NationStates Jolt Archive

Yeah I know there is no way in hell that Rumsfeld is going to end up in a German jail but this is still pretty funny. It is almost hard to believe it is not a spoof. So much for patching up relations with old Europe. Oh well, at least we have Poland on our side.


The New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and Berlin's Republican Lawyers' Association has filed suit in Germany against Donald Rumsfeld on behalf of 4 Iraqis who allege they were mistreated by American troops. A number of other high-ranking US officials are also named. AFP writes:

' The groups that filed the complaint said they had chosen Germany because of its Code of Crimes Against International Law, introduced in 2002, which grants German courts universal jurisdiction in cases involving war crimes or crimes against humanity. It also makes military or civilian commanders who fail to prevent their subordinates from committing such acts liable. '


What is interesting about the Pentagon reaction to this suit is how frantic the Department of Defense seems. Although spokesman Larry DiRita dismissed it as "frivolous," he threatened Germany with dire consequences if the suit goes forward.
DiRita said,

'"Generally speaking, as is true anywhere, if these kinds of lawsuits take place with American servicemen in the cross-hairs, you bet it's something we take seriously . . . I think every government in the world, particularly a NATO ally, understands the potential effect on relations with the United States if these kinds of frivolous lawsuits were ever to see the light of day." '


These remarks raise several questions. Why is DiRita hiding behind the fact that American servicemen are "in the cross-hairs? What have Rumsfeld's policies or legal problems got to do with grunts on the front line? You think they like Rumsfeld? Look what happened when he let them ask him questions.

Then, if the lawsuit is frivolous, why should it produce grave consequences for Germany? It should produce frivolity and hilarity if it is frivolous. It seems actually to be taken very seriously.

Is the real threat the damage to Rumsfeld's public image, or the danger that the lawsuit may prompt a discovery process?

Finally, surely DiRita is not suggesting that the Federal government actively interfere with a legal process? Wouldn't that be the Executive squelching the Judiciary? Isn't that contrary to the separation of Powers? Or is the new monarchism to be imposed on Germany as well, now that it is the model in Washington?
www.juancole.com

Ah crap, are we gonna have to start calling them "Freedom" Shepards now? Dammit....

"Freedom" Potato Salad....

What doesn't anyone else find this hillarious? seeing Rumsfeld on the witness stand all sweaty and stuttering looking like Richard Nixon would almost make up for his incompetent boobery the way he handled the Iraq war.

Maybe he will entertain us further with his explanation of known and unknown "unknowns". :rolleyes:

Well, I'm sure that Germany would find it hilarious if we closed the remaining bases there. They lost about 300 billion in revenue since Rumsfeld punished them by closing bases there and moving them elsewhere.

I'm sure the Germans are quite nervous about it. But, you can't have your money from Rumsfeld and prosecute him at the same time, can you?

"Pentagon threatens Germany for indicting Rumsfeld for War Crimes!"


GOOD! :D

"Pentagon threatens Germany for indicting Rumsfeld for War Crimes!"


GOOD! :D

Is that "good that Pentagon threatens Germany" or "good Germany for indicting Rumsfeld"?

Are the Germans turning into fucking retards? :rolleyes:

These remarks raise several questions. Why is DiRita hiding behind the fact that American servicemen are "in the cross-hairs? What have Rumsfeld's policies or legal problems got to do with grunts on the front line? You think they like Rumsfeld? Look what happened when he let them ask him questions.

Finally, surely DiRita is not suggesting that the Federal government actively interfere with a legal process? Wouldn't that be the Executive squelching the Judiciary? Isn't that contrary to the separation of Powers? Or is the new monarchism to be imposed on Germany as well, now that it is the model in Washington?
www.juancole.com

Well, as a matter of fact, we like Rumsfeld, and the rest of the Presidents people. They are all very popular with the vast majority of us.

The question was planted by a reporter who was upset by the fact that the reporters couldn't ask him questions. Not that it wasn't a valid question however.

Why the concern? The US has with Germany, and most other countries that we have troops in, a SOFA. "Status of Forces Agreement". If you haven't heard of it, look it up. It dictates the legal relationship between the US, the trooper, and the host country. If Germany decided to do some of these lawsuits, they would be in violation of the SOFA, and that is in essence a treaty violation of sorts.

