PDA

View Full Version : Could a real world UNATCO work?



Dead-Eye
25th Jul 2010, 20:58
On the History channel I remember watching some special about presidential romances. One of which was a romance FDR had with Lucy Page Mercer. According to the special FDR told Lucy about his plans to lead the United Nations after WWII and help establish it as a world governing body. Unfortunately this dream of his never came into fruition because he died before the end of WWII.

This got me thinking, what if Roosevelt had gone on to lead the United Nations after World War II and established it as a real world governing body that worked? In essence what would a working United Nations be if the UN could make international laws and had the ability to enforce said laws. What would need to change and what would need to stay the same?

I ask because this political theme seems like it's at the center of Human Revaluations plot.

ArcR
25th Jul 2010, 21:55
You could write a book on any of the three questions you asked. Care to narrow it down to one?

ShinyRedKnight
26th Jul 2010, 01:54
Realistically speaking this does exist. That is the reason Deus Ex and Deus Ex HR are focusing on such topics.

Currently we have the UN, NATO, and several other international groups with plenty of power. Not as much as shown in Deus Ex, but the story in the games says it would happen over time.

Now you may not see that power if you live in say the US, but that's the point. That power and enforcement of law is in other countries were action is deemed necessary by any nation or group of nations that hold sway in the UN or NATO. Meanwhile, regular citizens living in a superpower country have little to no knowledge of how things work outside of their borders.

tartarus_sauce
26th Jul 2010, 02:11
Well, theoretically a UNATCO-like entity could exist- a transnational anti-terror force with broad powers. Tom Clancy's book Rainbow Six is a fair approximation of how such an entity might operate. The problem is that such an entity can only operate in an atmosphere of consensus. An organization like UNATCO couldn't exist in the near future because of the wide difference of opinion about how terrorism is to be defined, much less confronted. The broad popular support for Israel in the United States is balanced by the broad popular support for the Palestinians in Europe. The condemnation in the West of rogue or radical states like Iran, Chavez's Venezuela, etc., is balanced by the tacit support of authoritarian states like Russia and China. The relationships between states are too complex at this juncture to accomodate a UNATCO-like organization. To form UNATCO, one would need a complete consensus of at least the permanent members of the UN Security Council: US, China, Russia, France, and England. Good luck with that!

atLaNt1s
26th Jul 2010, 02:47
It appears to be likely that the people who want this unatco thing to happen will execute a plan that will involve a major event that will affect the whole world and to survive it all nations will have to come together and work as one. Seems to me to be likely, i hope it wont happen and another way to make us all come together will happen

tartarus_sauce
26th Jul 2010, 03:19
@ Atlantis

I'm assuming you're basing that notion on crackpot, Zeitgeist-style nonsense, rather than any rigorous research.

ArcR
26th Jul 2010, 03:58
Well, theoretically a UNATCO-like entity could exist- a transnational anti-terror force with broad powers.
What would it's scope and structure be?


An organization like UNATCO couldn't exist in the near future because of the wide difference of opinion about how terrorism is to be defined, much less confronted.

Bingo! This is one of problems. This could be a stimulating thread but it's nap time now. Keep it civil so I can join in tomorrow. :)

K^2
26th Jul 2010, 04:14
Yeah, but you don't need EVERYONE to agree on it. You think everyone agrees with UN's decisions and actions?

Basically, if US, Canada, EU, Russia, China, Australia, and Japan put one together, it'd be fairly untouchable all over the world. Such a coalition does not seem impossible.

tartarus_sauce
26th Jul 2010, 08:14
@ArcR

I think Tom Clancy actually got it right when he wrote Rainbow Six, a book about a new trans-national counter-terror team, working within NATO's command structure. At the time of writing, in the late 90's, it seemed fairly plausible. Of course, post-Iraq, the notion that America and Europe could have the same kind of chummy relationship necessary for such an organization to exist and operate freely stretches credulity. Nevertheless, it is theoretically possible- the UN has deployed troops, even fought full-scale wars before.

