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
Another thing that is similar is the biological racism. (a distictive characteristic of the west).
What?!
Have you never left your house or communicated with a human being from a non-western country?
“As a lifelong member of the Columbia Business School community, I adhere to the principles of truth, integrity, and respect. I will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.”
"Capitalism ho!"
Another thing that is similar is the biological racism. (a distictive characteristic of the west).
What?!
Have you never left your house or communicated with a human being from a non-western country?
“As a lifelong member of the Columbia Business School community, I adhere to the principles of truth, integrity, and respect. I will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.”
"Capitalism ho!"
greece is right bang on the middle in percentage of immigration in the EU vis a vis population so I see plenty of people from all over thank you very much.
west's biological racism as opposed to balkan cultural/religious one is evident from the writings of univeristy professors you penguins don't know!
(also the virulent strain of antisemitism)
I was reading about ww2 and in thessaolinke which was named the second jerusalem because a lot of spehardic jews lived there.
The nazis went so far as actually "requesting" that the jewish cemetary there was unearthed.
They didn't justify it by saying we hate jews and they must die. No. They said "we believe this is the best thing in the context of an architectural revival of the city" or some such ****.
Likewise, your complete surrender to corporate and military congomerates have you behave like clowns that noone believes and say "we don't want their resources/geostrategic leverage etc", we just want to bring freedom to the little people.
It's hilarious.
Another thing that is similar is the biological racism. (a distictive characteristic of the west).
Nazis believed the aryan is superior, your whole nation foundation is built on the hilarious assumption that the "white" is superior. A proud descentant of the protestant racist womb from where you sprung
But, one has to be fair. In this regard you have made STRIDES.
We really aren't that organized, or collective. ... And we sure don't care that much about architecture.
I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh
I'm think Iran started it's nuclear program because everyone else has one.
Do you want to be the only one without a Air Force or Navy? Heck even NK figured this out - even before Iran.
I'm surprised really Iran does not have a weapon yet. Is it that hard to build even a small one that might only work %50 of time. Throw enough of those over and job done anyway.
They probably weren't ever going to actually build one because Isreal would whoop the **** out of them before they could do it and make fools out of them. But they wanted to dupe idiot liberals, like Obama.
I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh
Thanks. That makes it clear that there were Iranian nuclear program activities between the revolution and 2006
You are noting that Iran is not "due to release their plans to you dear reader of the internet" and then you ask why Iran is taking the action they took? We don't need to ask why to note what. And the "what" is an active Iranian nuclear development program before 2003.
Missed this one
If everything being on standstill from 1970's is an "active" program... we clearly read it differently.
Correct. Iran couldn't do much in the way of the development program until they'd completed some research. They were conducting that research in 2003. It took them years to get up to speed, so it wasn't until 2006/7 that they had a serious program going. The timing of the serious program was based on the need for research, not the US invasion of Iraq.
North Korea existed for many decades before they had a nuke. It doesn't seem likely that their continued existance is due, therefor, to their possession of nuclear weapons 9if they even possess them).
I for example noticed that the US "regime" change policy became even more proactive since 2001, and while NK existence may have proven to be largely due to China before 1990, and due to US not being particularly active in that region during 1990's, since 2001, or Jan 2002 and the famous "axis of evil" speech, the easiest target was taken out rather quickly. NK in the meantime acquired nukes, while US was busy in Iraq, and Iran is well on the way of doing the same.
US made threats, acted on them, why would anyone not take those seriously?
What is poor form is to tell someone what they are arguing, particularly when you get it wrong. The argument that "nuclear armament and self-defense are not related" is one you have made up, not me.
I thought you are arguing that Iran was not motivated by US Iraq invasion in order to start the development of nuclear weapons again. So you are reading that basically no progress over the 20 years before the invasion, and sudden progress of their program post 2002 are not related at all to what is happening right next door, and having most republicans in DC advocating Iran invasion at one time or another, is pure fantasy.
In my view, Iran is developing nuclear weapons for domestic political reasons; the revolutionary regime has failed to deliver economic prosperity, and is using the nuclear program as a sop to nationalist pride, to distract the people from their living conditions. The regime no doubt thinks that there will be a defense benefit as well, but I don't think that they would undertake such a program for defense reasons only, given that they face no existential threats. The boogeyman of a US invasion of Iran is not only not "just a matter of time," as you assert, but does not even make any sense objectively. The US has zero reason to invade Iran, and lacks the means even if it had a motive.
On my end, no country would be ready to spend a year of GDP in less than a decade, if it, or their leadership did not think that this the the only route to their own survival.
There are many more ways to engage the domestic politics with this sort of money, other than getting such an expensive self-defence mechanism. To me it is obvious, while to you I guess not.
Socrates: "Good is That at which all things aim, If one knows what the good is, one will always do what is good." Brian: "Romanes eunt domus"
GW 2013: "and juistin bieber is gay with me and we have 10 kids we live in u.s.a in the white house with obama"
If everything being on standstill from 1970's is an "active" program... we clearly read it differently.
Indeed. We cannot even agree that the IAEA's complaints about the Iranian program progress before the US invasion of Iraq constitute evidence of "everything being on standstill."
I for example noticed that the US "regime" change policy became even more proactive since 2001, and while NK existence may have proven to be largely due to China before 1990, and due to US not being particularly active in that region during 1990's, since 2001, or Jan 2002 and the famous "axis of evil" speech, the easiest target was taken out rather quickly. NK in the meantime acquired nukes, while US was busy in Iraq, and Iran is well on the way of doing the same.
North Korea was on course to develop nuclear weapons before the "axis of evil" speech and after it. NK acquired nukes when it was ready to (if, in fact, what it has are actually nuclear weapons), regardless of US "busy-ness" elsewhere.
US made threats, acted on them, why would anyone not take those seriously?
What threats did the US make against Iran or North Korea? Why should anyone take them seriously.
I thought you are arguing that Iran was not motivated by US Iraq invasion in order to start the development of nuclear weapons again. So you are reading that basically no progress over the 20 years before the invasion, and sudden progress of their program post 2002 are not related at all to what is happening right next door, and having most republicans in DC advocating Iran invasion at one time or another, is pure fantasy.
I am arguing that Iran has made steady progress towards acquiring a bomb, and that the sudden stops and starts you propose didn't happen. I propose that, had the US not invaded Iraq, Iran would still be building a bomb. The Carnegie Endowment report on Iran's nuclear program supports this, and notes that the US invasion of Iraq actually caused the Iranians to back off on their program, until the US threat lessened, after which the Iranians accelerated their program again.
Between 2003 and 2005—against the backdrop of the U.S. invasion of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq—France, Germany, and Britain (the EU-3) led a diplomatic effort to resolve the nuclear crisis. Iran, sobered by the fact that the United States had just defeated an Iraqi army in three weeks that they had fought to a standstill over eight years, initially agreed to suspend its enrichment program. It also voluntarily implemented the IAEA’s Additional
Protocol, which allows for more intrusive inspections, for more than two years. But as the situation in Iraq began to deteriorate, turning in Iran’s favor, oil prices began to soar, and the EU-3 failed to bridge the gap between Iran and the United States, Tehran’s leaders grew emboldened enough to reject what they believed to be the West’s underlying objective: to get them to permanently give up their right to enrich uranium. On August 8, 2005, in
the final days of Mohammad Khatami’s presidency, Iran restarted uranium conversion at its Isfahan facility.
With the election victory of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2005, Iran adopted a harsher stance in negotiations. Eventually, in January 2006, it broke the IAEA seals and restarted uranium enrichment.
On my end, no country would be ready to spend a year of GDP in less than a decade, if it, or their leadership did not think that this the the only route to their own survival.
There are many more ways to engage the domestic politics with this sort of money, other than getting such an expensive self-defence mechanism. To me it is obvious, while to you I guess not.
I think that you vastly overestimate the cost of the Iranian nuclear program, and this is probably what is distorting your perception of Iranian actions. The Carnegie Endowment estimates the cost of the Iranian nuclear program, from its 1957 start to 2013, at "well over $100 billion." (http://fas.org/wp-content/uploads/20...ar_odyssey.pdf) Iran's GDP in 2013 was $558 billion.(http://www.tradingeconomics.com/iran/gdp) "Well over $100 billion" isn't anything like $558 billion.
The dogmas of the quiet past, are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty…we will be remembered in spite of ourselves… The fiery trial through which we pass, will light us down, in honor or dishonor, to the last generation… We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth.
- A. Lincoln
greece is right bang on the middle in percentage of immigration in the EU vis a vis population so I see plenty of people from all over thank you very much.
west's biological racism as opposed to balkan cultural/religious one is evident from the writings of univeristy professors you penguins don't know!
(also the virulent strain of antisemitism)
Why is being racist because of cultural/religious prejudice somehow better than being racist because of biological beliefs?
Axis of evil, followed by taking out one of the members, was that not a threat? What about the nice list of links in the previous post?
Here is another referencing closer to 500bn real cost of the program, based on 100bn actual cost estimate. Either way, it costs too much for anything other than an "existential" threat could justify in my opinion. When they had a war with Iraq, Iran did not do anything to try acquiring nukes then. One could argue that they understood pretty well that they can deal with Saddam in a conventional way, despite of Saddam's use of chem weapons.
As for the "steady progress" perception, there was very little, if any progress from 1980 to about 2002. During whole of 1980's, "acquisition of some schematics" listed as major development and some cooperation with Argentina in 1990's, the first warning about their program only by October 2003 by IAEA. I doubt that Iranian program would be any different to 1980's and 90's, if not for Iraq invasion and constant stream of threats to Iran by US politicians post 2001 (primarily republican, but also some democrats).
I guess we will never know, and can agree to disagree, but digging all those media statements was a fun treasure hunt nevertheless.
Socrates: "Good is That at which all things aim, If one knows what the good is, one will always do what is good." Brian: "Romanes eunt domus"
GW 2013: "and juistin bieber is gay with me and we have 10 kids we live in u.s.a in the white house with obama"
Axis of evil, followed by taking out one of the members, was that not a threat? What about the nice list of links in the previous post?
Threats are: "if you do this (or don't do this) I will hurt you." Threats aren't vague references. The US made specific military threats against Iraq. It didn't do so against Iran. Apples and oranges.
The nice list of links I ignored because you weren't making any argument that they would support. If you enjoyed making that list, then that is its own reward.
Here is another referencing closer to 500bn real cost of the program, based on 100bn actual cost estimate. Either way, it costs too much for anything other than an "existential" threat could justify in my opinion. When they had a war with Iraq, Iran did not do anything to try acquiring nukes then. One could argue that they understood pretty well that they can deal with Saddam in a conventional way, despite of Saddam's use of chem weapons.
The $500 billion figure is from the same guy I quoted, and would include all potential lost economic activity as an indirect result of the Iranian nuclear program, and is only a hypothetical. In any case, it isn't the number that the Iranian leadership would include in a 'cost" of the program (especially because the sanctions imposed on Iran were imposed more for supporting terrorist organizations than nuclear programs). That you consider the cost too high is moot. The very source you cite doesn't make the argument that the program is in response to an existential threat; even your source argues that the Iranian leadership is pursuing political, not military, objectives:
It's possible that for Iran's leaders, the recognition of what it interprets as the country's "rights" under the 1970 Non-Proliferation Treaty is a diplomatic victory that justifies the outrageous expense of the nuclear program.
Once a final deal is signed, Iran's longstanding argument that all nations are entitled to uranium enrichment under the NPT will have been vindicated, radically re-casting the treaty as a greenlight for the proliferation of dual-use nuclear technologies in spite of its name.
Having pocketed this accomplishment, Iran's regime will have the international prestige that comes with having a legally recognized, industrial scale nuclear program.
As for the "steady progress" perception, there was very little, if any progress from 1980 to about 2002. During whole of 1980's, "acquisition of some schematics" listed as major development and some cooperation with Argentina in 1990's, the first warning about their program only by October 2003 by IAEA. I doubt that Iranian program would be any different to 1980's and 90's, if not for Iraq invasion and constant stream of threats to Iran by US politicians post 2001 (primarily republican, but also some democrats).
Iran's R&D program followed exactly the steps one would expect in an R&D program. Even you concede that there were developments in the 1980s and 1990s. They couldn't be dramatic developments because their program wasn't in any condition to undertake dramatic developments. The Iranians had already built test centrifuges by 2002, which is different from the 1990s but entirely in accordance with what one would expect of such a program.
I guess we will never know, and can agree to disagree, but digging all those media statements was a fun treasure hunt nevertheless.
My position is based on evidence. You could convince me to change my position if you presented me with contrary evidence. You haven't though; you have presented me just with your opinion.
The dogmas of the quiet past, are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty…we will be remembered in spite of ourselves… The fiery trial through which we pass, will light us down, in honor or dishonor, to the last generation… We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth.
- A. Lincoln
Threats are: "if you do this (or don't do this) I will hurt you." Threats aren't vague references.
No. You're just misusing words.
A guy pointing a gun at you is a threat regardless of what he says. A guy saying he's going to kill you is making a direct threat, and is a threat if he has (or can reasonably be assumed to have) the capability to act on that threat. A guy shooting your neighbor and moving in next door is a threat to you and everyone in the neighborhood. There is no need for an ultimatum to be issued for a threat to be made, or for a threat to exist.
That's what Cheney is patting himself on the back for having done ... He's just absolutely wrong in his assessment as to what that threat accomplished. Iran didn't stop their nuclear program, it accelerated shortly after. "There was a period of time when they stopped their program because they were afraid what we did to Saddam we were going to do to them next."
A guy pointing a gun at you is a threat regardless of what he says. A guy saying he's going to kill you is making a direct threat, and is a threat if he has (or can reasonably be assumed to have) the capability to act on that threat. A guy shooting your neighbor and moving in next door is a threat to you and everyone in the neighborhood. There is no need for an ultimatum to be issued for a threat to be made, or for a threat to exist.
That's what Cheney is patting himself on the back for having done ... He's just absolutely wrong in his assessment as to what that threat accomplished. Iran didn't stop their nuclear program, it accelerated shortly after. "There was a period of time when they stopped their program because they were afraid what we did to Saddam we were going to do to them next."
Under your definition, though, everyone is a threat to everyone else because everyone has the capability to act on any whim to hurt. Cops shooting your murderer next-door neighbor and staying to investigate his crimes are not a threat to you and everyone in the neighborhood, except in the most vague sense.
Iran did slow their nuclear program and agree to expanded inspections in the immediate aftermath of the invasion of Iraq, and then ended that expanded cooperation and accelerated their program after they gained the upper hand in Iraq. You can wish this fact away, but it won't go away because you wish it. What Cheney says is irrelevant to the case, unless he said it to the Iranians at the time. Quotes without cites are disingenuous at best, dishonest at worst.
The dogmas of the quiet past, are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty…we will be remembered in spite of ourselves… The fiery trial through which we pass, will light us down, in honor or dishonor, to the last generation… We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth.
- A. Lincoln
Tweet
Comment