Are you starting to understand now why DU has a dedicated I/P forum?

[Wonk]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x21970

[AlamoDemoc]

1. none of the above...n/t

[uppityperson]

2. Yes, but I wish civility rules were in effect all over DU

(now, watch someone accuse me of whining or censoring). Not censoring, asking for civility.

[RoyGBiv]

3. Other ...

I'm not *starting* to understand. I have understood this for a long time.

As I noted in a comment about the release of the so-called "new" video of the explosion at the Pentagon on 9/11, I understand why this stuff is in GD and other places. It's "in the now" so to speak. Same for this, now.

Of course, I'm among an *extreme* minority who wishes it were possible for GD not to exist. (And of course I realize it isn't, not and maintain a discussion group as active as this one is.) That is, if you've got a comment/question/essay about drugs, it should go in that group, or one about Democrats, in that forum, etc. I ran a BBS at one point in my life and enforced a policy like this. It worked, for a small group of people, but newbies hated it and so the discussion groups never really grew.

</tangent>

[norml]

4. How about this option?

While I understand why DU would have a dedicated forum for I/P related discussions, I'd rather DU didn't have a dedicated forum for I/P related discussions.

[BlueJazz]

5. ROFLMAO!...I thought (really) ..You were talking about a....

.. Dedicated Internet Protocol Address.

Geez.....

[rucky]

6. We may need one with all these threads!

guilty as charged.

[EFerrari]

13. Me, too.

:)

[jonnyblitz]

18. that's funny!

:rofl:

[JackNewtown]

7. Having a I/P forum was a great move by DU

The past few days prove this. Imagine if we had to go through this each day.

[TahitiNut]

8. "starting"???

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Wonk]

10. Heh...

[MsUnderstood]

9. I thought IP was internet protocol

So i didn't know why there would be one. . .

[Wonk]

11. kick

[Jacobin]

12. Yes. We shouldn't discuss it and maybe it will go away

:crazy:

One way to look at it, is that by suppressing the conversation for so long, its blown up because those whose allegiance is to Israeli interests and those whose allegiance is to the interests of the U.S. haven't learned to speak to one another civilly and somehow at some point, that has to be done.

Or not.

[Cerridwen]

14. Yes, I understand why. No, I don't agree it should.

Is I/P divisive? Yes.

Do the events there effect us here? Yes.

Why hide (or send to the political discussion "back room") events which are so important and which impact the so much of the world?

[MissB]

15. That is why I've had to largely ignore the threads about Israel/Lebanon

because wading through the pro/anti Israeli arguments are really tedious.

[norml]

16. While I understand the reasons, I think it's ridiculous that it's been

a taboo topic in other forums.

It's been like an elephant in a living room that no one's allowed to mention, unless they go into a restrictive closet to talk about it.

[Wonk]

17. kick

[rastafan]

19. "Second 9/11": Cheney's "Contingency Plan"

Situation goes far beyond that forum.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20060222&articleId=2032

"Second 9/11": Cheney's "Contingency Plan"

While the "threat" of Iran's alleged WMD is slated for debate at the UN Security Council, Vice President Dick Cheney is reported to have instructed USSTRATCOM to draw up a contingency plan "to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States". This "contingency plan" to attack Iran uses the pretext of a "Second 9/11" which has not yet happened, to prepare for a major military operation against Iran.

The contingency plan, which is characterized by a military build up in anticipation of possible aerial strikes against Iran, is in a "state of readiness".

What is diabolical is that the justification to wage war on Iran rests on Iran's involvement in a terrorist attack on America, which has not yet occurred:

The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing—that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack—but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections. (Philip Giraldi, Attack on Iran: Pre-emptive Nuclear War , The American Conservative, 2 August 2005)

Are we to understand that US military planners are waiting in limbo for a Second 9/11, to launch a military operation directed against Iran, which is currently in a "state of readiness"?

Cheney's proposed "contingency plan" does not focus on preventing a Second 9/11. The Cheney plan is predicated on the presumption that Iran would be behind a Second 9/11 and that punitive bombings would immediately be activated, prior to the conduct of an investigation, much in the same way as the attacks on Afghanistan in October 2001, allegedly in retribution for the role of the Taliban government in support of the 9/11 terrorists. It is worth noting that the bombing and invasion of Afghanistan had been planned well in advance of 9/11. As Michael Keefer points out in an incisive review article:

"At a deeper level, it implies that “9/11-type terrorist attacks” are recognized in Cheney’s office and the Pentagon as appropriate means of legitimizing wars of aggression against any country selected for that treatment by the regime and its corporate propaganda-amplification system.... (Keefer, February 2006 )

(continued)