

The President of Mexico said that our country won't support any military action against Iraq. Yes ! :p
He already talked to Bush about it.

There are many risks involved, considering that Mexico depends on the USA economy and Foreign Direct Investment. Probably, there will be some kind of economic and political sanctions, but the Mexican foreign policy has always favoured negociation before violence.


Q-S

[Brooklyn Dodger]

One reason to support the vote is to stay on the good side of the US. That might not be important to France, Germany, or Russia, but we will see.

Another reason is that a specific date is set for Saddam Hussein to comply with disarmament. March 17. That may or not be a vital thing in the end, however, it means that if the measure is adopted the US and Britain will not strike before then.

Should the measure be voted down, there is every reason for the US and UK to strike at once. The very night of the vote in fact. That will ensure as much tactical surprise as possible under the circumstances, though let's face it, everyone knows they are coming eventually. Would anyone figure them to be coming in on the 14th, say, rather than the 17th?

In any case this is one reason to vote for the measure.