Well, I'm sure that Germany would find it hilarious if we closed the remaining bases there. They lost about 300 billion in revenue since Rumsfeld punished them by closing bases there and moving them elsewhere.

I'm sure the Germans are quite nervous about it. But, you can't have your money from Rumsfeld and prosecute him at the same time, can you?
I wonder, would removing our bases send the EU's economy down the tube?

Are the Germans turning into fucking retards? :rolleyes:

If they take this suit seriously they have clearly lost their minds or they have the biggest balls on the planet.

Rumsfeld should be fired for all the torture and shit but I don't know how an association of German lawyers has standing to bring a suit in Germany against an american for something which happened in Iraq. Those crazy Germans and their laws. Oh well Saddam will probably laugh his ass off when he hears about this.

Ah crap, are we gonna have to start calling them "Freedom" Shepards now? Dammit....

"Freedom" Potato Salad....

Lol! :D

Or, it could be a repeat of WWI: sourkraut (sp?)=liberty cabbage, hamburger=liberty steak, German measles=liberty measles, etc. :rolleyes:

Well, I'm sure that Germany would find it hilarious if we closed the remaining bases there.
The sooner the better.

I'm sure the Germans are quite nervous about it.
No we're not. It's not even news here.

[QUOTE=Kick Ass Inc]Well, as a matter of fact, we like Rumsfeld, and the rest of the Presidents people. They are all very popular with the vast majority of us.

[QUOTE]

Did you do a gaint survey to figure that out? I hope your not talking about US troops, as a cousin of mine in IRAQ, does not share this opinion nor does many of his mates in his platoon..

Well, I'm sure that Germany would find it hilarious if we closed the remaining bases there. They lost about 300 billion in revenue since Rumsfeld punished them by closing bases there and moving them elsewhere.

I'm sure the Germans are quite nervous about it. But, you can't have your money from Rumsfeld and prosecute him at the same time, can you?

And while your are at it, please get the fuck out of Portugal.

(Not that your military would do it, you need the bases you have here, as well as the german bases. I would be impressed if rumsfeld had the courage to do such a stunt. Impressed, and very happy, actually.)

I signed the petition (mostly because I think it's funny/sad that the US has no real accountability to anyone) to have the German prosecuters go forward with the investigation. I found it from Michael Moore's website lol.

Here's the link:
http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/whatsnew/action/actionAlert2.asp

Take Back America! (oops too late, but lets at least have fun until the brimstone singes the hand basket we're all in)

I signed the petition (mostly because I think it's funny/sad that the US has no real accountability to anyone) to have the German prosecuters go forward with the investigation. I found it from Michael Moore's website lol.

Here's the link:
http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/whatsnew/action/actionAlert2.asp

Take Back America! (oops too late, but lets at least have fun until the brimstone singes the hand basket we're all in)


Umm I dont agree with the war in iraq but retarded ideas like this just further protray anyone who doesnt support the Iraqi war as a fruit loop.

You supporting a GERMAN lawsuit. These are GERMANS, nuff said..

The lawsuits are filed by US organisations you retard.

The lawsuits are filed by US organisations you retard.


What are you a fucking moron?

A new york based firm AND Berlin's Republican Lawyers' ....


:rolleyes:

What are you a fucking moron?

A new york based firm AND Berlin's Republican Lawyers' ....


:rolleyes:
You can't very well file lawsuits without any legal representation genius. :rolleyes:

You can't very well file lawsuits without any legal representation genius. :rolleyes:


Ahhhhhh, Berlin's republican lawyer group, :confused:

What are you a fucking moron?

A new york based firm AND Berlin's Republican Lawyers' ....


:rolleyes:

Wait. DId you read your own post? Seriously. Did you?

"They arn't Americans! Look, it's from a New York based firm..."






And I'm gonna go sign it :p

Of course they're German. You don't actually think Bush and the Republican congress would look into their own cabinet's corruption do you?

This part cracks me up:
"According to the Deutsche Press Agency, Donald Rumsfeld has warned Germany that he will not attend an upcoming security conference in Munich if there is any indication of an investigation going forward..."

I'm sure everyone will be so disappointed. :D

I wonder, would removing our bases send the EU's economy down the tube?
No. We depend on your trade, not your military bases.

Remember that Poland is also in the EU.

i would love to see that f*ck going down. oh well if they pull this thing rumsfeld is fucked if he ever leaves usa again. i mean to any country that has some crime suspects trade agreements with germany :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)

Why does taking this suit make Germany retarded...

