The Iran Trap--Scott Ritter....EU playing into US trap

[Gloria]

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/1A678E7E-2612-4B21-8D21-04E6D5FC5D54.htm

The Iran Trap

Snip


Iran has yet to be declared to be in formal breach of any of these obligations, which raises the basic question: What is it the EU-3 wish to accomplish vis-a-vis their diplomatic intervention?

The real purpose of the EU-3 intervention - to prevent the United States from using Iran's nuclear ambition as an excuse for military intervention - is never discussed in public.

The EU-3 would rather continue to participate in fraudulent diplomacy rather than confront the hard truth - that it is the US, and not Iran, that is operating outside international law when it comes to the issue of Iran's nuclear programme.

In doing so, the EU-3, and to a lesser extent the IAEA, have fallen into a trap deliberately set by the Bush administration designed to use the EU-3 diplomatic initiative as a springboard for war with Iran.

MORE

[jmatthan]

1. But are the American people going to fall deeper into the trap?

eom

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. Ok outside of DU, how many americans do you

know are even aware that we may very well get WW III going with this idiocy?

[Team44Car]

7. americans do not know

they have heard of al Qaida and Zarqawi

they continually hear vague, bad, untrue things about Iran,
Syria, and Hugo Chavez

bush is setting the game board for war after war

[YapiYapo]

22. I'm not american,

but i can tell you,we european are getting more than tired being used as tool by bush administration.Who know for how long we will stay allied if bush keep screwing us ?

Not to mention any attack against iran is against europe (china and russia) interest cause of the incoming Iranian Oil Bourse who will be selling in Euro.

Petrodollar Warfare: Dollars, Euros and the Upcoming Iranian Oil Bourse : http://www.energybulletin.net/7707.html

[FloridaPat]

12. Another terrorist attack sponsored by Iran would put us there. Didn't

the idiot say he would invade Iran if there was another terrorist attack, even if Iran had nothing to do with it? And since when does * need anyone's permission. He still has the OK to invade any country that harbors anyone having to do with 9-11. It was an open-ended bill for any country any time any way. Don't forget all those nuclear weapons he's building up.

[H2O Man]

13. Perhaps most likely

would be if another country in that part of the world decided to conduct air strikes on suspected nuclear "targets," and Iran responded, as they have promised to do. The noble lads in the Bush administration would be left with "co choice" but to come to the rescue.

[wuushew]

15. China, Russian and Iran should hold an emergency U.N. meeting

asking for third parties to be neutral in a conflict between Israel and Iran.

President Bush would seek Congressional approval either before or after he initiated attacks on Iran.

Given that the United States was in no way attacked, the U.N. has authorized nothing and the Arab world would not support us how close do you think that Congressional authorization would be? The first Gulf War only passed the Senate by 52-47 and that arguably was a legitimate use of force.

Hopefully military mutiny and impeachment would follow.

[FloridaPat]

17. Like I said, * already has UN and congressional approval for anyone

involved or harboring 9-11 suspects.

[jmatthan]

20. US has no professional army -

just a bunch of bold-thirsty sycophants - so what can you expect from them - mutiny?

Think again.

The bulk of the American public are donkeys and their Senators are asses - they will just follow the rampaging herd led by Bush.

What do you think is happening in Iraq and New Orleans?

[wuushew]

21. What should we do then?

sit back and eat popcorn? :popcorn:

Without political recourse the only avenues of action would land me in secret service custody if I was even to jokingly entertain them here.

[jmatthan]

23. What are Americans doing NOW?

Sitting back and eating POPCORN!

[ClintonTyree]

16. But that would force bush........

to not only re-institute the draft, but raise taxes as well. Several wars on different fronts could not be fought and economically supported at the present time. Throw in the cost of rebuilding The Gulf Coast and the nation is bankrupt. I know, the Slugs don't consider that a bad thing, but when the people in this country realize what they've done (and they will, people in this country DO react when it hits them in the pocketbook) their agenda will no longer be tolerated. I hope.

[Zynx]

2. I thought Scott said we were going to bomb them in June???

Last I checked, that didn't happen.

I take this guy with a large grain of salt as he has no more idea what the Bushies are up to than I do.

[GreenPartyVoter]

4. Or maybe he outted the plan and they cancelled it

[Zynx]

5. Yeah, right. I've got some land in Louisiana to sell you. Never floods.

Ritter is a private citizen. He has no access or power, period. And Iraq demonstrated that the Bushies don't care how obvious something is.

[Team44Car]

9. the plan is still on the desk

late but moving forward

[jmatthan]

14. They did not get chaos expert Bolton appointed to the Un by the Senate

eom

[PassingFair]

18. Agree, they got set back by the Bolton delay

and now the flood.
I was worried that chimpy's speech on Thursday was gonna lay the ground work for an overt attack on Iran. Just forging ahead with it without handling damage control over the Katrina snafu would have shown me that they were TOTALLY insane.
I think their plans have been set back a couple of months.

[Postman]

25. I think he knows just a tad more than you do....

USMC Officer, UN Weapons Inspector, Said there were no WMD's in Iraq before the invasion happened, Knew Bush and the PNAC neo-cons were liars...

I'd say he knows a lot more than you do and his geo-political insight is pretty damn valuable.

If you think the Bush administration doesn't want war with Iran than maybe you should go look into some cheap flood proof land in New Orleans yourself.

[H2O Man]

6. Important post!

Thank you for this. I am going to "recommend" it, and urge everyone who reads it to do likewise.

Although the New York Times is not worthy of blind trust, it is worth reading the on-going articles that they have had in the past two weeks regarding the Bush administration's attempts to bully Iran. The administration is losing support they assumed they would have with other countries. This administration is doing what may have seemed impossible a year ago -- at that time, Bush/Cheney had made the USA the most hated country in history, and I could not think of how they could increase the hostility the world feels for this country. But they have.

[OneBlueSky]

24. absolutely right . . . kicked and recommended . . . n/t

.

[BlueEyedSon]

8. Not only on al jazeera BTW

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Sept05/Ritter0914.htm

[wuushew]

10. I don't believe that "Plan C " fits with the pace of political events

Even accepting fraud in the 2006 mid-terms I view Bush's chances of duplicating a sequel to Iraq increasingly remote as we near 2008. All the Iranians or the Europeans need to do is slow the pace of negotiations so that they exceed the length of the Bush's remainder in office. I mean will the next President Democrat or Republican, also be neo-con ideologues to the extent BFEE are?

:nuke:

[patrice]

11. My Hero! Thank!!! You! Scott! n/t

[Independent_Liberal]

26. Yes! Thank you Scott is right!

[politick]

19. I'm only casually acquainted

with all the specifics of the Iran situation (I'm a little ashamed to say that it's a bit too much for me to take, thinking that we may invade Iran, so I've shied away from reading on it ad nauseum), so I'd like to ask if anyone can back up one of the basic claims in the article: that is, that Iran has not yet been proven to be in defiance of the NPT and IAEA standards. I've heard so much rhetoric from both sides on this (neither of whom is entirely trustworthy) that it's lost on me.

Anyone?