Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome!

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Tom Clancy game shows support for a NAU
Topic Started: Jan 21 2008, 10:46 PM (261 Views)
Sureshot
Member Avatar
Your glorious Loose Change Forum dictator...
So I just got done D/l'ing a demo for Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter and my jaw dropped when the storyline was told when Mexicans rebelled after the US, Mexico and Canada joined together in an agreement just like NAFTA. You are an elite squad that neutralizes these rebels.

Quote:
 
The game takes place over the course of two days in 2013, beginning in Mexico City. A US spy plane carrying Guardrail IX, a device capable of disrupting wireless communications, is shot down over Nicaragua. Intelligence discovers a plot to transfer the device to rebels in Mexico City, and the Ghosts are sent in to retrieve it. One of the rebels is identified as Colonel Carlos Ontiveros, son of Mexican General Ontiveros, and a student of Bud, Mitchell's friend and a UH-60 pilot. The mission is aborted when a coup d'état begins in Mexico City and the Ghosts are ordered to Mexico City immediately, where a summit involving the leaders of the United States: President Ballantine, Canada: Canadian Prime Minister (unnamed), and Mexico: President Ruiz-Pena, who are signing the North American Joint Security Agreement (NAJSA). The summit is attacked by Mexican revolutionaries, who kill the Canadian Prime Minister, and force the Presidents of the US and Mexico into hiding. Mitchell is sent to safely extract both leaders.


Talk about blatant propaganda.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jim76

Propaganda for what? It sounds like a reasonable scenario to me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sureshot
Member Avatar
Your glorious Loose Change Forum dictator...
The context. It is totally in favor for it. It also makes players think "NAU? Cool, I saw that in GRAW."

BUT I'm not bashing gamers, I'm one of them. And I disagree with a lot of "video games are bad" arguments.
Edited by Sureshot, Jan 21 2008, 11:37 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ross
Member Avatar

So what exactly about the free trade agreement is so terrible? I'm not saying it's a good idea, I'm just trying to educate myself as to why most people are against it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rich
Member Avatar

Ross
Jan 26 2008, 09:29 AM
So what exactly about the free trade agreement is so terrible? I'm not saying it's a good idea, I'm just trying to educate myself as to why most people are against it.
Its not the free trade agreement that is the bad part, its the fact that the government will be seizing land owned by familles in order to build their big assed roads etc, this is one problem amongst others.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Q
Member Avatar
A Higher Evolution
Ross
Jan 26 2008, 09:29 AM
So what exactly about the free trade agreement is so terrible? I'm not saying it's a good idea, I'm just trying to educate myself as to why most people are against it.
Under the "Free Trade Agreement" that our nazi government signed with the u.s., let's say that Australia produces 120,000 tonnes of coal per year. Under the "Free Trade not Fair Trade Agreement" we have been contracted to supply 60,000 tonnes of coal to the u.s. per year. To keep it really simple, we'll also conclude that Australia consumes the other 60,000 tonnes per year.

Seems nice and cozy doesn't it? We're guaranteed a sale of 60,000 tonnes every year to the u.s. and we can do what we like with the balance.

But in 2017 one of our major coal seams runs out, and that year we can only produce 75,000 tonnes of coal. Now we need 60,000 tonnes for our own country, so we can really only afford to sell the remaining 15,000 tonnes.

Seems quite reasonable, doesn't it? Until you read the fine print.

We still have to fork over the 60,000 tonnes to the u.s. under the "Free Trade Agreement" and are then expected to survive ourselves on the remaining 15,000 tonnes.

Now what happens if our new government says, "We don't have 60,000 tonnes this year, the best you're going to get is 15,000."? Oh, what happened in Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan? Suddenly Australia will be part of the "Axis of Evil". We'll be invaded for our "own benefit" while the Bush family blow up homes so that they won't need to consume power for heat or electricity thus freeing up the 60,000 tonnes that has been usurped by the u.s. under the guise of "free trade".

That's the super-simple version. Which do you support now? Free or Fair Trade?

Me? I'm off to steal a spaceship when I'm supposed to be launching it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sureshot
Member Avatar
Your glorious Loose Change Forum dictator...
Another problem with NAFTA super-highways is that roads built with money from citizens (aka tax dollars, we funded the roads' maintenance etc.) will become toll-roads, even though we funded them. Its like buying a movie, then paying for everytime you watch it. Also the tolls go to the Spanish owned company that built them. It also will bypass small cities, making the small cities turn into ghost towns, making it into one big super cities.

Its like buying the food, cooking it, setting it on the table, but not allowing us to eat beside you.
Edited by Sureshot, Jan 26 2008, 09:50 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ross
Member Avatar

I'm glad I asked. I learned more than I thought I would. I guess when Canada runs out of fresh water, I'll be on that axis of evil as well.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Fully Featured & Customizable Free Forums
Learn More · Sign-up for Free
« Previous Topic · The Lounge · Next Topic »
Add Reply