| View previous topic :: View next topic |
|
|
|
 |
|
Ish... the Neocon (ABC news) article you quote, actually is saying that electricity and fuel situation had got worse, since the war, that is, at the time the article was written.....
From your link....
"3) ELECTRICITY AND FUEL
North: Same or Worse
Central: Worse
South: Same or Worse"..........
It does however claim, controversially, that whilst the electricity situation re Baghdad had collapsed, national production was now higher than pre war levels.
From your link......
"Facts & Figures: Average Amount of Electricity Generated (Megawatts):
Pre-War (Estimates):
Nationwide: 3,958
Baghdad: 2,500
January 2005:
Nationwide: 3,289
Baghdad: 985
September 2005:
Nationwide: 4,247
Baghdad: NA (last available April 2005: 854)
Source: Brookings Institution, Iraq Index.
Oil Production:
Crude production (millions of barrels/day)
Pre-War: 2.5
September 2005: 2.10
Crude export (millions of barrels/day)
Pre-War: 1.7-2.5
September 2005: 1.38".........
In actual fact the pre war estimate for IRAQ is often given as 4500 Megawatts not 3958 as in your link. (how the hell can you have an estimate of 3958 as opposed to 4000?) which explains why during 2004/5/6/7 the supply figures became a political football.....
Here is a link from 2007 which gives a more balanced view of the situation. http://www.eia.doe.gov/cabs/Iraq/Full.html
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| In actual fact the pre war estimate for IRAQ is often given as 4500 Megawatts not 3958 as in your link. (how the hell can you have an estimate of 3958 as opposed to 4000?) which explains why during 2004/5/6/7 the supply figures became a political football..... |
No. It doesn't explain why such figures would be a "political football" because, even if we take your higher pre-war estimate figure of 4500 Mw as gospel, by September of 2005, little more than a year after the toppling of the regime, power generation (at 4,247 Mw) was already up to 94% of the pre-war level. By any reasonable measure, that's full production.
Numbers I have seen for today have public power output up by 10% but total power output from new, private-sector power generation, at double the pre-war level. Iraq now has twice the amount of electricity available under Saddam.
Even oil production, using the ABC figures, was at 85% in 2005, just the year following the war. Not too shabby. Current oil production now greatly exceeds pre-war levels.
Your link posting was lazy work on your part and contrary to the rules of this Web site. If you want to post a link, you may do so only as reference for information you actually post in your own words. No one here has time to wade through random articles recommended by strangers.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
admin
Librarian
|
|
|
|
Don't be ridiculous, Ishmael. Nemesis' was a model answer. All his own work (as it were). People are allowed to stick a quick reference at the end for further and better particulars.
However, newbies, in case you don't know what he's on about, we do not permit people to cite material by URL. You have to read the URL yourself and then tell us what it says in your own words. This has a surprising effect.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
|
I withdraw my criticism.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ishmael said. | No. It doesn't explain why such figures would be a "political football" because, even if we take your higher pre-war estimate figure of 4500 Mw as gospel, by September of 2005, little more than a year after the toppling of the regime, power generation (at 4,247 Mw) was already up to 94% of the pre-war level. By any reasonable measure, that's full production. |
A couple of observations....
Firstly, I think you are going to struggle with showing me that September 2005 was "little more than a year after the toppling of the regime". (maybe you are using Fomenko chronology?)
Secondly I am not sure, about this 94% equals full production....
Ishmael said. | Numbers I have seen for today have public power output up by 10% but total power output from new, private-sector power generation, at double the pre-war level. Iraq now has twice the amount of electricity available under Saddam. |
Great, but then why in your last post, use 2005 figures?.........
There is a really interesting argument that the "surge" launched by Petraeus, Odierno has turned the situation round, and yes, well done to the American military for learning the lessons, and putting in place a brilliant counter insurgency strategy.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Firstly, I think you are going to struggle with showing me that September 2005 was "little more than a year after the toppling of the regime". (maybe you are using Fomenko chronology?) |
Very funny.
For some reason, my brain imagined 2005 followed on immediately from 2003. Can't explain why!
| Great, but then why in your last post, use 2005 figures? |
Because I wanted numbers that had had more official and more universally acceptable sourcing, and also I wanted to demonstrate that the electricity output has long been at very high levels. The truth of the matter is that blackouts in Baghdad are primarily due to overstressing the electric grid from exponentially increasing demand.
The power outages are not due to damage from coalition bombs. On the contrary, Frank's plan explicitly called for minimal damage to infrastructure installations: The war was intended to end so quickly that any infrastructure damage would have hurt the occupiers far more than it ever had time to impact the Iraqi military. Destroying the power grid would have been pointless -- which is why it wasn't done..
Someone from the last administration once made the point that the blackouts were a sign of progress. His remark quickly became fodder for John Stewart and other late night comedians. But the truth was on the administration's side: Not only is electrical distribution now more equitable, Baghdad citizens enjoy access to far more energy consuming goods and services than ever before and demand is at unprecedented levels. Infrastructure improvement has simply lagged behind. Far behind unfortunately.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Grant
|
|
|
|
For someone who doesn't believe in the existence of hundreds of years of history, it's strange that Ishmael is so ready to accept US government information about Iraq, which must necessarily derive from those who are anxious to demonstrate the effectiveness of the billions of dollars of US aid.
