Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "DW News" channel.

  1. the epicenter of the 2011 earthquake (one of the worst since there are records) was farther away. The experience IN Japan in 2011 was still worse than this earthquake. They have built so well that they can handle a 7.3 (like this) w/o too many casualties and limited property damage. The nuclear power plants are built to withstand a 7 or even 7.5 earthquake happening right there. The problem in 2011 was the flood wave later, insufficiently high walls to keep out the wave (or a part of it to have less water on the ground). They built both plants a sea leve and near the coast (to use salt water for cooling). Tsunami is an old Japanese word - there is a reason the japanese have an extra word for those kind of flood waves. Fukushima Daini (15 - 20 minutes drive away) pulled off an orderly shutdown that is why we never hear about THAT plant. Only the unknown nuclear power plant is a good power plant. The automatic shutdown was triggered by the earthquake sensors in both nuclear power plants. I think the huge wave came 20 or 30 minutes later. They knew it was coming. Fukushima Dai-ni had ONE generator that was elevated. That was the only generator that survived after the water had hit the plant and drowned out modern technology. They have to keep cooling the uranium core for a while or it will cause a meltdown. And in one of the plants they did not have the electricity or emergency pump systems to pull that off. Pipes might have broken (again they are BUILT to withstand such tremors so I guess not all was unfunctional). In a desperate situation they can improvise. But not w/o electricity, light, pumps and with electronics under water.
    4
  2. Total Energy does not equal 70 % (or whatever) of GAS.That's only a PART of the energy mix and demand. Germany does have storage and could manange a shutdown (would be disruptive but possible). Those revenues for Russian fossil fuel can be used to buy European goods. Russia can sell all it's resources to China - in which case they have less incentive to consider the interests of European countries. Mutually beneficial trade and prosperity is a HIGHLY EFFECTIVE and CHEAP way to ensure peace. The U.S. benefits much more from international trade (look at the export/import imbalance). They are taking a free ride on the output of other economies (getting good products and paying for them with digitally created dollars). The U.S. uses that advantage (enabled by the meanwhile completeley undeserved status of having the "petrodollar" / world reserve currency) to BULLY other countries with secondary sanctions, and now trade wars. Trump might be a blessing in disguise. Not the wisdom of the European leaders but the bullying and foolishness of the U.S. governments might make Europe turn towards Asia and Russia. And away from the U.S.
    4
  3. +Longfordboy Yes screams of joy ! a friendly goodbye and don't let the door hit ya on your way out. - Russia is not danger for Europe. But the U.S. wanting a Cold War 2.0 is. - And U.S. citizens should be aware that they either can have insane military spending and welfare for military contractors (the Military Industrial Comples) - or good public services for citizens and the money to repair streets. But not both - war and having a constant arms race is very expensive.
    3
  4. Well no one BEGS for protection and it is not needed (the very rightwing government of Poland has their own reason to invoke the fear of the "Russian Bear" - they for sure cannot campaign on merits of the economy.
    2
  5. That performance is for his fan base. They are not interested in facts "talking tough" is equated with good policies. The rogue talking makes them feel good, they are "winning" and their president "tells em ..." (whoever "em" may be, the media, Europe, Canada, the Clintons, Democratic Party, or other U.S. politician which he gives derrogatory names).
    2
  6.  @deadinside5883  The NHS has been defunded for 10 years. I compare with U.S. spending on healthcare per person: most wealthy countries are in the range of 49 - 54 % of the U.S. the U.K. had 42 % - that is NOT enough. (the base of 100 % in this example is the U.S. with 10,260 USD for every man, woman and child in the country, thes are numbers from 2017, in normal times). 10 % of nurses leave the NHS every year. (Itwas a election promise that the Tories would make working conditions "even better in the NHS" so that they could "recruit" nurses out of those who would have normally left. They wanted to sell that as "new" nurses. That Tory math raised quite some eyebrows in Nov. 2019
    2
  7. The party of Maduro has now - 2021 the majority in the National assembly again, so the U.S. puppet can go pound sand.
    2
  8. Russia yearly military spending 70 - 80 bn USD, US increase of military spending as passed by congress in August 2017: by 80 bn USD from 600 to 680 bn. (with the agencies like the Veterans Affiar more like 1, 3 trillion per year). The wars are extra.
    2
  9. + Matthew nonsense prolonged economic troubles and TRADE WARS led to WW2. Germany had troubles from 1916 - 1932 - just when they had somewhat recovered from WW1 and reparations, the Great Depression hit them. then some countries started to close their markets and all others followed. Which made things worse.
    1
  10. Europe has more than 530 million people (U.S. 325 million) and enough technology - they can easily DEFEND themselves and produce their own equipment as well. And that does not need to cost 2 % of GDP. Not even close.
    1
  11. Russia has 70 bn USD as yearly budget (or less, that figure is from a few years agao) - the U.S. has 680 bn - but not for "defense" The only thing that is defended: the campaign contributions, the profit of the M.I.C. - and that's the only sector where industrial jobs are NOT outsourced. P.S.: the M.I.C would go NUTS if European countries would tell the U.S. to remove their bases and black sites, troops and nukes and would do their own thing. It would make the world safer and also be better for U.S. citizens Europe does not need a major navy. (well only Ireland and a few Islands would be in trouble). Even the U.K. has the tunnel of Calais/Dover. In case of an emergency they can get what they absolutely need (minerals, fossil fuel) via land. In case the U.S. wanted to abuse their military power on the oceans and cut off international trade.
