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
The Iranians were very careful to make the captivity of the British sailors as media-friendly as possible so that useful fools like Mobius can use it as evidence that the Iranians are morally superior to the Americans. Very savvy...
KH FOR OWNER! ASHER FOR CEO!! GUYNEMER FOR OT MOD!!!
Originally posted by MOBIUS
For once I have to agree with DT, the US and UK were played like chumps and seeing as no one was hurt, apart from our national pride - it was funny as hell!
Arab dick, Persian dick... Tough choice, eh Moby?
When all else fails, blame brown people. | Hire a teen, while they still know it all. | Trump-Palin 2016. "You're fired." "I quit."
Wait a second. People who have left Iran to come here call themselves Persian, wanting no association with "Iran". Out of respect for their outlook, Iran is no longer Persia. By and large, Iran is a nation of donkey suckers.
Mobius?
Life is not measured by the number of breaths you take, but by the moments that take your breath away.
"Hating America is something best left to Mobius. He is an expert Yank hater.
He also hates Texans and Australians, he does diversify." ~ Braindead
I think they prefer to call themselves persians in foreign countries, because saying persians, makes you think of greeks vs persians, Cyrus, carpets, furry cats etc, but if they say we are iranians most people think, Ayatollah, terrorists etc
Originally posted by SlowwHand
Wait a second. People who have left Iran to come here call themselves Persian, wanting no association with "Iran".
Ive never noticed this. There are plenty of Iranians in the DC area, mostly anti-mullah, and AFAIK they all call themselves Iranian, as does the Iranian opposition.
"A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin Buber
Originally posted by DinoDoc
Out of curiosity, what happened to the custom of only giving the name rank and serial number when captured?
I think the Brits need some serious retraining. What happened to the famous stiff upperlip?
"We had a blindfold and plastic cuffs, hands behind our backs, heads against the wall. Basically there were weapons cocking. Someone, I'm not sure who, someone said, I quote, 'lads, lads I think we're going to get executed'."
"After that comment someone was sick and as far as I was concerned he had just had his throat cut."
Just like they knew the female troop was a mother.
WTF? She actually let them know that fact?
And Cranky, screw off, numbnuts.
Life is not measured by the number of breaths you take, but by the moments that take your breath away.
"Hating America is something best left to Mobius. He is an expert Yank hater.
He also hates Texans and Australians, he does diversify." ~ Braindead
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
If the Brits shoot first, the Iranians weren't "attacking" they were "investigating" or "partrolling" or even "seeing if assistance was needed"
What's the difference between that and "They were in our waters"?
I make no bones about my moral support for [terrorist] organizations. - chegitz guevara
For those who aspire to live in a high cost, high tax, big government place, our nation and the world offers plenty of options. Vermont, Canada and Venezuela all offer you the opportunity to live in the socialist, big government paradise you long for. –Senator Rubio
Are we discussing the 2005 elections, or the US pressure to devolve authority from the Presidency to the cabinet?
Basically the same thing, right? Since the Parliament picks the cabinet. Both new elections and a more empowered cabinet were part of the same process that Washington's prerequisite to continue on the roadmap.
I know of no evidence Scowcroft, who is not a member of the administration, is doing so. This must be more "research" by the ever productive Mr Hersh?
Sorry, for some reason I confused Scowcroft and Elliot Abrams (yep, a bizarre brain fart in retrospect). And actually, Hersh's latest is about us supporting the other type of Sunnis - Salafis who we hope to act as a bulwark against the "Shia cresent." Since Iran has become the new evil empire...
In any case, providing arms to Fatah need not indicate an "armed takeover" From what I understand Mr Abbas has considered implementing new elections, which he believes he has the constitutional authority to do. Recent polls indicate Hamas would lose such elections. Hamas, perhaps out of awareness of that, asserts that such new elections would be illegal. Hamas seems to be preparing to use its own expanded militia, armed with weapons illegally smuggled into Gaza, would then oppose the elections by armed force. Abbas needs forces that would stop from Hamas from doing that.
That's a lovely pretense, but:
US Deputy National Security Adviser Elliott Abrams - whom Newsweek recently described as "the last neo-con standing" - has had it about for some months now that the United States is not only not interested in dealing with Hamas, it is working to ensure its failure.