It'd be like saying Spain was stupid for wanting to try Pinochet. Though, Spain did have some connection so maybe not quite such an appropriate example but you get the idea.

It's the beauty of universal jurisdiction, the country itself doesn't have to have jurisdiction by virtue of the offender or victim being from that country. The crime is one that's recognised as giving universal jurisdiction.

Why shouldn't a country's officials be held accountable for war crimes?
It's quite clear that the USA wouldn't try anyone. Nor would any country be likely to try their own officials.

"The New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and Berlin's Republican Lawyers' Association has filed suit in Germany against Donald Rumsfeld on behalf of 4 Iraqis who allege they were mistreated by American troops. A number of other high-ranking US officials are also named. AFP writes:"

As has been pointed out, this has nothing to do with either government. I assume the US junta is frothing at the mouth and that the German government is very embarrassed. This is properly acted legal action undertaken by private companies. The only thing I find laughable is Rumsfeld 'threatening' to not attend a meeting in Germany. That's just petulance.

'bout time, actually. The US courts just don't have t3h cojones.

Last time there was a story about one of the Bush Administration being arrested it was Bush in Canada and that was a hoax, so I think it's a hoax.

Last time there was a story about one of the Bush Administration being arrested it was Bush in Canada and that was a hoax, so I think it's a hoax.

He hasn't been arrested.
A lawsuit has been filed.
Two very different things.

Great! Just what we need, another Bush administration bashing, put the Americans down, screw the U.S. military post written by a bunch of juveniles who haven't gotten rid of their pimples and can't speak without using cuss words. :cool:

They aren't pimply types. They're lawyers. And besides, screwing any military is a good thing, even if that was what we were doing.

Great! Just what we need, another Bush administration bashing, put the Americans down, screw the U.S. military post written by a bunch of juveniles who haven't gotten rid of their pimples and can't speak without using cuss words. :cool:

Why does it always have to come down to personal attacks on the posters?

This isn't military bashing, it is rumsfeld bashing because he is an idiot.
If you support the military you should probably support this, to stick it to Rumsfeld for all the idiotic things rumsfeld has said and done from his ingenius "faster lighter military" which basically means "I am too cheap to propperly fight a war" to his "you can have all the armor in the world on a tank but it can still get blown up" comments.

I remember a few months before 9/11 Bush and co were talking about scaling back the military from being able to fight two superpowers at once to only being able to one, or multiple smaller nations. In my opinon, they've got everything they have comming for them.

I'm in no way bashing the military; I merely want people to realize that Bush wasn't pro military until it was convient for him to be:
http://www.army.mil/aps/aps_ch4_3.htm
Bush continued the path that Clinton had started by closing down bases and moving soldiers off bases in foreign countries. I think our soldiers are doing a great job in Iraq, even though they probably should have never been sent there in the first place. There are still questions as to whether America invaded Iraq legally in the global sense of law, which is a little muddier and harder to enforce especially with America basicly being the major figure of international relations on a global scale.

This happened not long ago too:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,11548996%255E2703,00.html

I'm all for stopping terrorism, but I don't think Bush and Rumsfeld are going to be able to do it. They certainly weren't able to do it before 9/11, and the tactics they're using now are just making countries like Iran and N Korea more paranoid and more likely to attack. I can't really blame them; I'd be kind of mad if some jerk called me evil, too. There's already another thread about NK threatening to attack Japan around here somewhere...

No. We depend on your trade, not your military bases.

Remember that Poland is also in the EU.
We are not that dependant on their trade either.

One point all those "Germany bashers" forget: It´s AMERICANS trying to bust Rummy using German law which allows war-crimes - even not commited by or against Germans EVERYHWERE on the globe - to be prosecuted here. Technically Iraqis could sue Saddam over here or Kosovars could sue Milosevic or Checheny could sue Putin, etc.

Same thing happened a few years ago as well with Belgium and Powell, remember?

What´s so freaking bad about it? It´s not like it is our fault some people try to bust Rumsfeld (and one might admit, they have a point, Abu Ghraib and those yes-nodded torture, remember?).

And it´s part of the protocol and due process to CHECK if such a law-suit is acceptable or not. You guys don´t really expect to break or ignore our laws just for you, right?