@K^2

You wouldn't need every country to agree, but you'd need a strong consensus. A UNATCO organization necessarily overrides sovereignty, which is something most countries are extremely wary of doing. Even if all the countries you mentioned put together some kind of counter-terror force (fantastically unlikely), it's unlikely the United Nations would hold together in the face of that kind of strong-arm behavior.

atLaNt1s
26th Jul 2010, 09:50
@ Atlantis

I'm assuming you're basing that notion on crackpot, Zeitgeist-style nonsense, rather than any rigorous research.

Im not taking a guess out of nowhere, and im not saying its going to happen, im jus sayin that it is likely that a major event (climate change, meteorite, virus, terrorism) that affects us all humans in the world will make us come together and work together as one, this may or may not could be a plan from the elite that wants to create a new world order.
Of course im speculating and so this should not be taken so seriously.

Dead-Eye
26th Jul 2010, 12:24
Well the United Nation Anti-Terrorist Coalition is not the most threatening name to national sovereignty. Not in a world where a new from of Cybernetic Terrorism has everyone in a mass hysteria. I mean maybe there we're a bunch of Terrorest groups that sprouted up just before the formation of UNATCO. They committed acts of terrorism on every nation with unmatched speed and efficiency that the world was scared. Thus forcing a Coalition from all nations in response to combat this threat.

In Cyberpunk 2020 (RPG coverback) characters would lose their morality when they augmented themselves. After too many augmentations people would tweek and go on killing sprees, think themselves gods and try and create a New World Order. Maybe in Deus Ex there was so much random terror by augmented people that something needed to be done. International laws on augmentation technology needed to be enforced to protect all nations from augmented people. Using the fear of augmented people and increased terrorism MJ12 forced the UN into passing the bill.

Fluffis
26th Jul 2010, 12:55
Basically, if US, Canada, EU, Russia, China, Australia, and Japan put one together, it'd be fairly untouchable all over the world. Such a coalition does not seem impossible.

Mentioning EU there, I just had to chime in:
The EU themselves are experiencing serious problems implementing all the things they want done. A lot of citizens in a a couple of countries are starting to have second thoughts about all this. And that is just a coalition of 27 states with (fairly) similar cultures and political climates. Imagine adding American thinking, Asian thinking... A coalition like that may not be impossible to get off the ground. But keeping it going, that's where the problems come in.

Irate_Iguana
26th Jul 2010, 14:37
Mentioning EU there, I just had to chime in:
The EU themselves are experiencing serious problems implementing all the things they want done. A lot of citizens in a a couple of countries are starting to have second thoughts about all this. And that is just a coalition of 27 states with (fairly) similar cultures and political climates. Imagine adding American thinking, Asian thinking... A coalition like that may not be impossible to get off the ground. But keeping it going, that's where the problems come in.

The EU countries aren't all pretty similar in culture and political climate. There are a few fairly easily recognized groups of countries. There is bound to be trouble given the long history of violence and mistrust between each and every country.

Even within the US not all states see things the same. There are plenty of differing laws for each state. Even federal law is not taken as absolute by some states. This is essentially the same country not seeing things eye to eye.

Fluffis
26th Jul 2010, 14:55
The EU countries aren't all pretty similar in culture and political climate. There are a few fairly easily recognized groups of countries. There is bound to be trouble given the long history of violence and mistrust between each and every country.


What I meant by that is that there are more similarities between the EU countries (culturally, mainly) than between most EU countries and, say, Japan or China, or even the US - though there it varies more from country to country (I'm from a EU country myself, so I do know what I'm talking about.)

But yes, there are clear "groups" of countries. The past wars don't make anything easier. Then try adding those particular differences to a global coalition, and you are going to see squabbling like you wouldn't believe. There's enough internal problems in the UN as it is. Imagine what would happen if they got their hands on some controlling power.

Irate_Iguana
26th Jul 2010, 18:26
What I meant by that is that there are more similarities between the EU countries (culturally, mainly) than between most EU countries and, say, Japan or China, or even the US - though there it varies more from country to country (I'm from a EU country myself, so I do know what I'm talking about.)