In the immediate aftermath of the Palestinian elections won by Hamas last January, Abrams greeted a group of Palestinian businessmen in his White House office with talk of a "hard coup" against the newly elected Hamas government - the violent overthrow of its leadership with arms supplied by the US.
While the businessmen were shocked, Abrams was adamant - the US had to support Fatah with guns, ammunition and training, so that it could fight Hamas for control of the Palestinian government.
While those closest to him now concede that Abrams' words were issued in a moment of frustration, the "hard coup" talk was hardly just talk. Over the past 12 months, the United States has supplied guns, ammunition and training to Palestinian Fatah activists to take on Hamas in the streets of Gaza and the West Bank.
If you mean the Israeli election of 2000, Im quite sure Sharon did NOT state that his policy would unilateral withdrawl.
Q: And then what? When quiet prevails, will you agree to recognize a Palestinian state on 40 to 50 percent of the territory?
"I did not say 50 percent. I said 42 percent. Maybe a bit more will be possible. But within the framework of a non-belligerency agreement, for a lengthy and indefinite period, in an agreement that does not have a timetable but a table of expectations. Our expectations lie in three spheres: preventive action against terrorism and the infrastructures of terrorism; cessation of incitement and education for peace; economic cooperation. In my opinion, economic cooperation does not have to be confined to small industrial zones along the [1967] Green Line. It can take the form of big projects that create mutual dependence, such as the desalination project I proposed, which would be the largest of its kind in the world.
"As a Jew, I know that it is not easy to be a Palestinian. It is hard to be a Palestinian. There are things they definitely suffer from. They suffer from a lack of continuity of territory and we have to find a solution for that. They suffer from our roadblocks and that also needs a solution. They do not always behave properly at the roadblocks, but our soldiers also don't always behave as they should."
Not all that different from Hamas' current pov on relations with the Israeli state, BTW (i.e. the indefinite "cease-fire"). I suppose Arafat was within his rights to reject negotiation?
In any case, Im not sure what Sharon's hypothetical negotiating stance in 2002, when there was virtual war and no real negotiations were possible, has to the current situation.
Because that was basically the Israeli stance for much of the next few years. They rejected negotiation. They still do with Hamas and Syria.
Given the plain text of the UNGA resolution, and the history of Arab interpretations of it, I dont think its at all unreasonable to read the Arab League proposal as a call for an unlimited right of return. Olmert chose to read it as such
Where do you see that? If he read it as an unlimited right of return, why did he bother to reject even a symbolic right of return? And other Israeli politicos, as indicated by the Times article, believe otherwise.
Anyways, we're getting past the original point. Which is that the recent flurry of activities on this front have everything to do with domestic pressures and basically nothing to do with US pressure. In other words, Rice is totally useless.
"Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-Bokonon
I have not heard that they changed their mind on the issue of the de facto border.
Murray said that the Iraqi foreign minister, Zebari, admitted on BBC's "The World at One":
That border is disputed. It has been for many years. It has moved. That is why we had this war of maps...We have agreed with Iran that our technical levels will fix this border including in the Shatt-al-Arab.
BTW, I couldn't find archives for that day's program...
"Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-Bokonon
Oil prices fell. The stock market rose. Video images of smiling British soldiers with Iranian President Ahmadinejad were everywhere. So were pictures of the 15 freed hostages embracing family members back home. The relief over the return of the Brits was so tremendous; you could almost hear birds singing.
Maybe it's because military action won't be needed or maybe it's just because the ordeal won't drag on and on, but the world is breathing easier now. A lot of folks are happy. The problem, as I see it, is that Ahmadinejad seems to be the happiest.
And why shouldn't he be? He has shown the world that his forces can kidnap British citizens, subject them to brutal psychological tactics to coerce phony confessions, finagle the release of a high-ranking Iranian terror coordinator in Iraq, utterly trash the Geneva conventions and suffer absolutely no consequences.
The UN Security Council summoned its vaunted multilateral greatness to issue a swift statement of sincere uneasiness. The EU, which has pressured Britain to rely on Europeans for mutual defense instead of the US, wouldn't even discuss economic sanctions that might disrupt their holidays. Even NATO was AWOL.
