6 of 8 "successful" projects in Iraq are acutally failures

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, gee...thats a heck of a qualification! You obviously know what you are talking about.

You missed the point completely.
BBC = experts on story
you = guy in army questioning BBC's facts

Winner: BBC

Err. Back up generators ARE power generators...you just dont use them unless the primary goes down.:lol:

urr.. it didn't say "back up generators" in the story... that was one of your assumptions you tried ot bring ito the equation. But now that I have read closer, it is safe to assume they are indeed back up generators, and not power plant generators... however, it said "they were not working".... it did not say "are idle because power is plantiful".

From the article:
Were not working

I think, if my English class serves me right, "were not working" means "not operational... kaput.. broke... not being used... not working... not doing their job" One of those meanings... whichever it is

If you are in "the Seattle Area" then you are indeed much closer to Seattle than I am as I live outside " the Seattle area".

Tacoma is a vry large city, and in fact, so is Olympia, compared to the nearest city to me. Believe me, I live in rural washington state, I use "seattle area" because this is a worldwide board. But lets just try this.. your "city boy" insult was baseless.

Being in the army, going out to the country (field exercise) is a very commonplace event, and guess what....we use generators out there. And yes, I am licensed to operate/maintain them. So I know just a little bit about how the work and how reliable they are.

good for you... doesn't mean you know a damn thing about the generators in Bagdhad barracks and their current functionability.
 
They just keep bringing up the truth! How can we beat doze wascawwy wibewaws?

Same obsessing over the past!

:lol:

Anti-everything!! Classic! You're wrong, I'm not anti anything! I am pro-withdrawl, pro-gun, and pro-history, pro-truth and pro-fact!

Yeah, um, I am using the past as a gauge on your future telling abilities.

Lets see... here.. add a 4 there.. carry the 1... divide by zero...

opp... look at that.. you guys got a 0%.


Now things may change, but the current bushpologist future teling trend inicates a high level of suckiness with 50% chance of Repugnant embarrassment, and always a good chance of sprinklings of corruption.
(of course, here in Seattle, what we call a sprinkling, the rest of the US would call a downpour)

Neomega, what you are arguing about is not really relevant.

You argue with the same old tired talking points that you have regurgitated again and again from your previous postings leaving the true questions and points conveniantly, and I suspect conciously unattended and unnoticed.

You argue widely accepted facts such as the incompetence in the occupation of Iraq, a fact I accept. Yet that is all you do.

Neomega, try to tell and enlighten us in your own words without referencing the Bush administration's incompetencies why you think retreating in defeat would make the Middle East and the world any safer.
 
Neomega, try to tell and enlighten us in your own words without referencing the Bush administration's incompetencies why you think retreating in defeat would make the Middle East and the world any safer.

Because there never was any chance of victory.

And I had figured that out from many things, including using past (OH NOES... you cant use the past.. look to the future!) history of occupations as anindicator of things ot come.

I do look to the future, I just use more than faith and optimism as my guide.

Oops, sorry, that would be a differnt thread...

but in short, we are exacerbating the situation by being there.
 
Neomega, what you are arguing about is not really relevant.

History is always relevant.

The History of Iraq is relevant.

The way the invasion was sold and conducted, is certainly relevant.

The way these contracts were awarded, is relevant.

And most importantly, when a prophet says "the world will end on july 7, 2007!", and I say, "Wait, you said it would end June 6, 2006, May 5, 2005, April 4, 2004, and March 3, 2003, Feb 2, 2002...", and he tells me, "the past is irrelevant, cant you get over using the same tired arguments you used last year and the year before that?" He deserves nothing more than my scorn and ridicule.

It's all relevant.
 
Go to the SIGIR website. there are some great graphs and charts showing everything. The fact is, you dont know squat about why they are using industrial generators because as a hayseed you assume a generator is something made by honda to power your barn during a ho-down.

Errrr. No. I am licensed to operate these: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/mep-tqg.htm and these http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/mep-mil-std.htm and http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/mep-dgpds.htm are of the size used in such facilities in Iraq.

Any more smarty pants questions?

Gas turbine generators account for the largest power source in Iraq, not as backup or otherwise. They are only being utilized at 48% of feasbilitiy.

Furthermore they are still well below demand being met as a percentage of capacity of produced, and it gains and decreases month to month, with no discernable pattern of progress.

Actually, you should read your own link. It does say this in regards to why pre-war peak levels have not yet been met:

This quarter, the average daily power generation
on the grid was 3,832 MW,51 which is
below reported pre-war levels (4,500 MW).
Actual peak production is less than the
total capacity partly because of planned and
unplanned maintenance.52

Because of maintenance. Exactly what did I say in this thread earlier? That such generators require A LOT of maintenance? Didnt I say that? Why yes I did.