    1
  12. Spoken like a true "friend" - the idea of bombing GERMAN territory. Or countries of transit that did not attack and are no threat to the U.S. - remember this is allegedly Germany needing U.S. for protection. More like protection FROM the U.S. That's the U.S. mindset of "exceptionalism" - or an empire in decline. A trade war would be costly for all sides - they are alwayss lose/lose. That said, in the short run likely more damage for Europe and Germany. but if that means that Europe detaches itself form the U.S. and orients itself towards Asia (EURASIA) - it would be totally worth the costs.
    1
  13. The U.S. retracting from NATO. Splendid idea !! Europe has more than 530 million people (U.S. 325 million) and enough technology - they can easily DEFEND themselves and produce their own equipment as well. And LEGITIMATE DEFENSE does not need to cost 2 % of GDP. Not even close. Germany under this leadership has subjected the country to austerity and cutS of infrastructure and other spending. Still the capable workforce and the structure of a well functioning military is there. The military is organization and logistics. Germany is good in that. Russia has 70 bn USD as yearly military budget (or less, that figure is from a few years agao) - the U.S. has 680 bn - but not for "defense" The only thing that is "defended": the campaign contributions, the profit of the M.I.C. - and that's the only sector where industrial jobs are NOT outsourced. P.S.: the M.I.C would go NUTS if European countries would tell the U.S. to remove their bases and black sites, troops and nukes and would do their own thing. It would make the world safer and also be better for U.S. citizens Europe does not need a major navy. (well only Ireland and a few Islands would be in trouble). Even the U.K. has the tunnel of Calais/Dover. In case of an emergency they can get what they absolutely need (minerals, fossil fuel) via land. In case the U.S. wanted to abuse their military power on the oceans and cut off international trade.
    1
  14. correction in August 2017 U.S. Congress increased the yearly regular budget from 600 to 680 billion, with the agencies like Veterans Affairs more like 1,3 trillions. Wars are extra. - And I think Russia has now less budget. The amount of Rubels is expressed in USD so purchasing power of these 80 billion (or whatever) is higher than the nominal amount would suggest. They produce most equipment in Russia and pay the wages in Rubles. Either way they spend much much less than the U.S.
    1
  15. the "markets" = NYSE got cash injection as soon as they got into trouble. 1,5 TRILION - they are speculators not "markets". the fed can now create money for them at will (their board members are the large banks).
    1
  16.  @cowardtoe6532  No not "multiple parties" were "banned" only one guy was banned from running. Then the opposition (assuming that they could not win anyway) declared they would boycott the election. One guy broke ranks and participated, and his party kicked him out. Others also participated (a few) I guess since they were outsiders the opposition (and the U.S.) did not retaliate against them for daring to treat this like a normal election, where one would compete for votes and not sit on the sideline and wait for Uncle Sam to fix the result for them. As far as I know ONE guy with decent but not overwhelming polling was banned in the very beginning - that "triggered" the whole "boycot". I guess if he was an important figure in the 2002 or 2003 coup (or corruption charges against him) he knew of course he would not be allowed to run. But they then could throw a tantrum over the "injustice". And U.S. / NATO stenographers like DW would only report about him being banned, and not why. Now, I do not know if that was justified (It is easily possible it is) - but even if not - that would be the same situation as in Brazil - still waiting for the international pearl clutching and the sanctions. We now KNOW for SURE that Lula was illegally banned from running against Bolsonaro - before the leaks it only was fishy. The crooks had a sham trial and a colluding judge (Moro) and prosecuto convicted him on the testimony of ONE man that was spared a prison sentence for his testimony. The collusion (text messages) between judge and prosecutor was later leaked (judge Moro had in the meantime gotten a top cabinet position for services rendered) and the Supreme court nullified the trial and sentencing in 2021. So Lula CAN run against Bolsonaro in the next election. Which is good news - he better have good bodyguards and top security. The prosecution never had any other evidence for their corruption charges, so they cannot have another trial. This was over Lula considering to buy a normal apartment in a regular neighbourhood, he then had already left office. Lula never bought the apartment, but the owner had offered to add an elevator and that was the "corruption". Which also highlights how unfancy the building was, if Lula wanted to engage in corruption - the country has a nationalized oil industry. Just sayin' why would he bother with peanuts.
    1
  17. It is the U.S. that has undue influence on Europe. The U.S. bullies Europe and other "allies" with the threat of secondary sanctions and withdraws from U.N. ratified deals (Iran), starts a trade war and meddles with the energy policy of major EU countries. And unlike Russia they do not come from the viewpoint of mutually beneficial but from we are "exceptional" - well it shows.