The Northern countries have a pretty different culture from the Southern countries or the Balkan countries. The Northern countries are more on par with the USA than with their Eastern and Southern compatriots. I'd regard the Eu more as a combination of three distinct blocks than as a solid whole. The differences between the blocks are almost the same as between those three other countries. The only thing that really unites them is the fact that they are on the same continent.

(I'm also an EU resident).

Fluffis
26th Jul 2010, 19:01
The Northern countries have a pretty different culture from the Southern countries or the Balkan countries. The Northern countries are more on par with the USA than with their Eastern and Southern compatriots. I'd regard the Eu more as a combination of three distinct blocks than as a solid whole. The differences between the blocks are almost the same as between those three other countries. The only thing that really unites them is the fact that they are on the same continent.

(I'm also an EU resident).

Don't forget common history... Granted most of it has been a history of war, but even that can actually bring understanding, as well as dissension, because while countries may have been enemies in one war, most have been allies in another. And just in the last, say, 20-30 years (even before the EU started to have any real influence in that area), people have been learning a hell of a lot more about their neighbours, and getting cross-nation cultural influences.

I'm from Sweden (one of the northern ones, for the sake of inter-post aligning) and I'd say we're pretty far from being on par with the USA (though god knows, it's not from lack of trying by some parties). We're one of those countries that certain elements in the US tend to look at as being one step removed from (if even that) Communists.

Anyway, that's not really the point I was trying to make: If something as, relatively speaking, small as the EU has this much trouble; imagine bringing in Asia, Australia, Africa and the Americas into the mix as well. Now we're talking major cultural differences, and some pretty nasty wars and colonizations. I see it as a recipe for disaster, frankly.

Irate_Iguana
26th Jul 2010, 20:37
Anyway, that's not really the point I was trying to make: If something as, relatively speaking, small as the EU has this much trouble; imagine bringing in Asia, Australia, Africa and the Americas into the mix as well. Now we're talking major cultural differences, and some pretty nasty wars and colonizations. I see it as a recipe for disaster, frankly.

Oh, I quite agree. Even though Russia and China are both pretty much huge countries even they have several factions withing their borders that don't see eye to eye. Cooperation of humans on any grand scale is already difficult. Having different countries work together is almost impossible. The best chance is if the goal is something pretty nebulous and leaves none of the countries worse off than when they entered.

Fluffis
26th Jul 2010, 20:48
Oh, I quite agree. Even though Russia and China are both pretty much huge countries even they have several factions withing their borders that don't see eye to eye. Cooperation of humans on any grand scale is already difficult. Having different countries work together is almost impossible. The best chance is if the goal is something pretty nebulous and leaves none of the countries worse off than when they entered.

Agreed. Any kind of concrete coalition with true power is pretty much doomed from the get-go.

Dead-Eye
26th Jul 2010, 21:28
Well assuming you where MJ12 and had almost unlimited resources with no moral inflexibility how would you establish said organization?

FrankCSIS
27th Jul 2010, 03:03
It will take time, tremendous amount of it, and a bit of luck.

A stable EU, with a unified army, is necessary before any of this can happen. Democracy has demonstrated to be the one force which stands a chance in bringing together the European nations, where all dictators and conquerers miserably failed. Democracy takes time, however, more than we can fathom in any conspiracy plan. People are having second guesses now, because they've just figured how much individuality you lose when you aim for concensus. Concensus which, in democracy, does not in any way represent the sum of all of its parts.

I'd say the EU is its own threat, in the sense that there are people working too actively at building it, moving things into motion too fast, mostly for their own glory. I'd suspect this is the kind of project some people wish to see finished before they pass, and interestingly it may be the very reason why they will never actually see it. With enough time, this project is bound to succeed. In theory all the right ingredients are there, but the future is far too unpredictable for me to make a bet on this one. All you need is one bad (or bold) leader to set you back twenty years.