Sure, it´ll be pretty nasty for Rummy IF the court should accept such a lawsuit (which I actually doubt, unless the people filing the lawsuit can present some GOOD evidence).

Sure withdraw your petty bases, the sooner the better - don´t be illusional. The little money GI Joe actually does spend over here has NO - and I mean: NO - importance to our economy. Actually we export MORE goods than the US (makes you think, doesn´t it) and the econoic predictions are looking a little bit better every month. So loosing the business of GI Joe spending 2.50 at the local Mickey D. doesn´t give me any headache.

And if you don´t want your chaps being prosecuted for war crimes, don´t go to war in the first place ;)

Sure withdraw your petty bases, the sooner the better - don´t be illusional. The little money GI Joe actually does spend over here has NO - and I mean: NO - importance to our economy. Actually we export MORE goods than the US (makes you think, doesn´t it) and the econoic predictions are looking a little bit better every month. So loosing the business of GI Joe spending 2.50 at the local Mickey D. doesn´t give me any headache.

And if you don´t want your chaps being prosecuted for war crimes, don´t go to war in the first place ;)

Wow, advocating a unilateral violation by Germany of international treaty. I thought you told the US that no nation can unilaterally violate an international treaty?

And when the unemployment rate comes back down in Germany, let me know. Meanwhile, we'll be building BMW and Mercedes cars in America from now on (oops, we already do!).

Wow, advocating a unilateral violation by Germany of international treaty. I thought you told the US that no nation can unilaterally violate an international treaty?

How am I "advocating a unilateral violation by Germany of international treaty."? Please elaborate.

And when the unemployment rate comes back down in Germany, let me know. Meanwhile, we'll be building BMW and Mercedes cars in America from now on (oops, we already do!).

Actually we built them over here as well, you know?

Is it me, or America doesn't have any real friends anymore ... apart from an island called Ozstalia?

How am I "advocating a unilateral violation by Germany of international treaty."? Please elaborate.

I think he's implying that you asking the US to remove their bases is a breach of the treaty that keeps them there. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me either but there you go.

How am I "advocating a unilateral violation by Germany of international treaty."? Please elaborate.

Actually we built them over here as well, you know?

The NATO Treaty, and the Status of Forces Agreement.

Also, BMW is planning to eventually stop all auto construction in Germany due to the outlandish wage scale and benefits required by the government. They will continue to do design research in Germany, but no longer build cars there. Daimler-Chrysler has the same plan, only to take a bit longer.

So your autoworkers are going to be out of a job in any case.

The NATO Treaty, and the Status of Forces Agreement.

Also, BMW is planning to eventually stop all auto construction in Germany due to the outlandish wage scale and benefits required by the government. They will continue to do design research in Germany, but no longer build cars there. Daimler-Chrysler has the same plan, only to take a bit longer.

So your autoworkers are going to be out of a job in any case.Bah they'll build planes for airbus instead.
BTW when the US listen to the UN, I will listen to NATO.

This could be a really cunning way for countries to get rid of unwanted US bases! UK next please!

This could be a really cunning way for countries to get rid of unwanted US bases! UK next please!Is there any US base in the UK?

Bah they'll build planes for airbus instead.
BTW when the US listen to the UN, I will listen to NATO.
Ah, airbus, are they still subsidized by the French government?

Ah, airbus, are they still subsidized by the French government?
A lot yes.

Ah, airbus, are they still subsidized by the French government?
All big companies are subsidised one way or another, directly, tax breaks, grants. So that doesn't really matter.

All big companies are subsidised one way or another, directly, tax breaks, grants. So that doesn't really matter.

Multinational corporations especially, are now like big sports teams. They can demand those subsidies (and most anything else they want) from governments. If they don't get what they want, they leave.

The illusion that your government (or nation) has any control over that is just that, an illusion.

Multinational corporations especially, are now like big sports teams. They can demand those subsidies (and most anything else they want) from governments. If they don't get what they want, they leave.

The illusion that your government (or nation) has any control over that is just that, an illusion.
Actually in the case of airbus, it is partly owned by the government. I have no problem with subsidies.

The NATO Treaty, and the Status of Forces Agreement.

Well, you forget a thing: The lawsuit hasn´t been ACCEPTED. It´s currently processed. Probably judges will notice that petty NATO treaty of yours and therefore will NOT accept the lawsuit, referring to the treaty posted by you above.