You also didnt catch this tidbit:

Outside Baghdad, the measure of hours of
power (average of 14 hours per day for the last
week of March) is greater than before the U.S.-
led invasion and roughly the same as it was
during this quarter last year.59

Well, well, some good news for most of Iraq. I guess your link isnt all doom and gloom now is it.

Where did you get this mentality of not exploring the source material or looking into things yourself?

Oh, I am just a hayseed remember?:crazyeye:
 
I think, if my English class serves me right, "were not working" means "not operational... kaput.. broke... not being used... not working... not doing their job" One of those meanings... whichever it is

Or possibly, 'just were not running'. If you read this: http://www.sigir.mil/reports/quarterlyreports/Apr07/pdf/Report_-_April_2007_Complete.pdf It precisely states this:

Demand for electricity continues to outpace
generation capacity, and operations at power
plants continue to lack sufficient quantities of
refined fuel to run generators at peak capacity
.
This quarter, insufficient supplies of fuel and
water to generation facilities led to a loss of
nearly 1,500 MW in production per day
. As
new generation projects come online, the issue
of fuel and water supply grows more critical.

Please note, it doesnt say the generatos were kaput or broken, but because of fuel and water, peak usage is not being met....WHICH is what I indicated EARLIER when I said generators have a lot of downtime for PRECISELY those issues!

If your generator isnt running because of a lack of FUEL and WATER, it doesnt make the FACILITY A FAILURE. It means the logistical supply line isnt working up to capacity.

Please note that if adequate supply of fuel and water were available to run the generators at peak, electricity generation would exceed pre-war totals and actually be at 89% of the end-state goal.
 
Yes, you most certainly have. In fact, I distinctly remember you doing this in regards to the Falluja debate and your 'proof' (or lack thereof) of how WP was used there. I seem to recall you saying that the US Helicopters were 'spraying' WP rounds at people......at least you were until I proved to you that no such round exists for weapons used on US helicopters.

That was not me trying to say "geeze, we don't know all the facts, it's so confusing, so I am right" That is mostly a personal tactic of yours.

P.S. The only reason you brought it up, is because my claiming that it was being fired from a helicopter did not have any evidence behind it, is the only time you can think of when I was wrong.
 
Errrr. No. I am licensed to operate these: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/mep-tqg.htm and these http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/mep-mil-std.htm and http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/mep-dgpds.htm are of the size used in such facilities in Iraq.

Any more smarty pants questions?





Actually, you should read your own link. It does say this in regards to why pre-war peak levels have not yet been met:



Because of maintenance. Exactly what did I say in this thread earlier? That such generators require A LOT of maintenance? Didnt I say that? Why yes I did.

You also didnt catch this tidbit:



Well, well, some good news for most of Iraq. I guess your link isnt all doom and gloom now is it.



Oh, I am just a hayseed remember?:crazyeye:

:lol: so 52% of generators are off line due partly to maintenance.

You know why I didnt mention Baghdad? Because when your capital city and 1/6th - 1/3rd (city to metro) the population is well below what it was, it looks bad. I dont want to make the Iraq situation look bad.

You may say, "most of Iraq" but thats simply not the entire picture. Population is far more important a factor when determining actual impact of services FOR PEOPLE than GEOGRAPHY.

SIGIR isnt all doom and gloom and I wasnt saying it was. I am actually happy about the improvements BUT, improvement isn't the same success or accomplishment. And really thats what we all want. It's what we are told is happening but it isnt success or accomplishment, it is just improvements.

Just stop making the war in iraq look stupid by your active support of it coupled your lack of credibility.
 
If your generator isnt running because of a lack of FUEL and WATER, it doesnt make the FACILITY A FAILURE. It means the logistical supply line isnt working up to capacity.

:lol:

Its not a "failure"... "the logistical supply line isnt working up to capacity".

Eventually, I knew you would spin it to fit your view.

So.. generators laying idle are not "failures", they are just an "opportunities that have not been realized yet"


Crumbling buildings are not "failures", they are "a chance for an even better reconstruction"

:lol:

Note how similar the original sarcastic statement I made was, and Mobboss' long winded argument eventually watered down too!

:lol: :lol: :lol:

CLASSIC!!!
 
Or possibly, 'just were not running'. If you read this: http://www.sigir.mil/reports/quarterlyreports/Apr07/pdf/Report_-_April_2007_Complete.pdf It precisely states this:



Please note, it doesnt say the generatos were kaput or broken, but because of fuel and water, peak usage is not being met....WHICH is what I indicated EARLIER when I said generators have a lot of downtime for PRECISELY those issues!