Tony Blair doesn't appear to be in much of a mood for celebrating. I don't know how he could be, given the troubling spectacle of British soldiers shake the hand of their kidnapper as a condition of release. In the old days, they would have kissed his ring -- but wearing Iranian suits and carrying swag more appropriate to a Hollywood awards ceremony may have been as embarrassing. Ironically, Blair's options are fewer by the day as his own party moves to mothball the British fleet, once the fear of pirates and tyrants the world over.
Some in the West seem part of Iran's propaganda war; claiming that the release of the hostages was a victory that proves the Iranian dictatorship can be reasoned with. To misrepresent unpunished piracy as a victory is as Orwellian as the congressional mandate banning use of the term "the global war on terror." What are we — Reuters?
Ahmadinejad must be particularly pleased to see "deep thinking" journalists making the case that American actions in Iraq were the true cause of the kidnappings. To believe this, all you have to do is ignore the history of the Iranian Revolution, which has been in the extortion business ever since it took power. Between the 1979 American embassy crisis in Tehran and the seizure of Israeli soldiers last year by Iran's Hezbollah proxies, there have been more than a hundred other examples.
If you include the imprisonment of pro-Democracy dissidents and non-Shi'a Muslim minorities within Iran, the number reaches easily into the tens of thousands. The dwindling and persecuted Christian population of Iran, I suspect, found little joy in Ahmadinejad's explanation that he was freeing his victims as an "Easter gift."
It is critical that we see this incident as part of a long pattern of behavior -- that will continue as long as the current leadership is in power. More importantly, it will escalate unimaginably if Iran achieves nuclear status, and with it the ability to hold millions rather than individuals hostage.
I have no idea if Ahmadinejad and those who put him in power really believe the Shi'a Twelver doctrine that they can spur the messiah to return by triggering Armageddon. You have to admit, though, that the possibility that they look forward to entering paradise as martyrs would make them a whole lot scarier as a nuclear power than the USSR ever was.
There is hope, though. The Iranian people are not an anti-Western horde. They're an educated and freedom-loving people for the most part, and reformers there have been begging us for support and sanctions that would weaken the ruling theocracy. Instead, they've just seen the Iranian dictatorship successfully bully the West into impotent submission. This is not a good thing.
We need to understand this and use every means at our disposal, starting with serious and painful international sanctions, to prevent Iran's rulers from becoming the nuclear-armed blackmailers they want to be. Unfortunately, we are hearing demands that we abandon the people of the Middle East who have stood up to Islamo-fascism because they believed us when we said we would support them.
If we retreat precipitously, the price for that betrayal will be paid first in blood and freedom by the Iranian people, the Kurds, the Afghanis, the secular Lebanese, the moderates in Pakistan and the Iraqis themselves. And America's word may never be trusted again.
Right now, the pirate Ahmadinejad is clearly more confident about the outcome of the Global War on Terror than we are. That ought to give us pause.
"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
Basically the same thing, right? Since the Parliament picks the cabinet. Both new elections and a more empowered cabinet were part of the same process that Washington's prerequisite to continue on the roadmap.
No, not the same thing, because the political situations differed in each case.
Anon sources, so Ive got to trust Asia Times, not the most reliable pub out there. known for rumors and speculation. About a "coup attempt" that even if you believe them, was nothing but hasty words. Of course we've continued to arm Fatah, for reasons Ive explained.
So as I said, Sharon envisioned the 42% as part of a deal, not as part of a unilateral withdrawl. Unrealistic - yes - I never supported that negotiating stance. But still it was a starting position.
Not all that different from Hamas' current pov on relations with the Israeli state, BTW (i.e. the indefinite "cease-fire"). I suppose Arafat was within his rights to reject negotiation?
The indefinite ceasefire was the minimum Israel was asking for, I dont think they were rejecting the notion of an end of the conflict, as Hamas is doing. Arafat could have refused negotiation, as long as he kept to his Oslo commmitment to prevent violence, which he did not.
Because that was basically the Israeli stance for much of the next few years. They rejected negotiation. They still do with Hamas and Syria.
No, as soon as Abbas became PM in 2003 they offered to talk, acknowledged that a Pal State was in the cards, and backed away from the 42% figure. The struggle then was over how much power Abbas really had, how far Abbas was going to clamp down on terror, and what the Israelis should do to strengthen him. There was no flat out rejection of negiotians, and there were frequent meetings and talks. Sharon shifted toward unilateralism out of frustration with Abbas' ability/willingness to do what Israel expected.
They reject negotiations with Hamas for reasons everyone knows - Hamas' continued refusal to accept Oslo, to recognize Israel, or to renounce violence. Those were the conditions for talking to the PLO, and Israel isnt offering Hamas a cheaper deal. As soon as Hamas accepts those conditions, Israel will talk with them.
Israels refusal to enter public talks with Syria seems to be coordinated with the US, and to be part of an effort to avoid lessening pressure on Syria over the Harriri investigation. I would not be surprised if secret feelers have occurred, however. They of course have continued talks with Abbas, despite his limited authority, and are open to talks with the Arab League.
Where do you see that? If he read it as an unlimited right of return, why did he bother to reject even a symbolic right of return? And other Israeli politicos, as indicated by the Times article, believe otherwise.
He did so because if it was an unlimited right, than it was not a compromise, but the AL maximal position, and the logical negotiating response, prior to the beginning of actual talks, would be the Israeli maximal position. Other Israeli pols, perhaps more confident of the course of negotiations with the AL, are willing to back away from the Israeli maximal position despite an AL assertion of what can reasonably read as the AL maximal position - they choose to give it a more generous reading. There are always choices of negotiating strategies - that not all Israeli politicos agree with Olmert, hardly means Olmert's isnt a serious negotiating position.
Anyways, we're getting past the original point. Which is that the recent flurry of activities on this front have everything to do with domestic pressures and basically nothing to do with US pressure. In other words, Rice is totally useless.
1. In general progress has come due to internal drives, not to US pressure, so that is neither here nor there about Rice. The main point though is that if the Israeli are not intransigent, pressure couldnt be decisive.
2. Israeli internal politics, at least on the left and center, is always quite aware of the importance of the relationship with the US, and sets peace goals accordingly. Whether you choose to call that pressure or not is a matter of semantics.
"A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin Buber
BTW, I couldn't find archives for that day's program...
Thats not an admission that there is no well known de facto border, merely that the de jure border is disputed.
"A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin Buber
Iran can now produce nuclear fuel on an industrial scale, President Ahmadinejad has announced, in a move likely to further strain tensions with the West
He gave no details of Iran's capacity, but some officials said 3,000 uranium gas enrichment centrifuges were running at the Natanz plant in central Iran.
Mr Ahmadinejad's speech came as Iran celebrated nuclear technology day.
Iran maintains its nuclear programme is purely peaceful, but the West fears it wants to build atomic bombs.
The UN has passed two packages of sanctions against Iran for refusing to suspend its uranium enrichment programme.
A US spokesman said the White House was "very concerned" about the Iranian announcement.
"Iran continues to defy the international community and further isolate itself by expanding its nuclear programme, rather than suspending uranium enrichment," said Gordon Johndroe, spokesman for the White House National Security Council.
NPT warning
"With great honour, I declare that as of today our dear country has joined the nuclear club of nations and can produce nuclear fuel on an industrial scale," Mr Ahmadinejad told the audience at Natanz.
He did not say how many centrifuges - the machines that spin uranium gas in order to enrich it to levels needed for fuel - were now operational at Natanz.
Iran announced in February that it had set up two cascades of 164 centrifuges each at Natanz. It said it planned to have 3,000 centrifuges by the end of last month.
Ali Larijani, Iran's chief nuclear negotiator with the West, said at Natanz on Monday that Iran had begun injecting gas into many of the centrifuges, without specifying the number.
Some other officials said 3,000 centrifuges had been installed, the BBC's Frances Harrison at Natanz reports.
The most sensitive areas at Natanz, deep underground, are thought to be halls that can hold up to 50,000 centrifuges.
The Iranian president again asserted his country's right to nuclear development for peaceful purposes.
And he also warned that Iran would have no choice but to review its membership of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty if further pressure was applied by the West.
Journalists and diplomats were invited to the special events taking place at Natanz, but European Union diplomats boycotted them in protest at Iran's refusal to comply with UN demands to end its uranium enrichment programme.
BBC, News, BBC News, news online, world, uk, international, foreign, british, online, service
We are living in interesting times.
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Ben Franklin Iain Banks missed deadline due to Civ | The eyes are the groin of the head. - Dwight Schrute.
One more turn .... One more turn .... | WWTSD
Comment