The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
If patriotism is love of one's country, does that require love for politicians too?
Actually I think patriotism requires a devotion to the government. I think it is much more than simply loving your country's populace and culture. I believe it involves loving the governing apparatus. Yes, you may hate an administration or two, but when you start to hate a majority of them, I think that can't be called patriotism.
I think a simple love for county and its cultures is more nationalism, since 'nation' stands for the people, while 'country' includes the government.
“I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
- John 13:34-35 (NRSV)
I think a simple love for county and its cultures is more nationalism,
To me at least, nationalism involves a sense of superiority over others or disdain for others. You can also be a [insert blank]-phile without being nationalistic. Francophiles aren't necessarily nationalistically French, nor Anglo-philes necessarily nationalistically English.
One day Canada will rule the world, and then we'll all be sorry.
So in other words, if any civilian happens to get hurt, or if the military enemy you're attacking hides behind civilians, then to attack is to commit an act of terrorism. Lions and Tigers and Bears, oh my!
I didn't say that. There's a difference between making a real effort to avoid civilian casualties and making indiscriminate attacks. And nuking a city certainly is an indiscriminate attack.
Not at all, by the technological standards of the time. B29 bombers typically carried loads from 6,000 to 14,000 lbs. The first B29 raid against Yawata (from B29s which flew from bases in India and refueled in China) resulted in precisely one bomb on target, and half the initial aircraft failing to make the target area due to various problems including enemy action.
LeMay's incendiary raids were conducted against initially against aircraft engine plants, then against other heavy industrial centers, but the effects of incendiaries weren't controllable. These raids involved several hundred B29s, and were the only accurate means of hitting Japanese industry. Civilian deaths were simply inevitable, unless you decided that a better approach was to let Japanese war industry continue unimpeded, so you could kill more Japanese civilians (and soldiers, and US soldiers and Marines) with a later invasion.
The technology of the time didn't allow for precision bombing, so you had precisely three alternatives: End the war as rapidly and decisively as possible, let the Japanese military continue running the country and waging war indefinitely, or dick around until the invasion of the home islands was even more costly to both sides that it would otherwise have been.
There was no "indescriminate" bombing - bombers and ordnance were expensive, in limited supply, prone to loss, and the logistics and air traffic managment issues of using them meant that they would be used against important targets of military significance.
But you can continue to define terrorism as any action by the US which you don't like.
When all else fails, blame brown people. | Hire a teen, while they still know it all. | Trump-Palin 2016. "You're fired." "I quit."
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Actually I think patriotism requires a devotion to the government. I think it is much more than simply loving your country's populace and culture. I believe it involves loving the governing apparatus. Yes, you may hate an administration or two, but when you start to hate a majority of them, I think that can't be called patriotism.
I think a simple love for county and its cultures is more nationalism, since 'nation' stands for the people, while 'country' includes the government.
Nope. Patriotism is loving your Fatherland, which is the one political unit, or country as you said.
Nationalism is support for your nation. The difference is that nation=/country. For example, back in 1915 you might have an Ottoman patriot, or a Turkish Nationalist. One support his country, the Ottoman state, a multinational empire. The other guy wants to see political rule by the Turkish Nation, as opposed to the Arabs, Jews, Kurds, Armenians, Greeks, whatever.
That people equate Nation and State is the great victory of nationalists. Can a black American be a nationalist? After all, is there such a thing as an american nation? (as in a group linked by common cultural and biological heritage?) BUt certainly one could be a patriot.
If you don't like reality, change it! me
"Oh no! I am bested!" Drake
"it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" Voltaire
"Patriotism is a pernecious, psychopathic form of idiocy" George Bernard Shaw
I watch O'Reilly and I've criticised Sean Hannity too, but I don't listen to Limbaugh. Why does my motive intrigue you rather than the logic or illogic in what he said? I've already answered your question...
I don't really care that much, just curious. I've seen you start several threads about O'Reilly so it seems to me that he in particular gets under your skin. And the reason why what he said doesn't intrigue me is that as a default I assume anything coming out of someone like O'Reilly is worthless crap. It's no mystery where his views lie, so random comments that support that position don't strike me as noteworthy. But it's almost like you're surprised O'Reilly would say something like this.
Put another way, I think Jerry Falwell is a worthless sack of sh*t too. So I don't watch him and I don't expend any energy shooting down random comments he makes. I'm guessing you probably feel the same way about him too, and I haven't seen any threads from you about him.
In any event, I'm not looking to get into a debate with you about this. Like I said, it just seems that O'Reilly in particular gets you worked up, while the loads of other hypocritical uber-right-wing commentators go largely unmentioned.
"The French caused the war [Persian Gulf war, 1991]" - Ned
"you people who bash Bush have no appreciation for one of the great presidents in our history." - Ned
"I wish I had gay sex in the boy scouts" - Dissident
In any event, I'm not looking to get into a debate with you about this. Like I said, it just seems that O'Reilly in particular gets you worked up, while the loads of other hypocritical uber-right-wing commentators go largely unmentioned.
Perhaps its because O'Reilly professes that he is an independant and not associated with the republican party.
Similar in vein to Michael Moore professing himself an independant.
"Just puttin on the foil" - Jeff Hanson
“In a democracy, I realize you don’t need to talk to the top leader to know how the country feels. When I go to a dictatorship, I only have to talk to one person and that’s the dictator, because he speaks for all the people.” - Jimmy Carter
Originally posted by Kucinich
Would you also call the US undemocratic, because in the past women didn't have the vote?
I call the US undemocratic now, because people have unequal power. It was just more undemocratic then. Progressiveness is not revolution. The US is still not a democracy, and WILL terrorize in the future because of its culture.
I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh
So what you are saying, then, is that if the US failed to drop the atomic bomb, and if the Japanese government decided to continue the war and as a consequence, millions of Japanese civilians would have died of starvation, this would be the fault or responsibility of the US?
That's preposterous - the US would have been responsible for it's decision not to drop the A-bomb, and the Japanese government would have been responsible for any decision to continue the war. Put another way, both the US and Japanese governments had a moral responsibility not to intentionally target civilians - I think everyone can agree on that. My point is simply that the actions of one side don't force the other side to act immorally - if the US chose not to drop the atomic bomb, that wouldn't have forced Japan to continue the war and starve to death. That would have been a conscious decision on the part of the Japanese government.
Doesn't make it wrong for us to drop the A-bomb, though, because causally we prevented those deaths.
Originally posted by Kidicious
I call the US undemocratic now, because people have unequal power. It was just more undemocratic then.
Not my point. Rather, you've admitted that it's at least more democratic now, and if we gave everyone equal power it would be democratic, without a revolution.
Originally posted by Kidicious
I call the US undemocratic now, because people have unequal power. It was just more undemocratic then.
Not my point. Rather, you've admitted that it's at least more democratic now, and if we gave everyone equal power it would be democratic, without a revolution.
And you've only made the point that if the US doesn't commit terrorism that it will no longer be a terrist state, but on what basis do you make that assertion?
I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh
Tweet
re Agathon
Comment