Just because the possibility exists that we MIGHT trial Rummy does not make us bad people, in fact, you Americans are all about human rights, freedom and stuff. Better be glad you´re not the only ones.

And please, this is NOT a conspiracy to "attack the US of A", because noone here gives a fuck about Rummy, everyone knows this guy is a turd. And if he really IS a war criminal, I see no reason why he should be spared, though I´d prefer Americans take care of their own war criminals - we can´t always be there to clean the mess up you make ;) Just turn him over to his own men, they´ll be glad they can nail him to one of their tanks as extra armour ;)

Also, BMW is planning to eventually stop all auto construction in Germany due to the outlandish wage scale and benefits required by the government. They will continue to do design research in Germany, but no longer build cars there. Daimler-Chrysler has the same plan, only to take a bit longer.


Actually wrong. Production here will continue, especially after some other companies made very bad experiences with the quality of work done in foreign countries. And you might have missed the news about some reforms going on over here, benefits are cut back, there is no reason for them to go. And as the prvious poster said: We´ll just find something new we can use to dominate the markets, always have and we will again :) And if everything fails, we can always go crusading in the east again ;)

I wonder, would removing our bases send the EU's economy down the tube?

i wonder, would demanding the money that america ows the world by not paying import debts make america poorer then most 3rd world country's?
i mean they only have import loans to china and asia for 400 billion

Bah they'll build planes for airbus instead.


That'll go 2 Billion dollars over budget?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4097885.stm

I still don't see how someone suggesting that the US bases should be closed breaks a treaty...

Had they suggested that the German government close them that would be a different matter.

Anyway back to the original point.

German law allows some crimes to be tried in Germany no mater who commited them or where they were commited.

Some New York lawyers believe that Donald Rumsfeld has broken one of those laws.

So they are preparing a case in Germany.

Someone from the US government has got angry and upset about this and issued a statement that could be read as a veiled threat against the German Government.

Now if the above is all correct and no one is arguing that the German court system is corrupt the real issue would be what should happen if he is found guilty of war crimes in a German court and an extradition request placed.

i wonder, would demanding the money that america ows the world by not paying import debts make america poorer then most 3rd world country's?
i mean they only have import loans to china and asia for 400 billion
Actually it would probably just crash all the world's economies.

Well, you forget a thing: The lawsuit hasn´t been ACCEPTED. It´s currently processed. Probably judges will notice that petty NATO treaty of yours and therefore will NOT accept the lawsuit, referring to the treaty posted by you above.

Just because the possibility exists that we MIGHT trial Rummy does not make us bad people, in fact, you Americans are all about human rights, freedom and stuff. Better be glad you´re not the only ones.

And please, this is NOT a conspiracy to "attack the US of A", because noone here gives a fuck about Rummy, everyone knows this guy is a turd. And if he really IS a war criminal, I see no reason why he should be spared, though I´d prefer Americans take care of their own war criminals - we can´t always be there to clean the mess up you make ;) Just turn him over to his own men, they´ll be glad they can nail him to one of their tanks as extra armour ;)



Actually wrong. Production here will continue, especially after some other companies made very bad experiences with the quality of work done in foreign countries. And you might have missed the news about some reforms going on over here, benefits are cut back, there is no reason for them to go. And as the prvious poster said: We´ll just find something new we can use to dominate the markets, always have and we will again :) And if everything fails, we can always go crusading in the east again ;)

Not saying you're country is doing anything wrong. It's just that if a country wants to go telling the US not to unilaterally violate treaties, then it should stick to that concept and not violate treaties unilaterally.

The benefits in Germany are so far in excess of those of the US, Japan, and most of the world outside of Europe (especially the combination of holidays and sick days), I would NEVER start a manufacturing firm there. I could have the design work done there, and do the work somewhere else.

Japan, for instance. They are currently regarded as having much finer production control quality than either the US or Germany.

Rumsfeld is a war criminal, I know it's hard for people to accept that could be the case with a US politician, but that is only due to your conditioning. Rumsfeld sold weapons on behalf of the US to Saddam, and so should be met with the same war crime charges as the Dutch man being prosecuted for selling the weapons to Saddam that he used on the Kurds. The weapons Rumsfeld sold were used on the Iranians.

