Iraq surpasses pre-war electric power levels

[yavoon]

Originally posted by MrFun


I'm going to wait and see if this new "deomcracy" in Iraq will outwardly appear to be for the Iraqi citizens, while being operated from behind the curtains by the oil industry tycoons of United States and other Western nations.

OR, if there will be a true democracy in Iraq without oil executives drinking from the trough.

I have no dellusions about how big a whore bush is to special interests. just saying that cuz we are trying to get oil up n running and treating it as a priority is not a transparency for deeper malicious motives.

[MrFun]

The oil industry needs to be recovered for the benefit of Iraq's people -- but in reality, the Western nations' oil industries will take over Iraq's oil industry.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Sandman
Ok, some gripes about the article.

Firstly, we only have the Coalition spokesman's view of the situation. The article notes that his figure for electricity demand is rather different from the Iraqi Electricity Ministry: he says 6500MW, whilst the ministry says 9000MW. I think it's likely the spokeman is exaggerating the electricity output.

I suppose its hard to figure out what the demand the total demand would be if theyve never actually fulfilled more than a fraction of it. Presumably that includes stuff that people dont bother turning on, cause the power has always been so intermittent.

The only reason that it is higher than pre-war is because the oil pumping power plants are added to the figure. If they are seperate from the Iraqi grid (and I fail to see why they would be mentioned seperately unless they were), why include them at all? It's comparing apples and oranges.

I presume they were including that in the pre-war total, which just says total power produced, and doesnt specify the power grid only. Still, even if you exclude that, its a pretty good number.

Seems strange that the power output only fell by 900MW, depsite the looting, sabotage and bombing.

Yup, now it couldn't be possible that the impact of looting, sabotage and bombing was just a tad exagerated in some of our favorite news outlets, could it?

(LOTM reminds himself not to say anything snarky about auntie Beeb, auntie Beeb is nice, only evil American right wingers suggest that auntie Beeb had an axe to grind)

Fair enough, but what was the pre-war level in Kirkuk? And might the fact that it's an oil centre skew things? What about Basra or Fallujah?

Presumably, since IIUC Baghdad relies on electricity imports from north and south - Kirkuk needs only natural gas pipelines from nearby field to be secure, while Baghdad requires that plus the power lines from Kirkuk, which run through the most hostile territory in Iraq.

In any case, if the whole country is at 100% of prewar levels, and Baghdad is still significantly below prewar levels, then its mathematically necessary that the rest of the country as a whole be above prewar levels. (or is Iraq actually Lake Woebegone in reverse - a place where everything is below average?)

[chequita guevara]

If it's true, , if not,

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
If it's true, , if not,

he admits that baghdad still has less power than prewar. You have ANY source that disputes his figures?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by yavoon


even if it wasn't some massively evil corporate conspiracy to rape iraq of its oil. would it not still be intelligent to safeguard and nurture the iraqi's most valuable resource? would not oil still be a top priority?

sometimes I feel like if a liberal had invaded iraq he would have just ignored the oil?

Tony Blair isnt a liberal?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
You have ANY source that disputes his figures?

I just find spokesmen for this administration to be less than credible. Medea Bejamin returned from Iraq a week or so ago, and where she was, they still where having serious electricity problems. I'm not a fan of Benjamin either, so I'm left with two less than credible sources saying opposite things.

I hope it is true. I don't want the people of Iraq to suffer just so we can prove to the country how inept this admistration is. If it means suffering through four more years of Bush if they can manage to fix Iraq in a timely manner, so be it. Others shouldn't pay for our problems.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Tony Blair isnt a liberal?

Only if you mean the European definition.

[Q Classic]

perhaps just fire a bunch of cruise missiles in? liberals did always like the bark and not the bite.

except they seemed to do fairly well in other places of the world. it was a liberal, mind you, that sent troops to places like germany, and france, and korea, and vietnam. only the last one had any major troubles.

no, my point was that it's foolish to imagine that a liberal would have attacked iraq because liberals believe--as does most of the rest of the world, and those not completely blinded by right-wing ideology--that iraq was not an imminent threat.

it's just as silly to imagine what gore would have done after 9-11, but of course, that doesn't stop idiots of both persuasions to say this or that about it.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


I just find spokesmen for this administration to be less than credible.

Oh, so it was just on general principle. What I figured.

Medea Bejamin returned from Iraq a week or so ago, and where she was, they still where having serious electricity problems. I'm not a fan of Benjamin either, so I'm left with two less than credible sources saying opposite things.

Link? i did a search, seems she reported back from Iraq in mid-July. She's been there since, I take it?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Only if you mean the European definition.

yavoon and q cubed's def.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Q Cubed

perhaps just fire a bunch of cruise missiles in? liberals did always like the bark and not the bite.

:as does most of the rest of the world, and those not completely blinded by right-wing ideology--that iraq was not an imminent threat.

One more time: Bush said we cant ALLOW Iraq to BECOME an imminent threat.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Link? i did a search, seems she reported back from Iraq in mid-July. She's been there since, I take it?

She was on the PBS's The Newshour with Tom Leher last week, opposite Wolfawitz.

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Only if you mean the European definition.

yavoon and q cubed's def.

I'd say no then, since his policies have been extremely neo-liberal.

[Q Classic]

One more time: Bush said we cant ALLOW Iraq to BECOME an imminent threat.

let's not get into this argument again. especially when there were so many other imminent threats that most other people wondered why we should attack an almost imminent threat.

[SlowwHand]

Re: Iraq surpasses pre-war electric power levels

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Reuters:

'Iraq's power supply has topped pre-war levels as the country's decrepit electricity system is rebuilt, the U.S.-led administration said Friday.

Charles Heatly, a spokesman for the Coalition Provisional Authority, said the power system was producing 4,500 megawatts a day as of Oct. 1.

The highest estimated level of output before the U.S. invasion that ousted dictator Saddam Hussein in April was 4,400 MW, he said.

"What we're giving is a very solid figure of 4,500 at the moment and that is clearly above even the highest possible (prewar) estimate," Heatly told a news conference'

Not a surprise at all. That was the plan.