What happens if...

[RussSchultz]

Just to spark some more healthy debate, what happens if the Russian's and/or Syria, or anybody brings a resolution to condemn and stop the war in Iraq?

How would the US/UK/AUS respond?

I'd presume they'd filibuster on the vote, and vote against it if it did come to a vote.

Then it could move to the UN general body. If it was approved there, then what?

I personally think withdrawing at this point would be disasterous for the region. As much as the war is inflaming tensions over there, unless the US is able to show its true intentions, it will always be seen as a war against Islam/Imperialist/Colonialist/etc.

And I don't think the US is going to listen to the UN at all, regardless of any votes.

Would it be the stake through the heart for the UN if a vote was pushed?

 

[Heathen]

Well as part of the pernament security either the UK or US would just veto it, so in effect there will be no resolution condeming the war.

The joys of power.

 

[RussSchultz]

No, I believe the resolution can be brought to the general assembly for a vote regardless of who vetoed it in the security council.

 

[Heathen]

My mistake.

I think your second to last line is pretty well on the ball.

 

[pascal]

The action taken by other countries will depend on the civilians casualities which IMHO is high now with all this bombing.

I spoke to another doctor at the hospital who said he thought that about 85% of the more than 100 casualties at that hospital overnight had been civilians.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2877869.stm

 

[RussSchultz]

100 is not high.

 

[pascal]

100 is not high.

In one night, one hospital?

 

[aras]

Pulling back now would be disastrous.

I don't think the Russian Federation would back such a resolution. One need not look further than Putin's behaviour since he came to power. He has consitently played a passive role on the world scene and when it comes to the security council he has imo only reluctantly taken a stance at a time where he had to make a descision. I doubt he would risk further damage to U.S. relations by doing that. These last couple of weeks he could have taken a much more active involvement and defended France's arguments. The fact that he didnt speaks volumes.

I also don't believe the Russians have explicitly stated they would vote NO, unlike France, to the resolution proposed by US/UK...have they? They may have hinted that they would to try and get the resolution off the table.

Putin's on thin ice with economic interests in Iraq, Russian population against the war and the strong wish to hold strategic ties with the U.S (imo).

 

[Joe DeFuria]

In one night, one hospital?

It's not high. After thousands and thousands of pounds of bombs had been dropped on the city? Not that 100 casualties is not regrettable, but the fact that they are so low, is a testament to how this war is being carried out.

The coalition is purposely making victory tougher on itself, purposely running higher risks of a longer war, purposely putting themselves in greater harms way, by limiting civilian casualites to the extent that they are.

But back to the particular subject at hand...

And I don't think the US is going to listen to the UN at all, regardless of any votes.

Agreed.

What might be a more interesting question: what if another country (or the UN) is so opposed to continuing action, that they actively, and publically, supply resources to Iraq for the express purpose of combating the coalition?

 

[Heathen]

In one night, one hospital?

Portsmouth A&E gets about that on a Friday night when the navy's in. So no it's not high really. Compared to any engagement which has gone before this is probably the cleanest war ever. But don't forget this IS a war and there will be civilian casualties no matter how hard we try to avoid them. It doesn't halp when Saddam starts embedding his air defences etc into civilian areas of Bagdhad.

 

[Sxotty]

The action taken by other countries will depend on the civilians casualities which IMHO is high now with all this bombing.

I spoke to another doctor at the hospital who said he thought that about 85% of the more than 100 casualties at that hospital overnight had been civilians.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2877869.stm

Surely you realize that the civilians are forced to protect military targets, and Saddam is using them as human sheilds.

Be prepared because the rates of civillian casulties will be going way way up soon.

Also it is well established that many of the casulties you spoke of are injured by Saddams anti-aircraft fire he is uselessly spewing into the sky, what goes up must come down, you know pesky physics

edit peky->pesky