svero
9th March 2003, 11:03 AM
So what do you all think of this 2nd resolution? Will it pass? If it doesn't pass what will happen? If the US and UK attack without it how will the US, Tony B, and the UN be affected? And also, I'm particularly interested in what US citizens think if Bush decides to go to war after the resolution doesn't pass. How do you feel about that?
My feeling is that there doesn't seem, at least on the surface (you never know with these politicos), to be enough support for the vote to pass, and that even if it did there would likely be a veto from the French or Russians. I suspect that March 17th is a deadline of sorts whether or not the bill passes.
I'm not sure what will happen to Blair, but it sure seems like many will resign from the labor party if he follows through with an attack without UN backing. I suspect he has little future in politics, but then it partly depends on the aftermath of a war. If it were quick and there was a perception afterwords that Iraq was better off he may have a chance to bounce back. On the other hand if it doesn't go well.. he'd practically be lynched. I recommend he move to washington and live out his remaining years in an undisclosed location ;-)
As for the UN well... Certainly it would undermine the relevance of the UN if an attack went through anyway. One would have to wonder why the US would go back to the UN after ignoring a failed SC vote, since they more or less just do what they want anyway. Any chance anyone believes that a no vote will make the US reconsider it's plans? Any chance for a similar resolution with an extended deadline? I think a lot here depends on whether you believe that WMD is really at the crux of this matter. If it isn't I'd say there's little chance it matters what the outcome of the vote is although the US may still want to wait a bit if they feel they can garner the support they need to make this a UN backed/sanctioned war.
My feeling is that there doesn't seem, at least on the surface (you never know with these politicos), to be enough support for the vote to pass, and that even if it did there would likely be a veto from the French or Russians. I suspect that March 17th is a deadline of sorts whether or not the bill passes.
I'm not sure what will happen to Blair, but it sure seems like many will resign from the labor party if he follows through with an attack without UN backing. I suspect he has little future in politics, but then it partly depends on the aftermath of a war. If it were quick and there was a perception afterwords that Iraq was better off he may have a chance to bounce back. On the other hand if it doesn't go well.. he'd practically be lynched. I recommend he move to washington and live out his remaining years in an undisclosed location ;-)
As for the UN well... Certainly it would undermine the relevance of the UN if an attack went through anyway. One would have to wonder why the US would go back to the UN after ignoring a failed SC vote, since they more or less just do what they want anyway. Any chance anyone believes that a no vote will make the US reconsider it's plans? Any chance for a similar resolution with an extended deadline? I think a lot here depends on whether you believe that WMD is really at the crux of this matter. If it isn't I'd say there's little chance it matters what the outcome of the vote is although the US may still want to wait a bit if they feel they can garner the support they need to make this a UN backed/sanctioned war.