Rumsfeld has also acted illegally in condoning the use of mental and physical torture, sexual humiliation and killing of numerous "sections" in Iraq. During the Cold War and the this "war on terror" he has totally fabricated "evidence" to justify actions against other nations. History makes it quite clear that his escalation of the cold war during Reagan's presidency was based on total lies and using CIA anti-USSR propaganda as "fact". With "Al-Qaeda" he has done exactly the same, from lies about underground bunkers "the cave complex", to lies about the entire nature and creation of "Al-Qaeda". He (along with full government support) has used these lies to justify to the US public (and the world), the overthrow of 2 regimes so far and the killing of thousands of innocent civilians...while feeding anti-US feelings around the world. He has also used his political power for personal or corporate gain, rather than for the benefit of US citizens or the world (prime example being aspartame's approval for human consumption, against all medical warnings from clinical trials).

Both Rumsfled and Cheney (at the least) are war criminals, it is just that their absolute positions of power makes them immune to presecution and they will probably die happy, fat and rich - while the consequences of their actions bring misery to millions.

[snip]
Now if the above is all correct and no one is arguing that the German court system is corrupt the real issue would be what should happen if he is found guilty of war crimes in a German court and an extradition request placed.
Whats the betting that the US would withdraw from or ignore all its international extradition treaties as it has done with all other treaties it found inconvenient in the last four years.

Actually it would probably just crash all the world's economies.

yupp, but that means that we all become poorer then the 3rd world country.
and since they have nearly all the natural resources they could start dominating us. We would go back in history, at some extend even to the times that tanks n planes werent really there, xept for the countrys who have the fuel to keep them going. So it would be middle east domination, or china domination.. (they could swarm the world)

point im making is wow ur threads are hollow, if any big player of the world economy drops out of the running the entire thing would collapse, u think that if europe wouldnt support vs anymore their economie would be thriving?

It's just that if a country wants to go telling the US not to unilaterally violate treaties, then it should stick to that concept and not violate treaties unilaterally.


I ask again: How are we unilateraly violating treaties?

The benefits in Germany are so far in excess of those of the US, Japan, and most of the world outside of Europe (especially the combination of holidays and sick days), I would NEVER start a manufacturing firm there. I could have the design work done there, and do the work somewhere else.

That´s your opinion. Other global companies invest here DESPITE the fact of our "excessive benefits", because they want quality and that´s what they´ll get. If you´re into die hard Manchester capitalism, exploration and abusive work laws... well... go ahead. Invest elsewhere, but deal with the consequences. A number of companies which invested or relocated into Poland are currently coming "back home" because they made such (sarcasm) great experiences over there.

I don´t loose any sleep over it.

Great! Just what we need, another Bush administration bashing, put the Americans down, screw the U.S. military post written by a bunch of juveniles who haven't gotten rid of their pimples and can't speak without using cuss words. :cool:

Yup, that's right, we HATE the US military. All troop should DIE! DIE DIE DIE!!! Sorry for the sarcasm and I know this is stereotypical...but this sounds exactly like the kind of thing someone from an über-red state would say..."you're against the war, therefore you're against the troops and hate America."
Here's a better idea: support the troops by NOT SENDING THE TO FIGHT NEEDLESS AND POINTLESS WARS.
I show my love for America by dissenting when I feel the need to. It's what the Founding Fathers would have wanted.

Stepping off the podium now.

yupp, but that means that we all become poorer then the 3rd world country.
and since they have nearly all the natural resources they could start dominating us.

Hmm. The US grows the majority of the world's food. If they couldn't import oil anymore, yes the economy would crash, but so would all the food production. Want to bet they wouldn't export food anymore?

Let's figure out how many people would starve in the first year, and where.

Is there any US base in the UK?
Yes at least 3 I can think about

There's a full list here...

http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/waf/usa/usaf-europe.htm

To be fair the time I spent with friends in the USAF they were lovely guys.

actually african farmers can produce far more food then they need, the only problem is that they cant machinize cuz we (the west) dump our subsidised food, which we subsidise to keep our farmers alive, on their market for a such a low price that the 3rd world countrys farmer are more expensive for the local ppl. If there wouldnt be a 3rd party dumping food for a that low a price the african farmers would have absolutely no problem feeding their countrys.

only china and parts of asia would have food problems (cuz their population is so big)
europe has more food then they can eat.

