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
I don't see how and/or why So far the EU has a long histoty of avoiding any involvement in any conflict, so...?
One could also say: we had luck that open war wasn´t an option between the superpowers back in the good old days, when it was called Cold War. But things have changed since that time a bit. And then Europe got involved - first gulf war, on the balkan...
"I believe that is what is called 'dynamic leadership'."
They can call it Aunt Mary's Hairy Ass for all I care, it still remains a non-functional model for running foreign affairs. That is, if you want to have a single geo-political entity/position at all.
Originally posted by Jon Miller
there seems to be differences between realists and idealists
I erpsonally think that US-EU relatships would be a lot better if you had a bigger military
just because we would respect you more
currently it is
EU whine
US ignore
UE act
relationship sours
if EU had military
EU disagree with US
US listen
US respond to EU
relationship holds
Jon Miller
US listen..
Let me try to explain why and how the EU got where it is now:
France disagrees with Germany
both have army
non of them listens
War
Britain disagrees with France
both have Navy
non of them listens
War
etc.
Then, finally, some people with brains get something to say
people with brains listen
they agree to cooperate, so they can avoid war
The EU, nor any of its predesessors were EVER meant to challenge the USA, nor any other power for that matter: it was founded to try to find a different way to overcome differences.
One could also say: we had luck that open war wasn´t an option between the superpowers back in the good old days, when it was called Cold War. But things have changed since that time a bit. And then Europe got involved - first gulf war, on the balkan...
Sure Europe gets involved: that is what the whole debate is about, isn't it?
Only, the EU wishes to get involved in another way/matter then the US. If you claim (I don't know if you do) that militairy dorce is the only way to get involved, then you hit the nail right on the head: Europe thinks differently.
Things have NOT changed one bit since the Cold War! As soon as nuclear powers are involved (Pakistan and North Korea, to mention two countries that are 'appeased' by the US, although they do pose a real thread to the US) cold war mechanics take over.
Europe certainly got involved in the liberation of Quwait, but that was a UN sanctioned action. The same goes to a lesser degree for the Balkan.
Originally posted by Azazel
Can we see some real responses and not chest-thumping and groaning about how much the EU has contributted to world peace?
My god, you are a bore.
I'm not saying ANYTHING about EU contribution to world peace, I am only stating that the EU has done a wonderfull job in keeping peace and prosperity in EUROPE itself.
Sure Europe gets involved: that is what the whole debate is about, isn't it?
Only, the EU wishes to get involved in another way/matter then the US. If you claim (I don't know if you do) that militairy dorce is the only way to get involved, then you hit the nail right on the head: Europe thinks differently.
Well, peace is certainly a noble goal, and, no, I don´t claim that a military solution is the only way in every situation. But the point is that sometimes this may be your last option - then only thinking isn´t enough, acting is what matters, and this can include military action.
And I would be glad if Europe would really think that differently - the truth is that we are far away from a real European foreign policy. In many cases, the national interests of European countries are an obstacle for such a common policy.
Europe certainly got involved in the liberation of Quwait, but that was a UN sanctioned action. The same goes to a lesser degree for the Balkan.
But your position was initially that we found other ways "to overcome differences" - implying that military action is bad in any case? However, the NATO air strikes on the Balkan took place completely without UN mandate - so talking about Europe avoiding conflicts is not the complete story.
I do think that Europe plays indeed a positive role in the world today, but I don´t think that we are Saints while the rest are evil warmongers - that´s a bit too simple.
Originally posted by BeBro
And I would be glad if Europe would really think that differently - the truth is that we are far away from a real European foreign policy. In many cases, the national interests of European countries are an obstacle for such a common policy.
In this sense, I must confess that my country, Spain is doing nothing to improve the unity of Europeans' foreign policies
Trying to rehabilitateh and contribuing again to the civ-community
Suppose the combined EU was an effective military force that was on a par with the capabilities of US.
How would that reign in the US? Take the example here of Iraq?
The only intervention I could see being applied is against states such as Saudi Arabia or Kuwait, telling them not to give the US bases. I doubt the EU would do that, and using the new found military to stop them would seem silly.
If the US is commited to doing something, how is a militarily strong Europe going to stop them?
One day Canada will rule the world, and then we'll all be sorry.