    1
  18. If Trump can undo NATO - he would deserve the Nobel Peace Prize - even as malevolent fool.
    1
  19. The U.S. bullies Europe regarding trade with Russia (last year and now regarding the pipeline), with Iran, and the trade war. * We haven't seen that from the Russians - EVER ! (I think they threw a tantrum when the foolish offer was made to Ukraine and Georgia to join Nato, Germany and France were against it, likely some pressure of Russia behind the scenes, existing Nato members must agree to new members, well e few years later the Ukraine crisis was fabricated and Europe "convinced" to join the sanctions". And they did try to leverage that in the past under Bush2 and under Clinton with secondary sanctions and tarrifs on steel, never mind the Financial Crisis
    1
  20. This was not a "groundbreaking" speech, what every reasonable leader would say at this point (so not Bolsenaro, Trump - or BoJo before he got hit personally by the virus). - so all the fawining comments seem to be a little inauthentic. - has a think tank called in the trolls ?
    1
  21. Excellent idea - - Europe has more than 530 million people (U.S. 325 million, Germany 85 millions) and enough technology - they can easily DEFEND themselves and produce their own equipment as well. And that does not need to cost 2 % of GDP. Not even close.
    1
  22. Wait till the U.K. elects Jeremy Corbyn as P.M.
    1
  23. Let's leave Nato - close down the bases, and get out the U.S. nukes
    1
  24. Europe (more than 530 million people) does not need to spend 2 % of the GDP for DEFENSE. Nor do they need the U.S. - Nothing secures peace better and chepaer than a web of trade relationships (including fossil fuel). - The U.S. wants a new Cold War, and wants to hand over contracts to the arms manufacturers. The U.S. is afraid that Europe could get too close with Russia - and increase trade. - The U.S. deindustrialized and Russia has their own military production (a major export sector). So the U.S. would not stand to profit when the Russians buy goods with their oil revenues. Europe, Japan would get the biz of the quality stuff, and China, Asia the cheap consumer goods.
    1
  25. Europe has more than 530 million people (U.S. 325 million) and enough technology - they can easily DEFEND themselves and produce their own equipment as well. And that does not need to cost 2 % of GDP. Not even close. Russia has 70 bn USD as yearly budget (or less, that figure is from a few years agao) - the U.S. has 680 bn - but not for "defense" The only thing that is defended: the campaign contributions, the profit of the M.I.C. - and that's the only sector where industrial jobs are NOT outsourced. P.S.: the M.I.C would go NUTS if European countries would tell the U.S. to remove their bases and black sites, troops and nukes and would do their own thing. It would make the world safer and also be better for U.S. citizens Europe does not need a major navy. (well only Ireland and a few Islands would be in trouble). Even the U.K. has the tunnel of Calais/Dover. In case of an emergency they can get what they absolutely need (minerals, fossil fuel) via land. In case the U.S. wanted to abuse their military power on the oceans and cut off international trade.
    1
  26. Excellent idea - only a few and poor countries pay the 2 % (as percentage of their weak GDP). I agree - Europe has more than 530 million people (U.S. 325 million) and enough technology - they can easily DEFEND themselves and produce their own equipment as well. And that does not need to cost 2 % of GDP. Not even close. Russia has 70 bn USD as yearly budget (or less, that figure is from a few years agao) - the U.S. has 680 bn - but not for "defense" The only thing that is defended: the campaign contributions, the profit of the M.I.C. - and that's the only sector where industrial jobs are NOT outsourced. P.S.: the M.I.C would go NUTS if European countries would tell the U.S. to remove their bases and black sites, troops and nukes and would do their own thing. It would make the world safer and also be better for U.S. citizens Europe does not need a major navy. (well only Ireland and a few Islands would be in trouble). Even the U.K. has the tunnel of Calais/Dover. In case of an emergency they can get what they absolutely need (minerals, fossil fuel) via land. In case the U.S. wanted to abuse their military power on the oceans and cut off international trade.
    1
  27. The country does have a president, that the opposition could not get its act together and therefore decided not to participate in the election at all (and uncle Sam would help them then delcare the election not legitimate) does not change that they had an election and the people of VZ did have options beyond Maduro. One broke ranks and joined in the elections, he was of course immediately kicked out of his party. Maduro not having any one with some name recognition running against him was to be part of the narrative how his election would not be legit (and they could foresee they would not win this, not even in an economic crisis).
    1
  28. The only thing that is defended: U.S. campaign contributions, the profit of the M.I.C. - and that's the only sector where industrial jobs are NOT outsourced. The M.I.C would go NUTS if European countries would tell the U.S. to remove their bases and black sites, troops and nukes and would do their own thing. It would make the world safer and also be better for U.S. citizens
    1
  29. That would be an excellent idea - you could start rebuilding the U.S. - but the miliary contrators will not like it ;)
    1
  30. Actually the U.S. with help of foolish European leaders ! creeps onto the borders of Russia. And they undermine the nuclear power balance. (a "defense" shield that could take out most of the nukes of a Russian strike. That means Russia could be attacked by the U.S. from European territory and their retaliatory strike would be undermined). There are some morons who believe in the "winable" nuclear war. Robert Kennedy the brother of JFK was present during the crisis. His notes were published afer his assassination. Generals tried to convince JFK to strike first as long as there is still time.
    1