besides that if the economy would collapse and they wouldnt export their food any more in america, there would be sooooo much food left to rot that the price in america would be so low that the farmers would have to have prices so low that its not profitable, lots of farmers would go bankrupt and it would eventually stabalize itself (the nr of farmers in accordance to the inhabitants that is)

actually african farmers can produce far more food then they need, the only problem is that they cant machinize cuz we (the west) dump our subsidised food, which we subsidise to keep our farmers alive, on their market for a such a low price that the 3rd world countrys farmer are more expensive for the local ppl. If there wouldnt be a 3rd party dumping food for a that low a price the african farmers would have absolutely no problem feeding their countrys.

only china and parts of asia would have food problems (cuz their population is so big)
europe has more food then they can eat.

besides that if the economy would collapse and they wouldnt export their food any more in america, there would be sooooo much food left to rot that the price in america would be so low that the farmers would have to have prices so low that its not profitable, lots of farmers would go bankrupt and it would eventually stabalize itself (the nr of farmers in accordance to the inhabitants that is)
Actually all the leftover food, mostly corn, wheat, and soy, could be used for various fuels.

besides the point 'producing the most' is relative.
its a useless fact if you know that, if the most of the poor countries got a fair chance, they can easily feed themselves.

Actually all the leftover food, mostly corn, wheat, and soy, could be used for various fuels.

but the production amount needed to get a fair amount of fuel would be soo large that the fuel created would be so expensive that no1 would buy them.

only china and parts of asia would have food problems (cuz their population is so big)
europe has more food then they can eat.


Just for soybeans, let's see:
In 1996, soybeans represented 52 percent of world oilseed production,
and 49 percent of those soybeans were produced in the United States.
Fully 69 percent of the world's soybean trade originated from the U.S.
The European Union continued to be the No. 1 U.S. market for whole
soybeans, while Japan remained the largest single country customer
for U.S. soybeans. Canada was the largest customer for U.S. soybean
meal, and China became the largest customer for U.S. soybean oil,
plus the third largest customer for U.S. soybean meal and the sixth
largest customer for U.S. whole soybeans.

1/5th of the US spring wheat crop is exported to the EU. That's not an insignificant amount, and cannot be replaced by other production elsewhere.

but then again on the other side if there would be no fuel left all the big companys (asian, us, european) would release there 'cars on water' kind of products, because they are all possible and could be made affordable but is not done cuz the world economy would collapse since oil would become less needed and cheaper (and thats where the economy goes on)

but then again on the other side if there would be no fuel left all the big companys (asian, us, european) would release there 'cars on water' kind of products, because they are all possible and could be made affordable but is not done cuz the world economy would collapse since oil would become less needed and cheaper (and thats where the economy goes on)


Woo. Cars on water. That's rich, I'll say. I suppose it makes about as much sense as posters on crack.

1/5th of the US spring wheat crop is exported to the EU. That's not an insignificant amount, and cannot be replaced by other production elsewhere.

thats cuz there needs to be trade.. every country makes what is best cost/efficient for them.
that 1/5th would be replaced by the foods that europe now trows in to africa, the diversity of food would go down alot, but it europe would have no problem switching to creating whichever is easiest to make in their countrys.
which would initially start trade between countrys again. still there would be no problem feeding every1, its just not as diverse

hmm, it's not our responsiblity to repair relations with "old europe". They back stabbed us, remember. France and Germany both have their hands dirty in this oil for food debacle. Makes a whole lot of sense why they wouldn't support millitary action against Saddam, he was paying them off with cheap oil. We caught them with their hands in the cookie jar, but nothing will come from it, because we are the evil ones after all :rolleyes:

Woo. Cars on water. That's rich, I'll say. I suppose it makes about as much sense as posters on crack.

http://www.fuellesspower.com/water.htm

http://www.h2cars.biz/artman/publish/article_238.shtml

shit they must all have faked that news!

hmm, it's not our responsiblity to repair relations with "old europe". They back stabbed us, remember. France and Germany both have their hands dirty in this oil for food debacle. Makes a whole lot of sense why they wouldn't support millitary action against Saddam, he was paying them off with cheap oil. We caught them with their hands in the cookie jar, but nothing will come from it, because we are the evil ones after all :rolleyes:
Well now you are. Oil for food is over. The US is struggling to keep its #1 rank as the world's most evil country. So far it's winning.

hmm, it's not our responsiblity to repair relations with "old europe". They back stabbed us, remember. France and Germany both have their hands dirty in this oil for food debacle. Makes a whole lot of sense why they wouldn't support millitary action against Saddam, he was paying them off with cheap oil. We caught them with their hands in the cookie jar, but nothing will come from it, because we are the evil ones after all :rolleyes:

maybe they just didnt support it cuz there was absolutely no solid evidence?
i dont doubt that saddam was bad, but theres worse dictators in africa but since they export banana's and not oil america doesnt give a shit. So that counters the 'omg we got him out becuz where so morally right' argument.

well said psylos

http://www.fuellesspower.com/water.htm

http://www.h2cars.biz/artman/publish/article_238.shtml

shit they must all have faked that news!

