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
Originally posted by rmsharpe
Anyone that voted for Bush [in this poll] should have the American flag stapled to their butt and mailed to Baghdad.
Why? Do you deny the right of people who don't agree with you to hold their own opinions. This is the kind of one-eyed political bigotry that makes people hate the US.
There's no shame on being on someone's ignore list (half the population of these forums is on mine). But getting yourself so angry that you have to ignore yourself - well, that's pretty sad.
Um... why not? It's true. If anyone thinks that the ruler of a pissant Mid East country has more influence on the stablity of the world than the President of the United States, you are on crack.
And there is more than enough evidence that Saddam has been a stabilizing force in the ME. Without him, you would have Greater Iran and fundies having greater reign in the region.
No doubt Saddam is a stabalizing force: He keeps the Kurds in check, who if not "stabilized" would probably form their own independent state and destabalize Syria, Iran and Turkey in the process. He "stabalizes" the Shi'ites Arabs who probably would also like to have their own state and who would also like to liberate their fellow Shi'ites from Wahhabi repression in Saudi Arabia. His armies stand as a bulwark against Iranian fundamentalism overwhelming the Saudi fundamentalists. (Should we really care one way or the other?)
Saddam also helps finance terror in Palestine. As soon has he has terror weapons of his own, are we to really believe that Saddam will not use them on Israel - or give them to Palestinian terrorists or to al Qaida?
Saddam indeed is a stabalism force. I applaud your taste in stabalizers, Imran. You, of course, Imran, appear to prefer, as the United States has historically preferred, stability over justice, stablity over democracy, stability over liberty, and stability over true security.
Jimmy Carter once said that we should no longer support or condone dictatorships that brutalize their people in the name of stability. I second that motion.
No doubt Saddam is a stabalizing force: He keeps the Kurds in check, who if not "stabilized" would probably form their own independent state and destabalize Syria, Iran and Turkey in the process
You, or anyone else, can't be positively sure that the establishment of a Kurdish state would foment what you just described. As a gambling man, I would wager that an invasion of Iraq would cause a hell of a lot more instability among surrounding countries whose power base is tenuous to begin with.
Saddam also helps finance terror in Palestine. As soon has he has terror weapons of his own, are we to really believe that Saddam will not use them on Israel - or give them to Palestinian terrorists or to al Qaida?
The whole basis of your argument for supporting an invasion of Iraq has been that he already has the weapons you describe. If that's the case, why hasnt' he used them already? Why is the evidence that he has supported/ supplied terrorist factions scant to non-existent?
Jimmy Carter once said that we should no longer support or condone dictatorships that brutalize their people in the name of stability. I second that motion.
I triple that notion. Unfortunately, the support of dictatorships that brutalize their people in the name of stability has been par for the course in asserting our interests across the globe. Saddam used to be a member of that Good Ole Boys club.
Saddam must go.
There's a better way than sending 10's of thousands of our men into a clusterfu*k that's going to drain our collective soul for the next 10 - 20 years.
I am vehemently opposed to this upcoming war.
"Perhaps a new spirit is rising among us. If it is, let us trace its movements and pray that our own inner being may be sensitive to its guidance, for we are deeply in need of a new way beyond the darkness that seems so close around us." --MLK Jr.
DetroitDave, All we know about Saddam's WoMD is that he kicked the UN boys out four years ago. We apparently also have intelligence that he is developing WoMD, but does not have them yet.
You also seem to place a "stability" in very high regards. The whole region is unstable now. It is ruled by Dictators, be they called King, President or whatever. None of them are worth propping up any more.
Spartak, what we will get out of this is a pro-US, democratic Iraq that will "stabilize" the region in the right way. I have no idea how this could become a Vietnam. That "war" was never fought in the proper place. We should have invaded North Vietnam. The way we fought it we could not win and therefor had to eventually lose.
Now more seriously, the one thing we do know about Iraq right now is that the opposition to saddam is fragmented and unwilling to co-operate with each other.
What on earth makes you think that getting rid of Saddam is going to lead to a suddenly pro western enlightened government? More likely Iraq will end up getting through more governments that Italy, but in a more bloodthirsty manner. Compare with Afghanistan where at least a reasonably cohesive opposition to the Taliban existed in the Northern alliance - and frankly I wouldn't trust them further than I could throw 'em.
Well Spartak, If all were to get is more of the same in terms of regimes, then removing Saddam's hand from a nuclear trigger (chemical or biological) is the only remaining reason to remove him. I personally don't think the prospects for democracy are so dim given what I have seen in the rank and file of the Palestininians who want real government and not more of the "old ways."
Tweet
Comment