This is Lionel Beehner writing in a Council on Foreign Relations report in 2006:
| Experts say power disruptions and brownouts also occurred under Saddam but that service is even less reliable now. "There's no question that [power outages] are worse now," says a UN development official, who would only speak on condition of anonymity. |
As Nemesis8 says, the report cited by Ishmael says that the majority of Iraqis believe that the electricity supply is the same or worse. (I am sure Ishmael gets a more balanced and accurate view from Toronto but I prefer to believe the people on the ground).
I am sure that the total megawattage supplied to America's victims in Iraq has increased slightly, allowing them to enjoy their iPods and other consumer goods. But was it worth the XXXXXX deaths? (Ishmael, please insert whatever figure you are comfortable with, provided it is at least 50,000 - or is even that number too high?)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| I am sure Ishmael gets a more balanced and accurate view from Toronto but I prefer to believe the people on the ground. |
First of all, it wasn't what the people on the ground believed but what Neocon8 was reporting that the people on the ground believed; and secondly, the people on the ground are just about the most biased witnesses imaginable, especially as what they are being asked to judge is actually quite difficult technically -- electricty interruptions 'presently' as compared to electricity interruptions 'some years ago'. I doubt that I could do that for London or Ishmael for Toronto.
But this is indicative of the level this debate has reached. Do any of you seriously suppose anything is being served by the Great Electricity Debate? Or was more being served three days ago?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am quite happy to call last orders.
It might be interesting to discuss the series of conflicts (yep they are all linked) between US and Iraq. (Ishmael has just started a thought provoking thread on War on Terrorism ..about the Tanker wars and the attack on U.S.S Stark which certainly made me rethink the background to all this)
It might be interesting to discuss the outcome of the surge, (troops not power) as it "appears" we have seen the successful adoption of a modern counter insurgency strategy at a time when many thought all hope of a peaceful exit were gone.
Sterile name calling, and the mindless repeating, of well rehearsed arguments, from 3 years ago, when the situation on the ground has changed.... No Thanks.
Time, Gentlemen, Please.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It now appears that Endlessly Rocking was well before his time... how does the British political establishment get people to vote against themselves?
To quote our new Poet Laureate.....
'What did we do with the trust of your vote? Hired a flunky to flush out the moat.'
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | Do any of you seriously suppose anything is being served by the Great Electricity Debate? |
It illuminates the psychology of entrenched positions.
I continue to read some here repeating like a mantra, "Power interuptions have increased! Power interuptions have increased!" Yet everyone agrees with this. The only pertinent question is why service is less reliable. And we know the answer.
- Electricity is now distributed more equitably.
- Exponential demand has outstripped improvements to the electrical grid.
Let me be absolutely 100% clear: There is more power available today in Iraq and even in the city of Bagdad than ever there was under Sadam.
So why do so many people keep repeating the "brownout" mantra?
It is a calculated attempt to deceive.
When examining a change even in isolation, human beings have a tendency to assume that all things unobserved have remained static.
When I first heard that power outages had actually gotten worse after the invasion, of course I assumed that someone was screwing up the power supply! The only variable mentioned in the articles I was reading was the consumer experience so my mind only allowed for me to adjust that variable by the most direct route.
It did not occur to me that another variable outside the observed sequence of events might also have changed. I learned this only after reading more informative articles that afforded me a wider data-set. Only then did I see the many other variables involved in determining the ultimate consumer experience.
And in fact, when one of those variables improves, it results in the very negatives reported.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Grant wrote: | | For someone who doesn't believe in the existence of hundreds of years of history... |
Hundreds?
That's just for amateurs.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| It is a calculated attempt to deceive. |
This is the bit you always get wrong. Whenever politics is not involved you understand completely that these kinds of systematic error arise from purely Applied Epistemological reasons. When politics is involved you immediately switch into conspiracy mode.
There may be calculated black propaganda at work -- it is a perfectly orthodox weapon -- but you (and therefore we) will never find out when, what and from whom because you start from an a priori position.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | It is a calculated attempt to deceive. |
This is the bit you always get wrong. |
Not always. Because clearly, you are quite right.
At very least, most people who reference stats such as this are completely innocent of any desire to deceive and I ought to have made that clear. But I will now go further and state that most of those who report the power situation, absent amplification, are guilty only of investigating until accumulating sufficient evidence to confirm their biases (a tendency from which I do not exempt myself -- anticipating a lecture here now about this statement being a smokescreen to hide from myself those places where I do in fact absent myself - and perhaps it is but I've just about exhausted my capacity for self-referential self-references so you must do the rest).
Still others report the surface facts knowing that there is a more "complex" situation but have chosen to "simplify" matters for their readers so as to communicate the "larger truth" (the larger truth is that the coalition is fucking up and any complicating details might be interpreted as excusing those fuck-ups so the details are justifiably omitted). That's the thinking anyway.
Now I might call that "deception" but they would see it as illumination -- quite the opposite; for if reporting some minor details would produce an overall false impression, it's obviously best to leave those facts out of the story.
Perfectly rational.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Grant
|
|
|
|
Ishmael wrote
| for if reporting some minor details would produce an overall false impression, it's obviously best to leave those facts out of the story. |
So the overall true impression is that the USA has actually improved the lives of most Iraqis? Please answer this without equivocation because I want to see just how far neoconservatism can corrupt an otherwise intelligent and sceptical thinker.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