Or you need a science class.

Fuel cells are energy storage devices. You can't just pour water in them and expect them to work.

You have to start with hydrogen and oxygen, in separate containers. The way to get hydrogen and oxygen is commonly through electrolysis of water.

That requires electricity - power. It will take more power to separate the hydrogen and oxygen than you'll be able to get out of the resulting fuel cell because of thermodynamic inefficiencies (nothing's a perfect engine).

So, where are you going to get the power to split the hydrogen and oxygen?

Hm?

Woo. Cars on water. That's rich, I'll say. I suppose it makes about as much sense as posters on crack.

Actually there is a very reliable aluminum fueled power plant that was developed years ago. I know the person (indirectly) who developed it, and it out preforms the internal combustion engine in almost every aspect. but he couldn't manage to get his design aproved by the apropriate government agencies, they've basically ignored him for nearly 20 years now. there is alot of money in oil, and money can be spent (in several legal, as well as illegal ways) to gain political clout. in other words, you haven't heard of the alternatives to oil (even though they exist) because the people with the money and therefor the power don't want you to.

solar energy

http://www.siliconsolar.com/solar_battery_chargers.htm
for one.

or why not a car that just drives on solar power.
http://www.itc.org/wcl98/wcl_sc.htm

or wind energy

http://energy.sourceguides.com/businesses/byP/wRP/wRP.shtml

or even water energy....

natures just full of surprises

ah heck theres even a belgium car that runs on grease

Biodiesel!

Walking and cycling!
Common transportation!
fuel-efficient small cars!

well i gtg in 20 mins...
have to get on a plane to holland and ill be back on monday.
(can only ns at work:( )
telegram me if you would like to contintue the discussion,
and if you think i was either flaming or flamebating, im very sorry, i didnt mean to actually hurt any1s feelings neither and im angry, im just making my points:D

well psylos in countrys like holland they already do it but in a lotta countrys the spaces between places are too big. but i love walking n cycling.

solar energy
http://www.siliconsolar.com/solar_battery_chargers.htm
for one.


Ahem. This won't meet industrial demand. Cars may be one thing, but you're not going to drive it as far or as often as we do now. It won't work in certain climates, either. Some areas get more sun than othes. Solar cells are also quite expensive (and a fuel cell is more expensive than an ordinary engine, because of the platinum involved).

I need to run a blast furnace to make steel. I need electric power now. How many solar batteries are your going to hook up?


or why not a car that just drives on solar power.
http://www.itc.org/wcl98/wcl_sc.htm


Yes, and I'm sure you can make a truck that can haul tons of cargo that runs on solar power. Considering how much fuel costs in the EU, you would think that something like this would be in demand. But I don't see solar powered trucks - because it isn't economically feasible.


or wind energy
http://energy.sourceguides.com/businesses/byP/wRP/wRP.shtml


The enviros are already opposed to wind energy. It kills birds, which they believe to be more important than freezing to death.


or even water energy....


Not enough hydroelectric power to satisfy world demand for energy.

Please, come up with a workable solution. We get far, far more energy from the combustion of hydrocarbons than you can imagine, and a small gasoline powered engine represents a far more powerful, portable, source of power than anything short of a nuclear reactor. So you need a replacement that can provide that power level, whether it's for a car or a blast furnace.

1) theres enough water to run the cars especially since water is renewable.
2) the solar battery is only to start the hydrolic process so theres not alot of them needed.

and why do the companys hide these good solutions?
becuz theyll use it when theres no more oil to stay in power.

Ahem. This won't meet industrial demand. Cars may be one thing, but you're not going to drive it as far or as often as we do now.

well that was the issue we where talking about here, i said absolutely nothing about the rest of the power sources.

o sorry that we ruind the subject of the thread:P

cya on monday