The reason I'm bringing any of this up is because how rather accurate a model it is for what you are looking for. Democracy spreading almost fanatically accross the globe, enforced through war when necessary, is the foundation of such a project. We may find it highly improbable at this point for nations to agree to a matter such as this, but the situation will not be the same once all nations work through a governance institution which heavily relies on concensus. Governance is too unbalanced in the world now for a global force to work, and for people to agree on the simplest matters. Again, time will do its toll, supposing no leader, or group, tries to shift the balance dramatically in the meantime, or simply sees things too differently.

I've mentionned a few times on this board and elsewhere that I've come to see democracy as living thing, spreading accross the world, taming everything down. We can see it in action as it bullies some states in the EU, in favor of the voice of the "majority", and yet manages to further tighten its grasp with every passing vote. There is no reason, save a martian invasion or a sudden nuclear war, for it not to succeed in bringing the nations together, whether they truly want it or not. I don't think there are any mysterious men hiding behind curtains setting this whole thing up. It simply appears to be democracy's built-in logic to spread in such a way.

ArcR
31st Jul 2010, 23:50
If Intel is the cornerstone of CT work then Interpol rather than NATO would be the most likely candidate. After all UNATCO is law enforcement not military. If you go to their wiki page or their official website you'll see that all they are missing is a proactive force.


In order to maintain as politically neutral a role as possible, Interpol's constitution forbids its involvement in crimes that do not overlap several member countries,[3] or in any political, military, religious, or racial crimes -wikipedia

jd10013
1st Aug 2010, 02:04
Realistically speaking this does exist. That is the reason Deus Ex and Deus Ex HR are focusing on such topics.

Currently we have the UN, NATO, and several other international groups with plenty of power. Not as much as shown in Deus Ex, but the story in the games says it would happen over time.

Now you may not see that power if you live in say the US, but that's the point. That power and enforcement of law is in other countries were action is deemed necessary by any nation or group of nations that hold sway in the UN or NATO. Meanwhile, regular citizens living in a superpower country have little to no knowledge of how things work outside of their borders.

good point, but in reality the US is NATO, and the UN is more a debating society then anything else. not to say there's necessarily anything wrong with that, but history has shown over and over again that the UN is mostly incapable of doing anything meaningful. and now, on top of all that, it's become quite corrupt.

going back to NATO, without the US, and to a lesser extent GB, there really isn't a NATO. no other European country posses any significant military, and more importantly, none have the desire or stomach to act militarily. again, not necessarily a bad thing. but, it is what it is.

I think the greater strength and influence is shifting more towards economic ties, and trade blocks. I think, for example, the EU wields far more power economically than it does either individually, acting through NATO, or the UN.

tartarus_sauce
1st Aug 2010, 08:56
no other European country posses any significant military, and more importantly, none have the desire or stomach to act militarily

Tell that to the ******* European dead in Afghanistan:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_casualties_in_Afghanistan

Yes, their casualties are fairly low, but they still got stick in the fight, and those men are still dead. NATO doesn't lack for sack.

matt1284
1st Aug 2010, 15:38
It's taken me some time to step up and register for this
But I spend time on here every day, reading thoughts all of you had and this conversation more than sparked my interest enough to join in.


The original game, whether people would care to admit it or not, CLEARLY had obvious underlying meanings in the plot, in the story of where things can EASILY head.

The second one was a little bit different, but the first had connotations that stood as so real possibilities it was almost scary.

There's another game like that, MGS4. If any of you had ever beaten it, you'd see.
How easy it would be for the World to sit in a war state. It would be so easy for states to depend on a War Economy. Enterprises and Corporations will be reaping benefits from such, and here we are at the start of HR.

I'm nearly positive something similar will happen. I mean we're already on the path..

jd10013
1st Aug 2010, 18:00
Tell that to the ******* European dead in Afghanistan:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_casualties_in_Afghanistan

Yes, their casualties are fairly low, but they still got stick in the fight, and those men are still dead. NATO doesn't lack for sack.