If your generator isnt running because of a lack of FUEL and WATER, it doesnt make the FACILITY A FAILURE. It means the logistical supply line isnt working up to capacity.

Please note that if adequate supply of fuel and water were available to run the generators at peak, electricity generation would exceed pre-war totals and actually be at 89% of the end-state goal.

so a lack of logistics makes it acceptable? arent logistics part of a functioning Iraq?
 
your inability to grasp the nuances of the english language would of course lead you to believe that "not working" is the same as broken, while everyone else clearly could see that "not working" literally meant, NOT GENERATING ELECTRICITY! English Mobboss, do you speak it?
 
:lol: so 52% of generators are off line due partly to maintenance.

You know why I didnt mention Baghdad? Because when your capital city and 1/6th - 1/3rd (city to metro) the population is well below what it was, it looks bad. I dont want to make the Iraq situation look bad.

Errr. If Baghdad is 1/6th to 1/3rd the population it was....why is the energy demand so high? In fact, the energy demand has grown much higher than pre-war levels, so?
 
Errr. If Baghdad is 1/6th to 1/3rd the population it was....why is the energy demand so high? In fact, the energy demand has grown much higher than pre-war levels, so?

infrastructure? population density? im sure that your expertise in generator repair hasnt helped you grasp concepts of statistics. Baghdad has more infrastructure that is having less demand met. So you're basically scoring a goal on yourself if you trumpet Baghdad as a success for anything.
 
:lol:

Its not a "failure"... "the logistical supply line isnt working up to capacity".

Eventually, I knew you would spin it to fit your view.

As typical, when you are unable to address the point you add a smiley and accuse spin.


More evidence of the upcoming emotional meltdown.

CLASSIC!!!

Yup. You see, I just used the link provided by mrt144 to discount exactly the point the BBC story was trying to make. How can you classify the airport and SF facility as infrastructure failures because the generators are not running because they need fuel/water? Thats a problem that can be solved, and in my opinion, shouldnt be classified as a long term infrastructure failure. Thats precisely the sort of detail that such a story should contain to give a non-biased view of the situation, but the BBC story didnt contain any such information/detail.
 
As typical, when you are unable to address the point you add a smiley and accuse spin.



More evidence of the upcoming emotional meltdown.



Yup. You see, I just used the link provided by mrt144 to discount exactly the point the BBC story was trying to make. .

You win Mobboss...

they aren't "failures"... they are just "opportunities that have not been realized yet".

:lol:

How can you classify the airport and SF facility as infrastructure failures because the generators are not running because they need fuel/water? Thats a problem that can be solved, and in my opinion, shouldnt be classified as a long term infrastructure failure. Thats precisely the sort of detail that such a story should contain to give a non-biased view of the situation, but the BBC story didnt contain any such information/detail

Wait a minute... you are now changing the wording of the debate!

I bolded the new words you are adding, adn trying to change the entire dynamic!

Nice one!
 
infrastructure? population density? im sure that your expertise in generator repair hasnt helped you grasp concepts of statistics. Baghdad has more infrastructure that is having less demand met. So you're basically scoring a goal on yourself if you trumpet Baghdad as a success for anything.

How would infrastructure increase demand? If the population if 1/3 less, how would the population density result in an increased demand?

I am not 'trumpeting' Baghdad as a success...just merely asking you legitimate questions. Its english...do you speak it well enough to answer?:lol:

So please, tell me how statistics explains Baghdads increased energy demand despite its much lower population. I will wait for your answer.
 
Base infrastructure and population density create a higher demand base for energy. That doesnt need further explanation.

And increase in demand can be explained in a few ways, more military aparatus to power, rebuilding operations require power, etc etc.

but a static % of demand met on an increasing demand means that output is proportional. a lower % of demand met on an increasing demand means that power output is static. a higher % of demand met on an increasing demand means output is increasing faster than demand.

can you figure it out from there?
 
Base infrastructure and population density create a higher demand base for energy. That doesnt need further explanation.

But you stated earlier that the population of Baghdad was 1/3 less, ergo, it has a smaller population density now than it did pre-war.

You fail to give an answer. Its ok to say you have no idea why the energy demand is higher if you dont know.

And increase in demand can be explained in a few ways, more military aparatus to power, rebuilding operations require power, etc etc.

Construction machinery typically runs on diesel....not electricity.

Again, if you really dont know its ok.
 
Not a supprise to me that all these projects ended up in falures.
 
Because there never was any chance of victory.

Not with the post-invasion plan, or lack thereof we had.

but in short, we are exacerbating the situation by being there.