The other option as i see it (not I am necessarily advocating this) is for the EU to withdraw from NATO, kindly ask the US army to leave all its bases in Europe, and become nice and isolationist. Most of the **** we get atm is because we're associated too much with the US.
The US thinks were not pulling our weight, the Arab countries think we're lap dogs of the US and as such despise us by association.
Set up a relatively small pan-European army for possible peace keeping in the general vicinity of Europe, when asked by the people of the country in question, but keep out of stuff that is not really any of our business (Israel-Palestine, China-Tibet, Pakistan-India etc.). If the Americans want to sort it out let them...
Other possiblity is to get a UN army, funded by and consisting of all member states that will be the only military force allowed to enter other countries without being in breach of the rules.
Originally posted by BeBro
The truth is that we are far away from a real European foreign policy. In many cases, the national interests of European countries are an obstacle for such a common policy.
It is true that the various countries in the EU have different priorities, but that does not neccesarily mean that they work towards conflicting goals.
The Nordic countries have interests in the Baltic region as a prosperous area for trade. Therefore Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania were invited to the EU.
Germany have historically looked to the South Eastern parts of Europe to place excess capital. France are looking to develop the former colonies in Africa. Italy has been instrumental in getting acces to the Libyan oilfields. Spain and Portugal is the link to South America.
Sometimes there are perhaps conflicting interests, as for instance the former Yuguslavia. Also Poland seems to be the odd man out and a somewhat destabilizing force in the middle of the continent. Here a more united effort to assure countries of good intentions is probably the way forward.
Overall I think there should be some room for the nation states of Europe to develop ties with particlar nations as this will perhaps be a better way to develop the former communist countries and the former colonies.
this is the kind of system i would call 'dynamic'.
Originally posted by lightblue
The other option as i see it (not I am necessarily advocating this) is for the EU to withdraw from NATO, kindly ask the US army to leave all its bases in Europe, and become nice and isolationist. Most of the **** we get atm is because we're associated too much with the US.
The US thinks were not pulling our weight, the Arab countries think we're lap dogs of the US and as such despise us by association.
Set up a relatively small pan-European army for possible peace keeping in the general vicinity of Europe, when asked by the people of the country in question, but keep out of stuff that is not really any of our business (Israel-Palestine, China-Tibet, Pakistan-India etc.). If the Americans want to sort it out let them...
Other possiblity is to get a UN army, funded by and consisting of all member states that will be the only military force allowed to enter other countries without being in breach of the rules.
Just a few other possiblities...
well,., if you want to be iso, fine
but than don't be trying to force us to do things diplomatically
Jon Miller
Jon Miller- I AM.CANADIAN
GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.
I don't think it is essential for the future international balance for Europe to become an international military / diplomatic superstar like the US is :
- AFAIK, all diplomatic problems in which Europe wants to get involved are near the European continent (Serbia, Israel, Arabic countries), or are still under Europe's direct influence (former French colonies). I don't remember Europe taking any active role, or even actively whining on matters such as East Timor or North Korea (while the US had a role).
- China is becoming an economic powerhouse, and will become a military/diplomacy powerhouse as well. If the treand continues, China should be on par with the US in a few decades, and the global equilibrium will be played across the pacific, with a very little role for Europe.
- Before raising military funds, Europe MUST have a coordinated foreign and military policy. Only once Europe speaks with one voice (you can wait quite some time before this, see how Blair happily follows the US in Iraq), we should raise our military budget.
- Europe has a pretty good Arsenal for its defense, and for intervention in its influence zone. Ground troops are many, and are critical in most peacekeeping operations in the world (you Americans can call this teamwork : you wage war - we build peace after), and there is a significant nuclear arsenal in Britain and France, insuring no major wars against Europe until Anti-missiles technologies are reliable and spread.
"I have been reading up on the universe and have come to the conclusion that the universe is a good thing." -- Dissident "I never had the need to have a boner." -- Dissident "I have never cut off my penis when I was upset over a girl." -- Dis
“Now we declare… that the law-making power or the first and real effective source of law is the people or the body of citizens or the prevailing part of the people according to its election or its will expressed in general convention by vote, commanding or deciding that something be done or omitted in regard to human civil acts under penalty or temporal punishment….” (Marsilius of Padua, „Defensor Pacis“, AD 1324)
Tweet
So far the EU has a long histoty of avoiding any involvement in any conflict, so...?
Comment