But what percentage of Europeans actually support the war in Afghanistan? How many countries have pulled out and would they still support it if those causalities were increased by 10X? I highly doubt it. If the US weren't in there taking the lions share of the cost and casualties, would any European country except possible GB even be there?

if every country but the US and GB pull out of NATO, NATO isn't significantly weakened. if the US and GB pull out, there isn't really a NATO anymore. no country is going to be terribly frightened of Germany, France, Spain or the other smaller countries of Europe. hell, the Germans aren't even allowed much of an army, the Netherlands has actually unionized theirs. They've lived under the US security blanket for 50 years.

now, don't take the wrong impression away. I'm not dissing any other country or their military. but to suggest they could rise up to dominate or even significantly influence the world is a little, out there. IMO

now compare that to the considerable economic power they have. In that arena they can greatly effect the behavior of other countries.

matt1284
1st Aug 2010, 18:07
And thats the power or pull someone would initially need to start something...

El_Bel
1st Aug 2010, 18:45
Well, we are not gonna send our troops to die to protect American interests and i am pretty sure that NATO is not there to assault countries, but to protect its members. Your national security is not threatened, so we dont have a reason to send troops and keep them there.

By the way, strategically you are doing the wrong thing there. You are creating reasons for people to join Al-Qaeda, hate among the population, losing money and man fast, in a perpetual war with no enemy to target. Thats not bravery, thats stupidity and its a good thing that our countries would never do that.

jd10013
1st Aug 2010, 19:52
Well, we are not gonna send our troops to die to protect American interests and i am pretty sure that NATO is not there to assault countries, but to protect its members. Your national security is not threatened, so we dont have a reason to send troops and keep them there.

By the way, strategically you are doing the wrong thing there. You are creating reasons for people to join Al-Qaeda, hate among the population, losing money and man fast, in a perpetual war with no enemy to target. Thats not bravery, thats stupidity and its a good thing that our countries would never do that.

it's not a discussion on what should be done, or what NATO would do. Its, not a discussion on the merits of the Afghan war. we could go around in circles in a point counter point fashion from now till doomsday. It's about if NATO could impose itself on the world. and without the US or GB, it probably couldn't. it simply lacks the ability.

that's the only point I'm making. that nato (without the US and to a lesser extent GB) is simply a paper tiger. please don't drag this into a US policy debate.

Dead-Eye
1st Aug 2010, 22:57
Didn't they just fined out that Afghanistan has large deposits of natural resources? I remember hearing about it on the news or something and that china wants in. So, forgetting about the value of human life, this war could eventually pay off in the long run right? Or maybe that's just Fox News propaganda.

GamerX51
2nd Aug 2010, 00:46
Or maybe that's just Fox News propaganda.

If you're looking to get a politically unbiased news report from Fox, then you'll never want for moonshine. :nut:

jd10013
2nd Aug 2010, 00:57
Didn't they just fined out that Afghanistan has large deposits of natural resources? I remember hearing about it on the news or something and that china wants in. So, forgetting about the value of human life, this war could eventually pay off in the long run right? Or maybe that's just Fox News propaganda.

yes, you would be correct.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/world/asia/14minerals.html

but there's not guarantee it will pay off for anyone. look at places like Venezuela and Mexico. some of the largest oil reserves in the world, but both are corrupt, poor and almost 3rd world countries.

jd10013
2nd Aug 2010, 00:58
If you're looking to get a politically unbiased news report from Fox, then you'll never want for moonshine. :nut:

I don't think there is such a thing as unbiased news anymore :(

GamerX51
2nd Aug 2010, 00:59
I don't think there is such a thing as unbiased news anymore :(

Sad but true, I'm afraid. :(

Great_Ragnarok
2nd Aug 2010, 01:39
The concept of UNATCO is inherently vulnerable to corruption!
That was the whole point in Deus ex.

Great_Ragnarok
2nd Aug 2010, 01:40
I don't think there is such a thing as unbiased news anymore :(

There was never such a thing as unbiased news!
It has and will always be a propaganda tool.

jd10013
2nd Aug 2010, 17:46
The concept of UNATCO is inherently vulnerable to corruption!
That was the whole point in Deus ex.

i think it was more of a nod to the conspiracy theory that the UN was really just a part of the whole new world order. the one where there were supposedly "dots" put on US interstate speed limit signs to show the UN troops which way to go.

The premise of deus ex was "what if every conspiracy theory was true". I don't think it was trying to teach, or preach anything.

jd10013
2nd Aug 2010, 17:47
There was never such a thing as unbiased news!
It has and will always be a propaganda tool.

a bit cynical, aren't we?

mad_red
3rd Aug 2010, 19:12
It's about if NATO could impose itself on the world. and without the US or GB, it probably couldn't. it simply lacks the ability.

As it stands, yes. But remember that the United States didn't have much to show before it entered WW2 either.

If a situation arises that the EU has to FIGHT THE ARMIES OF THE REST OF THE WORLD, yes nato would fail. Do you see the absurdity of your hypothetical?

In reality, big standing armies tend to either slowly destroy their host nation or grow obsolete too quickly. The whole perception of maintaining military force at effective operational levels is not only a detriment to prosperity but also to peace. They pretty soon become a living thing force of their own, as we've been warned by the Baser Daddies and again in 1961. It's just luck that this hungry behemoth happens to represent democracy nowadays (or is it?)

And there's the problem with UNATCO and globalism in general. Move too fast and it becomes a top-down process that cares more about itself, or worse - gets perverted in its purpose - than for the purpose it was originally intended (FrankCSIS was here). Move too slow and you sacrifice the lives on the of the people who depend on these institutions.

Assuming that there is no middle ground, nor any conspiracy theories/malice of forethought, which would you prefer?

ArcR
4th Aug 2010, 18:19
And still everyone ignores the fact that UNATCO is a POLICE organization.

mad_red
6th Aug 2010, 17:12
And still everyone ignores the fact that UNATCO is a POLICE organization.

Unatco is police, FEMA is emergency management, tri-lateral commission is a think-tank, etc. I'm not sure I follow you.

Wait a minute.... Ya mean UNATCO is not like NATO? Well yeah, not very much. Tell us your point, ArcR! :wave:

edit, doesn't the wave-smiley look like he's flipping you the bird? Now that's subliminal, or maybe it's just subconscious...

JCpies
6th Aug 2010, 20:14
Of course it wouldn't. Well until they pass helicopter safety tests... look what happened when I fell out of Jock's helicopter.... http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash1/hs545.ash1/31886_132676010079438_100000111200349_361255_486109_n.jpg

Ashpolt
6th Aug 2010, 20:29
^^ Good job humans have evolved to have their hearts in their left arm by 2052!

mad_red
8th Aug 2010, 22:57
^^ Good job humans have evolved to have their hearts in their left arm by 2052!

That's just the beginning. Delocalized organ technologies will create a whole new form of body art and fashion. People will wear their heart on their sleeves, lend each other their ears, and throw their hands up in the air.

Ashpolt
8th Aug 2010, 23:48
and throw their hands up in the air.

Like they just don't care?

pringlepower
9th Aug 2010, 01:34
Of course it wouldn't. Well until they pass helicopter safety tests... look what happened when I fell out of Jock's helicopter.... http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash1/hs545.ash1/31886_132676010079438_100000111200349_361255_486109_n.jpg

You can fall out of that thing?

JCpies
9th Aug 2010, 21:12
You can fall out of that thing?

Yep I've confirmed it. xD

Well I didn't fall out of it, but there was a small glitch and just after the animation of the chopper leaving Unatco HQ I appeared on the floor of the helipad. I took loads of damage as if falling through the rotors of the helicopter.

Luckily I carry my heart around in a suitcase connected to my ear.

Abram730
20th Aug 2010, 11:03
UNATCO does exist in an ad hoc sort of way... Every time there is a G20 meeting the local police seem to turn into UNATCO..

There's a Ted talk discussing privatizing a large part of the US military and putting it under the command of the G20..

mad_red
20th Aug 2010, 12:18
There's a Ted talk discussing privatizing a large part of the US military and putting it under the command of the G20..

Oh, bright idea. It's sure to go down well with those black-bloc folks. Makes me wish they aren't provocateurs just to not see the looks on their hooded faces.

Dead-Eye
20th Aug 2010, 20:03
There's a Ted talk discussing privatizing a large part of the US military and putting it under the command of the G20..

Privatizing a part of the US military? I would rather die....


damn I'm dead.

mad825
20th Aug 2010, 21:14
most of the U.S military is already privatised anyway, Mercenaries (PMCs) are hired to carry out basic armed combat and peace keeping.

nathanj
22nd Aug 2010, 21:26
interpol.........closest thing i can think of. as far as it existing........sure. but im in the camp that doesnt like it one bit. keep government as local as possible cause if the schools suck or they start taxing to much or wasting money or spying on people etc. then i can just move to another county or state. if everything is run by the feds or worse an international entity then where exactly do you go?

Raised On Riots
1st Sep 2010, 04:49
Probably just Wiki-bunk, but the page says that the game will somehow tie-in to the creation of UNATCO.

Info?

Pinky_Powers
1st Sep 2010, 05:08
It starts out as Adam Jensen's boys-only club house. But things get out of hand when young Manderley contracts neural syphilis and kills half the members. Once Jensen is driven out of his own club the organization decays quickly and Manderley reshapes the thing as an aggressive utility for his own power.

Raised On Riots
1st Sep 2010, 05:20
It starts out as Adam Jensen's boys-only club house. But things get out of hand when young Manderley contracts neural syphilis and kills half the members. Once Jensen is driven out of his own club the organization decays quickly and Manderley reshapes the thing as an aggressive utility for his own power.

:eek:

Fascinating.

Senka
1st Sep 2010, 07:09
*whoosh*

tartarus_sauce
1st Sep 2010, 07:50
UNATCO actually began as The Ancient Mystic Society of No Homers. It suffered mission creep, and eventually assumed counter-terror duties.

Irate_Iguana
1st Sep 2010, 09:21
Info?

Nothing solid at this point. Only vague promises that we will see the events leading up to the creation of UNATCO. It has been hinted at in a few interviews.

Ashpolt
1st Sep 2010, 09:33
UNATCO?

No, Savage.

Pinky_Powers
1st Sep 2010, 09:35
no, savage.

unatco?

Pretentious Old Man.
1st Sep 2010, 10:21
unatco?

No, savage within six months.

Desperate, your turn.

pha
1st Sep 2010, 10:29
ITT: Electronic old men and their flexibility.

Pretentious Old Man.
1st Sep 2010, 10:37
Electronic old men are the future.

Raised On Riots
1st Sep 2010, 13:52
Nothing solid at this point. Only vague promises that we will see the events leading up to the creation of UNATCO. It has been hinted at in a few interviews.

I see. Thanks.

Raised On Riots
1st Sep 2010, 13:54
I have someone in place. ;)

(He's useless and rather nancy-boy, but he's in place)

TrickyVein
1st Sep 2010, 14:34
Wait, wut? You'd better tell me what the hell you mean, right now.

Raised On Riots
1st Sep 2010, 14:54
Wait, wut? You'd better tell me what the hell you mean, right now.

If you don't get that, you are not "Deus".

Lady_Of_The_Vine
1st Sep 2010, 14:55
Probably just Wiki-bunk, but the page says that the game will somehow tie-in to the creation of UNATCO.

Info?

I merged your new thread with the existing one. Info inside...

Raised On Riots
1st Sep 2010, 15:02
I merged your new thread with the existing one. Info inside...

Okley-Dokley. Thanks.

FrankCSIS
30th Sep 2010, 03:52
Indeed.