How much would we exacerbate the situation by leaving? This is the question you keep trying to avoid and that you prefer to pretend that everything can only 1, stay the same or 2, get better.

If Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is right, nearly 60 percent of Americans agree with him that the war in Iraq is already lost. And if he is correct in saying losing the war will increase Democrat majorities in future elections, it may be fair to conclude that Americans now love losers. I'm not buying any of it -- and neither are the troops fighting this war.
In the days since Mr. Reid announced "this war is lost," I have heard from dozens of the soldiers, sailors, airmen, Guardsmen and Marines that I have covered in eight trips to Iraq and two to Afghanistan for Fox News. Some who correspond with me are there now, others are home. Some are preparing to deploy again. None of them agree with the majority leader's assessment.
One e-mail from Ramadi, Iraq observed: "Good thing this guy Reid wasn't around in 1940 when Winston Churchill promised the people of Great Britain nothing but 'blood, toil, tears and sweat.' " Another, a National Guardsman, recently returned from Mesopotamia with a Purple Heart, noted that the Senate majority leader has become "al Qaeda's most powerful ally." At Mississippi State University, a Marine corporal I last saw along the banks of the Tigris River -- now a college student -- asked me, "Do those people who think we've lost this war have any idea what things will be like if we really do lose?" It's an important question none of the potentates on the Potomac who just voted to withdraw U.S. troops appear willing to address.
According to military folklore, Napoleon kept a corporal at his side to ensure that the orders issued in battle were understandable by the troops who had to carry them out. Whether true or not, it's time for Mr. Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to find such a corporal who will ask them such questions, for if the Democrats continue their current course, we may well lose this war -- and they will have embraced defeat, and all that comes with it.
What would losing the war in Iraq mean? It's a picture so dark and depressing it makes the collapse in Vietnam -- 32 years ago next week -- look like a Sunday school picnic by comparison. The fall of Saigon was horrific for the people of the Republic of Vietnam and their neighbors in Cambodia and Laos. More than 5 million became refugees and by the most conservative estimates -- no one knows for sure -- at least a million others perished.
For most Americans, the consequences were minimal. The vast majority of the 2.8 million of us who fought and bled there mourned the loss of 58,253 of our comrades, swallowed the bitterness of defeat, and got on with our lives. Our nation spent a few hundred million tax dollars on refugee relief and resettlement -- and tried to forget what people in Mr. Reid's party called "the long nightmare of Vietnam."
But classified U.S. intelligence assessments, military contingency plans and staff studies evaluating the consequences of a precipitous U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, coupled with the lack of funding for political reform measures -- as contained in the legislation just passed by Mr. Reid's party -- paint a far more dismal picture than anything that happened after Vietnam:
Within months, an immediate upsurge in vicious sectarian fomented by Iranian intervention on behalf of Shi'ite militias and Wahhabi-supported, al Qaeda-affiliated terror groups. As U.S. forces retreat to a half-dozen staging areas for retrograde through Kuwait and Jordan, American casualties will dramatically increase from suicide bombers seeking "martyrdom" in their victory.
Inside of 18 months, the fragile, democratically elected government in Baghdad will collapse, precipitating a real sectarian civil war and creation of Taliban-like "regional governments" that will impose brutal, misogynistic rule throughout the country. The ensuing flood of refuges into Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Turkey and Iran will overwhelm relief organizations, creating a humanitarian disaster making what's happening in Darfur pale by comparison.
The Kurds in Northern Iraq are likely to declare an autonomous region that could well result in Turkish, Iranian and even Syrian military intervention.
In the course of withdrawing U.S. combat brigades and support units, billions of dollars in American military equipment and ordnance will have to be destroyed or left behind. More than $40 billion in reconstruction projects for schools, health-care facilities, sanitation, clean water, electrical distribution and agricultural development will be abandoned. Plans to exploit the new West Qurna oil field in southeastern Iraq will be forsaken.
The governments of Kuwait, Jordan, Abu Dhabi and Bahrain, intimidated by Iranian boldness in acquiring nuclear weapons, will likely insist on the withdrawal of American military bases from their territories. Such a move will jeopardize U.S. naval operations in the Persian Gulf and logistics, intelligence collection and command and control facilities supporting operations in Afghanistan.
As Iraq becomes a battleground for the centuries-long Sunni-Shia conflict, radical Islamic terror organizations will use the territories they control to prepare and launch increasingly deadly terror attacks around the globe against U.S. citizens, businesses and interests.
Mr. Reid and his cohorts in Congress who believe "this war is lost" have acted to ensure it will be. No one asked them: "If we lost, who won?" The answer should be obvious.

http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20070428-100958-9239r.htm
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom