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
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Oh fer Chrissakes! Can we get any more amateurish?
You are entitled to your own opinions. NOT you own facts. The FACTS are that there were no WMD's or functioning WMD programs. If you fail to accept this, you are failing to accept the facts, and therefore your opinions can be classified as uneducated.
Originally posted by Arrian
Incidently, I'm a "liberal" (sort of), and I *do* buy Syria as a US enemy. Not an enemy that is going to strike at us here (just like Iraq wasn't going to either), but rather an enemy in the ME region. They are opposed to our policies wrt Israel, Lebanon and now Iraq.
The WMDs thing has been addressed. That the Bushies claimed they may have been taken to Syria and hidden doesn't surprise me, nor does it come anywhere near convincing me. That doesn't mean that Syria isn't an enemy, though.
No it hasn't. Just because Liberals say something is proven doesn't make it so.
What is up with you freaking Americans!! Can you not discusss the issue w/o putting people into pigeonholes? **** **** **** it's annoying!
Psst. I'm not a librel/joo/commie. I'm on the political right.
You'll still find plenty of opinions to the contrary just like you'll find plenty of scientists on both sides of the global warming debate. Liberals want us to believe that is a done issue as well. (Just FYI, I'm still in the undecided category. Waiting for everyone to fight it out).
Yes, and many Americans believe Elvis is still alive. Is this a valid theory since so many believe it?
I respect your opinions Wezil, but you are a perfect example of what is wrong with the USA (even though you're not from the USA right?).
Thank the God I don't believe in - No.
You believe everything you're told from one point of view and nothing will change your mind. Your side is always right and the other side is always wrong. Well reality just doesn't work that way. Both sides have some truth to their arguments but most of it is BS. They are both working to advance their own personal interests. That's human nature. The real truth is always somewhere in the middle, so I would suggest that's where you look, not at some canidate that tells you what you want to hear.
I've already changed my mind on this issue. I supported the war based upon the BS evidence provided. When the truth was revealed I changed my position. You have completely misread me.
"I have never killed a man, but I have read many obituaries with great pleasure." - Clarence Darrow
"I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying I approved of it." - Mark Twain
Be fair, add the context. On the political right in Canada. Thus, left of center from the perspective of most Americans.
-Arrian
Point taken (in general) but I disagree in my case. Being Libertarian I am more right wing than most Canadians and certainly many Americans.
A similar case exists here with "Central Canadian Conservatives" whom in truth are little different from Liberals. (Big 'C' and big 'L').
"I have never killed a man, but I have read many obituaries with great pleasure." - Clarence Darrow
"I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying I approved of it." - Mark Twain
Except that the US government itself has put out reports stating that there were no viable weapons of mass destructions progams, far less weapons, in Iraq at the time of the invasion. The very administration that told you that was a the reason for war has now admitted there was no WMD threat from Iraq.
You are entitled to your own opinions. NOT you own facts. The FACTS are that there were no WMD's or functioning WMD programs. If you fail to accept this, you are failing to accept the facts, and therefore your opinions can be classified as uneducated.
The above quote is an example of how political opponents (both liberal and conservative) take people's words and twist them to make you believe their side. I say, "We did not want Iraq to get WMDs" and you twist it to make me look like I'm claiming that Iraq had actual viable WMD. Why are you so afraid to even entertain the idea that Iraq wanted WMD? Nobody here is running for office (I don't think), so you don't have to be so stubborn and fearful that I'm going to use it against you. I promise I won't throw it in your face, shouting that I'm right and you're wrong. Quite the contrary, my opinion is based on the realization that I was wrong on some things. If you want to disagree with me on something, why not disagree that not wanting someone to have WMD is not a good reason to go to war, because if you want facts, here are some for you:
Sadam did, at one point, have WMD and did use them against the Kurds (if you deny this, you probably deny the Holocaust too).
Sadam did have an express desire to acquire nuclear weapons and did attempt to get them (even if the program failed or was abandoned before the war).
Sadam went to great lengths to hide whether he had WMD or not (I don't proclaim to know his reason for this, and I'm not claiming if our CIA did or did not know the true status of Sadam's WMD program or lack thereof).
Based on these statements, I believe this was at least one reason to go to war. Regarding the last statement, it is my opinion that we did not know the true status of WMDs in Iraq and neither did the rest of the world. If you agree with me fine, if you don't fine, but if twisting words and stubbornly sticking to nothing more then the liberal standard line is all you can offer to counter my arguements, then nothing will ever change, which again proves my point from my very first post of America tearing itself apart instead of coming together to find an acceptable solution for all.
Saddam did want WMDs, no doubt. In addition, he probably would have liked a squadron of attack dragons, an impenetrable force field over each of his palaces, and some of those wheelie-droids from the first Star Wars prequel. Since he had no capability of obtaining any of them, however, it doesn't matter.
Originally posted by Elok
Saddam did want WMDs, no doubt. In addition, he probably would have liked a squadron of attack dragons, an impenetrable force field over each of his palaces, and some of those wheelie-droids from the first Star Wars prequel. Since he had no capability of obtaining any of them, however, it doesn't matter.
Originally posted by Wezil
Can you not discusss the issue w/o putting people into pigeonholes? **** **** **** it's annoying!
Ha! But if you put people in pigeon holes, then you can dismiss their arguments without having to put any effort into evaluating them. In America, we call that "efficiency."
Originally posted by Elok
Saddam did want WMDs, no doubt. In addition, he probably would have liked a squadron of attack dragons, an impenetrable force field over each of his palaces, and some of those wheelie-droids from the first Star Wars prequel. Since he had no capability of obtaining any of them, however, it doesn't matter.
I disagree that he didn't have the capability to obtain WMD. I see that I am in the minority here, and part of the problem is there are not enough Americans here to discuss my actual point which is the divisiveness of America. It makes sense that if you're not American, you don't care about that topic, so I concede defeat.
The scariest thing, is that if Bush could run again, he'd proably win
Come election time the GOP could tell it's voters, well, we ****ed everything up, but if you let the other guys take over there will be gays marrying, abortion, and terrorists! (I'm really not terribly happy with the electorate in this country.)
"The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists."
-Joan Robinson
The above quote is an example of how political opponents (both liberal and conservative) take people's words and twist them to make you believe their side. I say, "We did not want Iraq to get WMDs" and you twist it to make me look like I'm claiming that Iraq had actual viable WMD. Why are you so afraid to even entertain the idea that Iraq wanted WMD? Nobody here is running for office (I don't think), so you don't have to be so stubborn and fearful that I'm going to use it against you. I promise I won't throw it in your face, shouting that I'm right and you're wrong. Quite the contrary, my opinion is based on the realization that I was wrong on some things. If you want to disagree with me on something, why not disagree that not wanting someone to have WMD is not a good reason to go to war, because if you want facts, here are some for you:
Sadam did, at one point, have WMD and did use them against the Kurds (if you deny this, you probably deny the Holocaust too).
Sadam did have an express desire to acquire nuclear weapons and did attempt to get them (even if the program failed or was abandoned before the war).
Sadam went to great lengths to hide whether he had WMD or not (I don't proclaim to know his reason for this, and I'm not claiming if our CIA did or did not know the true status of Sadam's WMD program or lack thereof).
Based on these statements, I believe this was at least one reason to go to war. Regarding the last statement, it is my opinion that we did not know the true status of WMDs in Iraq and neither did the rest of the world. If you agree with me fine, if you don't fine, but if twisting words and stubbornly sticking to nothing more then the liberal standard line is all you can offer to counter my arguements, then nothing will ever change, which again proves my point from my very first post of America tearing itself apart instead of coming together to find an acceptable solution for all.
1. That he used WMD's against internal enemies is not an international causus belli.
2. The nuclear program was removed as a threat in 1991.
3. Saddam was highly opaque about his intentions vis a vi weapons programs, a opaqueness that diminished as the war got closer and closer.
As for not knowing the "true status" of his program: The UN monitors job was to find out that status - and it wasn't them who went to the UN to present "evidence" that proved to be false. Yes, the world did not know the complete truth about Iraqis WMD's, but those that were honest about the evidence made their lack of information clear. Those that wanted war spoke in certainties - NEVER did Bush and Co. talk about "we don;t know what Iraq is up to" because most Americans would not hqave supported a war based on "we aren't sure." The admin claimed to have definitive evidence and had poor Powell give that pony show in front of the UNSC.
As for "America tearing itself apart, " you do nothing to help "heal" it with your basic "oh, you liberals' line.
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
Why is anyone responding to his functionally illiterate posts?
"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
Tweet
Comment