Poor Skynet is trying hard to formulate a coherent text. It wants to be human, and partake in conversations, all the while offering RuneScape Gold on most of his servers.

hem dazon 90
30th Sep 2010, 03:55
Not right now no, maybe in a few years

FrankCSIS
30th Sep 2010, 03:59
to be honest, as a tank, I'm a little nervous about the inevitable transition period from Wrath's festival of AOE to Cataclysm's "CC everything!" model.

I'm never going to be able to sleep tonight. I just can't wrap my head around any of this. "As a tank", really?

Raised On Riots
30th Sep 2010, 04:02
*quote edited out*

WTF? Is you speakin' Chinese, son?

Irate_Iguana
30th Sep 2010, 09:51
WTF? Is you speakin' Chinese, son?

You always talk to the spambots?

AlexOfSpades
30th Sep 2010, 11:45
I detected a spambot when i saw "The Icecrown frostwyrms were a logistical headache for guild leaders "

Lady_Of_The_Vine
30th Sep 2010, 15:21
Nothing wrong with chatting to the spambots.
Just avoid quoting them, otherwise a mod has to go edit your own post to remove it. :)

Raised On Riots
30th Sep 2010, 15:39
Nothing wrong with chatting to the spambots.
Just avoid quoting them, otherwise a mod has to go edit your own post to remove it. :)

"Frostyworms".

(facepalm)

JCpies
30th Sep 2010, 16:10
"Frostyworms".

(facepalm)

You quoted a spambot. Naughty you. What kind of name is MyImmortal anyway? The trash they come up with these days. :rolleyes:

Raised On Riots
30th Sep 2010, 16:14
You quoted a spambot. Naughty you. What kind of name is MyImmortal anyway? The trash they come up with these days. :rolleyes:

No, the worst part is that I quoted ANYTHING with "WoW" in it.

For shame...

Pinky_Powers
30th Sep 2010, 16:32
The best conversation I ever had was with a bot.

Of course, I was nearing that high white note on heavy booze and mean pills... and I was naked. But we spoke tenderly to one another and eventually came alive with our mutual lust.

Raised On Riots
30th Sep 2010, 16:34
The best conversation I ever had was with a bot.

Of course, I was nearing that high white note on heavy booze and mean pills... and I was naked. But we spoke tenderly to one another and eventually came alive with our mutual lust.


:lmao:

mad825
30th Sep 2010, 16:41
YWhat kind of name is MyImmortal anyway?

merely the first thing comes into mind is referencing to my immortal by Evanescenes, it's really self-explanatory on what it means and what kind of name it is .

AlexOfSpades
30th Sep 2010, 16:52
Yeah, i thought of Evanescence too.

Bots populate Omegle these days, as much as genitals populate Chatroulette.

St. Mellow
30th Sep 2010, 21:10
Bots populate Omegle these days [...]

/b/tards too.

Archy
30th Sep 2010, 23:49
a small military base on liberty island would definitely work
after all nobody would be pissed about them defacing a national landmark

Redem
1st Oct 2010, 16:04
Heh wasn't UNATCO defective in game?

Pinky_Powers
1st Oct 2010, 17:57
Heh wasn't UNATCO defective in game?

Defective?

They were corrupt, but UNATCO was very effective in their corruption.

Raised On Riots
1st Oct 2010, 23:26
Defective?

They were corrupt, but UNATCO was very effective in their corruption.

He's just looking for the softer elements...

He will release a memo in a few days.

He has good reason to hold back the announcement; he is still collecting data.

YOU AREN'T NEEDED, AGENT!!!!!

Lady_Of_The_Vine
2nd Oct 2010, 01:36
merely the first thing comes into mind is referencing to my immortal by Evanescenes, it's really self-explanatory on what it means and what kind of name it is .
Fits snugly into the H+ theme, wouldn't you say? :)

LOL @ Pinky. :D

OwlSolar
2nd Oct 2010, 01:51
The first thing that comes into my mind when I read that name is a horrible fanfic.

I'm sorry. :(

Techne
5th Sep 2011, 16:20
We already have something very close to being UNATCO,it's called Interpol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpol).