Forums of the Megaverse®

Hi everyone,

I've been reading on this board for the last week or so and just got my copies of CE, Creatures of Chaos, and Rise of Magic in the mail today. I've only gotten about 13 pages into CE so far, but my disbelief has already been suspended.

Thousand foot tidal waves? Check

Demon Hordes? I'm with ya

NEMA/NAA? ARE YOU NUTS??? So, let me make sure I'm getting this right- in the year 2035, after 30+ years of war against international terrorists and rouge nations, some leader in the US gets the bright idea "hey I know what we need to do to usher in a new golden age- lets combine countries with Canada and Mexico!" And the people go along with this???

The idea of the United States:

1) Subordinating it's national defense and domestic law enforcement to an international agency.
2) Making "strident efforts to create economic parity" between the allied nations- hmmm US is rich, Mexico is not, so that would mean joining the NAA means the US gives tons of money to Mexico while reducing its own standard of living, I can just see voters lining up to relect the geniuses behind this one.
3) Adopting universal laws- just one example- in the US you are innocent until proven guilty, in Mexico you are guilty until proven innocent, something would have to give.

I know I know, it's a GAME. I grew up on Palladium, playing with Ninja mutant aardvarks! That's more believable that this stuff! Anyways, just wondering if anyone else finds this all as off the wall as I do.

It's a golden age.
By definition people are more enlightened.

grizzly wrote:Hi everyone,

I've been reading on this board for the last week or so and just got my copies of CE, Creatures of Chaos, and Rise of Magic in the mail today. I've only gotten about 13 pages into CE so far, but my disbelief has already been suspended.

Thousand foot tidal waves? Check

Demon Hordes? I'm with ya

NEMA/NAA? ARE YOU NUTS??? So, let me make sure I'm getting this right- in the year 2035, after 30+ years of war against international terrorists and rouge nations, some leader in the US gets the bright idea "hey I know what we need to do to usher in a new golden age- lets combine countries with Canada and Mexico!" And the people go along with this???

The idea of the United States:

1) Subordinating it's national defense and domestic law enforcement to an international agency.
2) Making "strident efforts to create economic parity" between the allied nations- hmmm US is rich, Mexico is not, so that would mean joining the NAA means the US gives tons of money to Mexico while reducing its own standard of living, I can just see voters lining up to relect the geniuses behind this one.
3) Adopting universal laws- just one example- in the US you are innocent until proven guilty, in Mexico you are guilty until proven innocent, something would have to give.

I know I know, it's a GAME. I grew up on Palladium, playing with Ninja mutant aardvarks! That's more believable that this stuff! Anyways, just wondering if anyone else finds this all as off the wall as I do.

I've heard talk of doing exactly what KS has outlined in CE. Granted its been a small voice, and details are sure to be different, but the talk is there already.

Also, NEMA isn't a government. It's a Homeland Defense/National Guard agency, combined with a NAFTA-like agreement. Keep in mind that we already have some similar international defense forces through programs like NORAD.

Does that include Texas??

This coming from a guy in Arizona? I'm just playing. There are four or five enlightened people in Texas.

1) NEMA is a continental paramilitary "FBI/RCMP/Federale" force that is designed to ASSIST the local jurisdictions with multinational investigations / terrorits / etc that concern two or more of the three partners.

2) Have you not heard of NAFTA?
The US and Canada have been doing this for 5-10 years already.

3) The US has been sending billions into Mexico to prop-up and/or stabalize the Mexican government for almost 30 years prior to the signing of the NAFTA agreement!

Besides, on one form or another, the US government has been trying to "unify" North America under Washington since the 19th century... Why else do you think Washington made the Louisianna purchase and Alaska?

(If you didn't know, Alaska was purchased from the Russians because the US government of the time wanted to bring British Columbia into the Union, but too bad suckers...we gave 'em a better offer! )

Finally, the US government is actively agitating for a uniform continental customs service - a continet-wide "smart border" if you will...headquartered in Washington, thank you very much... Fat chance. And I'm NOT talking about the US reaction...The Canadian Governement takes all proposals originating from Washington with several kilos of salt! There's always too much "ruin your economy for our benefit" or "surrender this piece of your soverenity...you won't miss it, honest!"

Grizzly,
I would just like to note (as others have) they didn't combine countries, its an alliance much like the EU.

I'm well aware of NAFTA, and I'm aware that CE says the NAA/NEMA is an alliance, not that the 3 members combined countries. BUT, if you read the terms of the alliance, practically speaking they did combine countries.

Ok, what makes a nation a nation?

1) It has borders. The NAA does away with borders.

2) It has it's own military. The US is part of NATO. That doesn't mean Polish or French or German troops can come over to Ohio and start arresting people. NEMA agents DO have jurisdicition in Mexico, Canada, and the US.

3) It has laws. In the US this starts with our constitution which is dramatically different than pretty much all other constitutions in the world. Under the NAA Canada, Mexico, and the US have all the same laws.

So if 3 countries decide to do away with borders, have all the same laws, and allow a central military force to enforce those laws in all three countries, I don't see how you can say the members are still each independent nations.

grizzly wrote:]I'm well aware of NAFTA, and I'm aware that CE says the NAA/NEMA is an alliance, not that the 3 members combined countries. BUT, if you read the terms of the alliance, practically speaking they did combine countries.

Ok, what makes a nation a nation?

1) It has borders. The NAA does away with borders.

2) It has it's own military. The US is part of NATO. That doesn't mean Polish or French or German troops can come over to Ohio and start arresting people. NEMA agents DO have jurisdicition in Mexico, Canada, and the US.

3) It has laws. In the US this starts with our constitution which is dramatically different than pretty much all other constitutions in the world. Under the NAA Canada, Mexico, and the US have all the same laws.

So if 3 countries decide to do away with borders, have all the same laws, and allow a central military force to enforce those laws in all three countries, I don't see how you can say the members are still each independent nations.

You may have access to newer material than I do on CE...which is reasonable, since all I have is the “core” book, so I have not seen the terms of alliance listed.

1) Each of the countries still maintains it’s own borders...it just becomes easier for member state citizens to cross them. Sort of like it used to be a few months ago, where I could cross into the US on the strength of my Birth Certificate (since I don’t hold a driver’s license) alone. Now, I need a valid passport.

2) No...the troops of NEMA are not a military branch per-se. They are a legal enforcement branch like any other police service...they just have bigger and shinier toys! Yes, they use military rank structures, but then so do most police services! As for the Polish troops arresting you...that depends. Are you, by chance on the grounds of the Polish Embassy? No? Then you don’t need to worry. Like someone said. Think of them as a North American Interpol. And, in case you did not know, an Interpol inspector CAN make an arrest in any member country. As for a NEMA(US) trooper making an arrest in Canada or Mexico, can’t happen. They’ll call NEMA(Canada) or NEMA(Mexico) and have THEM make the arrest. But also remember, NEMA enforces “international” laws... think of it as a Canada/US/Mexico Swat Team. It responds to international threats/crimes, and leaves the “usual” stuff up to the locals.

3) No...each country still has it’s own legal codes and practices. An American lawyer still would not be able to practice in Mexico or Canada, but the three countries did align their laws in areas of international concern. This is along the lines of what the EU is, and what you have proposed that the NAA/NEMA treaty did was along the lines of what the EU was supposed to be.

As for the central military...each nation still has/had their own militaries, and if it came down to it, could have technically gone to war with each other...although I doubt that would have happened.


Also...

Shaded Helios wrote:You say that now, but when the psychotic killer sasquatch armies begin laying siege to your cities, then you'll come begging for American aide.

Why would we do that?

We feed them, train them, treat them well, make sure all the American “Big-Foot Hunters” are led astray and killed...er, discouraged strongly, and what’s more, give them all the free cable TV they could want. Strangely, they can’t seem to get enough of Coronation Street!

Uh,oh...I think I just mis-spoke...
The commander of the local psycho killer sasquatch squad is looking at me with an unpleasant look...time to go to another thread!

Today on "Largo", the canadian plan for world domination....

Shaded Helios wrote:

Shaded Helios wrote:
You say that now, but when the psychotic killer sasquatch armies begin laying siege to your cities, then you'll come begging for American aide.

Why would we do that?

We feed them, train them, treat them well, make sure all the American “Big-Foot Hunters” are led astray and killed...er, discouraged strongly, and what’s more, give them all the free cable TV they could want. Strangely, they can’t seem to get enough of Coronation Street!

Uh,oh...I think I just mis-spoke...
The commander of the local psycho killer sasquatch squad is looking at me with an unpleasant look...time to go to another thread!

It's all part of their master plan to retake Canada, lulling you into a false sense of security. They're just going along with you guys until they figure out how to steal cable on their own.

Unlikely...they tend to be too lazy to go out and find their own Americans to...ahem...play with. Remember, there are minors around...can't go into details.

Canada has been an active perticipent in Norad for years and more recently Mexico has been incorporated into Norad. So I don't see where the three countries could have a joint armed force while still maintaining thier seperate armed forces.

SMKeyes

My point was that the United States, Canada, and Mexico already have a partnership in working for the common defence and that NEMA could be see as just a further step of the three Countries working jointly together to combat threats that all three face.

SMKeyes

smkeyes wrote:Canada has been an active perticipent in Norad for years and more recently Mexico has been incorporated into Norad. So I don't see where the three countries could have a joint armed force while still maintaining thier seperate armed forces.

SMKeyes

The United Nations has its own forces (through contribution from Member states such as the US and France) yet nearly every nation still maintains its own army.

HeelHook wrote:

Josh Sinsapaugh wrote:The United Nations has its own forces (through contribution from Member states such as the US and France) yet nearly every nation still maintains its own army.

Barring the theories of conspiracy nuts, the United Nations does NOT have its "own forces." The UN uses units from standing military forces of contributor nations to carry out its mandate, which is more or less limited to peacekeeping operations. The UN generally does NOT engage in military interventions and the guys in blue helmets generally only show up after a peace or cease-fire has been brokered.

Which is how the idea of Peacekeepers was designed to be. (For those who do not know.) UN Peacekeepers are sent in to be a policing force in areas where people want stability, but due to problems can't do it themselves...Cyprus, The Balkans, assorted African nations, Afghanistan, etc. It is NOT intended to walk into an active warzone and forcibly keep the disputing parties separate.

HeelHook wrote:BTW, the US military manpower contribution to UN operations is next to nothin. Although the US contributions to the UN peacekeeping budget is amounts to nearly a quarter of the total, the US contributes less than a thousand people to UN peacekeeping, almost all of whom are civilian advisors. In fact, as of a few months ago, there were officially TWO United States military personnel involved with UN mandate operations.

Really? I have to admit I was unaware of that...

Kinda makes you wonder why the US hasn't paid their UN dues in 10-20 years!

Anyway... as the section of text I've deleted reads, the US simply makes it plain it won't let someone else run their troops, where most European Nations will, if/when/where required.

The same holds true to Canadian Forces. We will second them off to someone else's command, given sufficient cause or reason (ie: Peacekeeping (UN), we join the rest of the Commonwealth in a war (UK), etc...) However, heaven help the US commander that expects more than courtesy from a CF soldier when on joint manoeuvers!

That happened to a friend of mine several years ago while he served... He was a Corporal whom had been placed in charge of the QM office for a joint Canada/US exercise. Some idiot Yank Lewie swaggered in and immediately insisted he and his squad be bumped to the head of the line, and my friend to jump to it. He also demanded to be given the quarters that had been assigned to my friend (single suite with attached bath) in the barracks...assigned by HIS commander, if you want to know...

My friend told him to take his orders, fold them into crinkly corners, and shove them where the sun don't shine (given that there are minors reading this board...I'll leave it to you to figure out exactly what was said... ). He informed the idiot that if he was unsatisfied with the equipment, berths in the open barracks, and mess assignment provided to him (his unit being the last unit to arrive for the exercise), he could do something anatomically impossible.

The guy stormed off, my friend was "asked" to report to the base commander's office, and when he did, explained to the Major(?) exactly what had happend, and why he had said what he did. The Major then politely reamed the Yank out before asking my friend to leave the room. When the door closed...well, anyone who's served can pretty much be expected to know what happened!

When the yank stormed out, my friend was asked come back in, and essentially told "good job, keep-up the good work, and don't worry about him...his @$$ is grass for now.

Wait for it...

When my friend left the Base CO's office, he went out and saw the leftenant trying to order the private in a car to drive him back to barracks. The Private was refusing. My friend walked out, walked over, got in the car, and the private drove him back to the QM office! Another perk assigned to him by his CO!

When THAT one blew up in the yank's face (yes, he complained about it, and tried to have his unit removed from the exercise because of the flagrant disrespect he and his men had been forced to endure), he kept his nose clean for the rest of the exercise...

Why did I post the story?

I thought y'all could use a good laugh...after all, we've ALL met idiots like that, even those of us who have never served a day!

Well...they get what they want...as long as there are no wargames involved