Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

Tesla Paper

Free Energy Book

Get paid

Donations

Please Donate for the Forum.
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.(Admin)

A-Ads

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics

  • *Total Members: 83796
  • *Latest: elanimus

  • *Total Posts: 520079
  • *Total Topics: 15497
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 4
  • *Guests: 14
  • *Total: 18

Author Topic: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.  (Read 145983 times)

Offline Philip Hardcastle

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 326
Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
« Reply #405 on: May 10, 2015, 02:09:48 AM »
So many over complicated calculations................


The input compressed air at the bottom of the water column lifts said mass, the mgh of the raised water column (mass) comes from the energy supplied to compress the air.


Having raised a mass of water there are many ways it could be used to generate power, the usual is a turbine, but a rising bubble pod is another.














Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
« Reply #406 on: May 10, 2015, 02:12:41 AM »

That is the standard gravity formula for hydro power. I considered using it but I always get numbers like yours.


I asked if there was an error in my assumptions or calculations but you didn't point out any error with mine you just offered something else.
It is the correct formula for this situation.  It is generous as it neglects the air mass and more importantly viscous friction and any losses in the mechanism.  IOW it is better than anyone could ever get.  What you posted is:

Quote
Quote
Knowing that the buoyancy lift is equivalent to the weight of the water displaced by volume.

At this point you should have used the same formula that I did.

Quote
Quote
After a 7 second start up we were able to fill 7 containers to 1.8CF each and this would generate a lifting force equal to the weight of water of the volume of 7*1.8CF = 12.6 CF = 356.79 liter = 356.79 kg = 784.94 pounds of lifting force per second continuously thereafter.
Force/time is a measure of impact.  It does not help here. 

You are indeed displacing 108ft3 per minute = 1.8ft3/s = 0.05097m3/s.  The pressure is that of 85" of water: 9.8n/kg * ~1000kg/m3 * 85"*0.0254m/" = 21,158 Pascals.  Energy = pressure times volume:  E1 second = 0.05097m3*21,158 Pascals = 1,078Watts.
Quote
Quote

If our gearing coming off the output of the chain is set up to spin at the rate of one container per second it would go one revolution per second or 60 rpm and produce a torque of 784.94 foot pounds continuous output if it has a circumference of 1 foot.
Gearing does not change the energy or the power.  It only changes the torque and angular velocity.
Quote
Quote


This would generate (according to this calculator) 8.97 hp....... from our 1.5 hp input!


Assuming a mere 85% efficiency for the generator we get:


                8.97 * 745.7 *.85 - 1.5 * 745.7 = 4567 watts net output continuous!


But I will tell you what I think is wrong with yours...


Your calculation assumes that gravity is accelerating the air upwards as if it were the weight of falling water and producing the same amount of power as that volume of water would, but that is not exactly what is happening in buoyancy.
Dude:  That is EXACTLY what happens with buoyancy:  The upward force on any mass in the atmosphere is the weight of displaced atmosphere.  That upward force acts against the downward force of the mass's dry weight.  The net energy change in the system is the net change in mass versus height.  The volume of displaced atmosphere, water in this case, falls down by the same height that the displacing air rises.  As I mentioned before, we are being slightly generous by neglecting the air, but that error is in the noise.  The reason that I keep referring to this foolishness as no better than a bag of wet hammers is because the energy change is just mgh.  The denser material happens to be the atmosphere.
Quote


It may be true that its lift is the same by volume, however the bubble does not lift upwards because of the gravitational weight of the air bubble, rather it lifts upwards because of the weight of the water around bubble and its difference in density. So it is the weight of the water around the bubble that gravity is accelerating, not the bubble. And that ends up changing as it rises. So this 9.8 gravitational constant attributed to the volume of the bubble is erroneous, flat wrong. This is in part because the volume of the air expands as it rises and decompresses. Boyle's law. Your calculation doesn't accommodate that.
You get most things right and then run off the rails with an erroneous conclusion.  There are two masses:  mdisplacing and mdisplaced.  The former is that of the air, and the latter is that of the water the air displaces.  The net change in mgh is the difference in the two masses multiplied by g and h.  We treat the air as massless, ignoring the tiny error that introduces and are left with mdisplaced.
Quote


The volume of the air might be 13.5 gallons (in my example) at the bottom but what is it near the top?
If you want to evaluate the effects of the air being compressible, you will find it does nothing in the ideal case and only hurts in any real case.  The air being compressible means that for a given amount of work performed compressing the air, a portion of that remains trapped in the air at the bottom and is released as the bubble expands during its ascent thereby lifting less water at the bottom than an incompressible fluid and eventually making up for that under the impossible conditions of an infinitely long in time ascent and a bubble that is infinitely wide as it breaks the water's surface at the top.
Quote


The pressure near the bottom of 85" is 17.8435psi but near the top it is about 14.9psi
so Boyle's law says that the air expands to over 16 gallons and that is a big difference.
Yes, but you prepay for that at the bottom as the bubble is much smaller than it would be were the air an incompressible fluid.
Quote


But beyond that I believe that I have calculated the lift correctly as long as you can assume there are always  at least 7 containers full at a time there should always be the lifting force I mentioned, nearly 800 lbs of force rising 1 foot per second...is a lot of horse power, even more when you consider Boyle's law.
See above.  You introduced error when you introduced energy gain by gearing that never exists.
Quote


I believe that is why they're only filling their containers 1/2 way up... so that the air doesn't expand beyond the container size as they rise.  Because in their 14ft of water it is nearly 21 psi at the bottom and 14.9 at the top so Boyle's law says that would be about a 37% expansion in air volume so 1/2 full at the bottom becomes almost 70% full at the top.
You are probably right in the sense that they don't want air burping out half way up.  But the machine is completely useless as there is no energy gain from buoyancy, so whatever they do, they do only for show.
Quote


Thanks for your consideration.

Offline conradelektro

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1792
Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
« Reply #407 on: May 10, 2015, 05:31:21 PM »
I think most people know it, and it has been written many times by various posters:

The trick employed by Rosch and Gaia (and all people who claim to have mysterious machines) is to reverse logic.

They do not provide proof that their contraption is really functioning. And then critics try to proof that it does not work.

And it is of course not possible to proof that it does not work.

- Firstly, such a proof is not possible according to formal logic (one can not logically exclude an infinite number of possibilities).

- And secondly, one does not have sufficient information to proof anything (because the proponents of the mysterious machine intentionally withhold crucial information or even release false information).

I know, we always discuss possibilities to proof that it is a scam, because we can not do anything else (besides silence). And this keeps a thread going for a while.

Good arguments are put forward. But one can not "win" the discussion due to a lack of tangible information.

All threads or discussions about strange machines and contraptions I have seen in the last 20 years end in this stalemate. Wars of opinion flare up, stupid and intelligent statements poor in and then? A new strange machine is "invented" and it starts all over again.

May be the real game is to engage in endless and senseless discussions?

Greetings, Conrad

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
« Reply #407 on: May 10, 2015, 05:31:21 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline markdansie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1471
Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
« Reply #408 on: May 11, 2015, 04:15:37 AM »
I think most people know it, and it has been written many times by various posters:

The trick employed by Rosch and Gaia (and all people who claim to have mysterious machines) is to reverse logic.

They do not provide proof that their contraption is really functioning. And then critics try to proof that it does not work.

And it is of course not possible to proof that it does not work.

- Firstly, such a proof is not possible according to formal logic (one can not logically exclude an infinite number of possibilities).

- And secondly, one does not have sufficient information to proof anything (because the proponents of the mysterious machine intentionally withhold crucial information or even release false information).

I know, we always discuss possibilities to proof that it is a scam, because we can not do anything else (besides silence). And this keeps a thread going for a while.

Good arguments are put forward. But one can not "win" the discussion due to a lack of tangible information.

All threads or discussions about strange machines and contraptions I have seen in the last 20 years end in this stalemate. Wars of opinion flare up, stupid and intelligent statements poor in and then? A new strange machine is "invented" and it starts all over again.

May be the real game is to engage in endless and senseless discussions?

Greetings, Conrad


That is a brilliant observation and summary. I copied it and posted it on PESWIKI (may not make the cut)

Offline tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5232
Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
« Reply #409 on: May 11, 2015, 03:13:35 PM »
It is the correct formula for this situation.  It is generous as it neglects the air mass and more importantly viscous friction and any losses in the mechanism.  IOW it is better than anyone could ever get.  What you posted is:


At this point you should have used the same formula that I did.

Force/time is a measure of impact.  It does not help here. 

You are indeed displacing 108ft3 per minute = 1.8ft3/s = 0.05097m3/s.  The pressure is that of 85" of water: 9.8n/kg * ~1000kg/m3 * 85"*0.0254m/" = 21,158 Pascals.  Energy = pressure times volume:  E1 second = 0.05097m3*21,158 Pascals = 1,078Watts.Gearing does not change the energy or the power.  It only changes the torque and angular velocity.
But I will tell you what I think is wrong with yours...


Your calculation assumes that gravity is accelerating the air upwards as if it were the weight of falling water and producing the same amount of power as that volume of water would, but that is not exactly what is happening in buoyancy.Dude:  That is EXACTLY what happens with buoyancy:  The upward force on any mass in the atmosphere is the weight of displaced atmosphere.  That upward force acts against the downward force of the mass's dry weight.  The net energy change in the system is the net change in mass versus height.  The volume of displaced atmosphere, water in this case, falls down by the same height that the displacing air rises.  As I mentioned before, we are being slightly generous by neglecting the air, but that error is in the noise.  The reason that I keep referring to this foolishness as no better than a bag of wet hammers is because the energy change is just mgh.  The denser material happens to be the atmosphere. You get most things right and then run off the rails with an erroneous conclusion.  There are two masses:  mdisplacing and mdisplaced.  The former is that of the air, and the latter is that of the water the air displaces.  The net change in mgh is the difference in the two masses multiplied by g and h.  We treat the air as massless, ignoring the tiny error that introduces and are left with mdisplaced.If you want to evaluate the effects of the air being compressible, you will find it does nothing in the ideal case and only hurts in any real case.  The air being compressible means that for a given amount of work performed compressing the air, a portion of that remains trapped in the air at the bottom and is released as the bubble expands during its ascent thereby lifting less water at the bottom than an incompressible fluid and eventually making up for that under the impossible conditions of an infinitely long in time ascent and a bubble that is infinitely wide as it breaks the water's surface at the top.Yes, but you prepay for that at the bottom as the bubble is much smaller than it would be were the air an incompressible fluid.See above.  You introduced error when you introduced energy gain by gearing that never exists.You are probably right in the sense that they don't want air burping out half way up.  But the machine is completely useless as there is no energy gain from buoyancy, so whatever they do, they do only for show.
Dont forget that the column of water also rises as the air bubble increases in size. So a 15 foot column of water when the bubble is compressed at the bottom,may be 16 feet when the bubble reaches the near top. So we have a starting and ending pressure at the bottom of the column of water,but the water head increases as the bubble expands as the bubble rises.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
« Reply #409 on: May 11, 2015, 03:13:35 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline shinz62

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 29
Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
« Reply #410 on: May 11, 2015, 07:12:45 PM »
Dont forget that the column of water also rises as the air bubble increases in size. So a 15 foot column of water when the bubble is compressed at the bottom,may be 16 feet when the bubble reaches the near top. So we have a starting and ending pressure at the bottom of the column of water,but the water head increases as the bubble expands as the bubble rises.


Right... that is the result of Boyle's law, but it is somewhat more dramatic than that....


Water pressure at 14 ft is 20.92 psi
Water pressure at 0 is 14.7 psi
Therefore a 50 liter volume of air at 14 foot becomes  71.16 liter at the top, a 42% expansion.


However, MarkE is correct, I introduced error with the gearing. I blew my calculation when I assumed my gear needed a circumference of 1 foot, in reality it needs a radius of 1 foot to calculate the torque  (ft lb -> torque), that makes the circumference of the gear much larger (2 * pi * R = 6.28 feet) to produce the torque I mentioned and therefore my calculation when done correctly will produce about the same result as MarkE's hydro formula.


And as you mentioned, if we can assume a linear application of Boyle's law we get an average of 21% more volume to use in the calculation which only nets out 21% more power output.


Not enough to explain their claims. I think they're lying.


Thanks.






Offline minnie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1244
Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
« Reply #411 on: May 11, 2015, 07:22:38 PM »



  What you have to do is raise more than 3,700 lbs.per foot, per second.
              John.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
« Reply #411 on: May 11, 2015, 07:22:38 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
« Reply #412 on: May 11, 2015, 08:03:32 PM »
Dont forget that the column of water also rises as the air bubble increases in size. So a 15 foot column of water when the bubble is compressed at the bottom,may be 16 feet when the bubble reaches the near top. So we have a starting and ending pressure at the bottom of the column of water,but the water head increases as the bubble expands as the bubble rises.
That is true, but it doesn't help.  What you have is energy stored in compressing the air that is released as the bubble rises to lower surrounding pressure.  That complicates the math quite a bit, but when it is all said and done the very best that you can do is get back the energy consumed compressing air to displace the water.  If the air were an incompressible liquid instead of a compressible gas, then we would have the simpler form of the math:  absent losses we would lift rhowater*volume*gh water at the bottom, and as the bubble rose we would have available:  (rhowater - rhodisplacing fluid)*volume*gh energy available, provided we take infinite time in the move.  As the gas is compressible, we displace less water at the start.  We've stored energy that would have gone into lifting the water in the gas bubble. 

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
« Reply #413 on: May 11, 2015, 08:05:30 PM »

Right... that is the result of Boyle's law, but it is somewhat more dramatic than that....


Water pressure at 14 ft is 20.92 psi
Water pressure at 0 is 14.7 psi
Therefore a 50 liter volume of air at 14 foot becomes  71.16 liter at the top, a 42% expansion.


However, MarkE is correct, I introduced error with the gearing. I blew my calculation when I assumed my gear needed a circumference of 1 foot, in reality it needs a radius of 1 foot to calculate the torque  (ft lb -> torque), that makes the circumference of the gear much larger (2 * pi * R = 6.28 feet) to produce the torque I mentioned and therefore my calculation when done correctly will produce about the same result as MarkE's hydro formula.


And as you mentioned, if we can assume a linear application of Boyle's law we get an average of 21% more volume to use in the calculation which only nets out 21% more power output.


Not enough to explain their claims. I think they're lying.


Thanks.
Rosch/Gaia have had to employ the services of carpenters multiple times to allow their noses to fit through even the widest shipping doors.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
« Reply #413 on: May 11, 2015, 08:05:30 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline Red_Sunset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 548
Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
« Reply #414 on: May 12, 2015, 07:08:46 AM »
I think most people know it, and it has been written many times by various posters:

The trick employed by Rosch and Gaia (and all people who claim to have mysterious machines) is to reverse logic.

They do not provide proof that their contraption is really functioning. And then critics try to proof that it does not work.

And it is of course not possible to proof that it does not work.

.........................................................................
...................................................................

May be the real game is to engage in endless and senseless discussions?

Greetings, Conrad

Conrad,

A very good observation, this technique has been used in many instances to achieve set objectives.

The same technique was used on a larger scale by the USA Bush government on Sadam/Iraq

"  Proof to us that you do not have any weapons on mass destruction !".
The endless impossibilities to proof led to the second Gulf War

The same is taking place with Iran,  lets hope they will be able to solve that proofability.

The other reason is to fish for a solution to a problem in an invention without divulging the invention itself in details.

Red



Offline Pirate88179

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8365
Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
« Reply #415 on: May 12, 2015, 07:20:35 AM »
Conrad,

A very good observation, this technique has been used in many instances to achieve set objectives.

The same technique was used on a larger scale by the USA Bush government on Sadam/Iraq

"  Proof to us that you do not have any weapons on mass destruction !".
The endless impossibilities to proof led to the second Gulf War

The same is taking place with Iran,  lets hope they will be able to solve that proofability.

Red

I'm sorry but you are totally wrong here.  Iraq did have them...they used them (WMD's)  We know they had them as we had sold them some back in the 80's.
Saddam surrendered after we kicked his but out of Kuwait, part of the surrender terms were allowing weapons inspectors in...which he later kicked out.  He also violated the surrender treaty by firing at our aircraft over 900 times!! while they were patrolling the no-fly zone.  He was also buying and refining uranium which was another treaty violation.

So, what happens when a country surrenders and then violates most of the terms of surrender?

You go back in and that is what we did.

Bill

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
« Reply #415 on: May 12, 2015, 07:20:35 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
« Reply #416 on: May 12, 2015, 07:33:15 AM »
I'm sorry but you are totally wrong here.  Iraq did have them...they used them (WMD's)  We know they had them as we had sold them some back in the 80's.
Saddam surrendered after we kicked his but out of Kuwait, part of the surrender terms were allowing weapons inspectors in...which he later kicked out.  He also violated the surrender treaty by firing at our aircraft over 900 times!! while they were patrolling the no-fly zone.  He was also buying and refining uranium which was another treaty violation.

So, what happens when a country surrenders and then violates most of the terms of surrender?

You go back in and that is what we did.

Bill
Considering that our greater concern was legitimately Iran, and considering that in the past 12 years our wars have strengthened Iran's influence, weakened ours, cost us trillions of dollars, and many thousands of casualties among our brave ranks, I disagree with the idea that invading Iraq was anything but a monumentally stupid idea promoted by war mongers and profiteers.  The Iraq war was a clusterfuck of unimaginable proportions to us.  Never mind the complete immorality of our unilateral invasion launched when Sadaam Hussein did not leave on the Midget Minded Moron GWB's 48 hour get out of Dodge demand.  There are people who deserve to be tried for their crimes against humanity.  Bush and Cheney are at the top of that list.

Offline Red_Sunset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 548
Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
« Reply #417 on: May 12, 2015, 08:18:32 AM »
I'm sorry but you are totally wrong here.  Iraq did have them...they used them (WMD's)  We know they had them as we had sold them some back in the 80's.
Saddam surrendered after we kicked his but out of Kuwait, part of the surrender terms were allowing weapons inspectors in...which he later kicked out.  He also violated the surrender treaty by firing at our aircraft over 900 times!! while they were patrolling the no-fly zone.  He was also buying and refining uranium which was another treaty violation.

So, what happens when a country surrenders and then violates most of the terms of surrender?

You go back in and that is what we did.

Bill

Bill, 
I try to approach any subject from impartiality and I will not dispute that the players in conflict were good or bad guys, not even the reason if they had reason or validation to do what they did.   All I search for is where the TRUTH is, in the end truth is elusive and you end up with best assumptions. In addition I can sense also that this subject has emotional content and this influences objectivity.

In the same way that Rosh buoyancy device has an "OFFICIAL LINE" offered by themselves, their is also an "UNOFFICIAL LINE" that is transpiring here on this web site.     In the same way, the reason for the 2de gulf war has an OFFICIAL LINE and an "UNOFFICIAL LINE".  Where does the truth lie is the good question?

The "OFFICIAL LINE" is what is palatable to the general public supplied though well known public news agencies.  The question is what is true, what is modified for consumption ...ect
The " UNOFFICIAL LINE" comes from other sources,  many alternative sources provide good coverage and many are wayout and biased sources for their interest reasons. Although we had some good sources (leakages) through Wikeleaks and Snowdon.  These leakage sources did confirm many and more of the alternative sources that appeared possibly doubtfull.  It will always be a problem to be assured of credible information.

Back to your assertion: 
Sadam was a bad boy in many respects, a loose canon, no doubt, a reason good enough reason to take him out. (a bit like Castro).  Shooting at planes can be expected in a lock-down situation, an annoyance but not exactly a good reason to invade a country
But I believe that was not the "official line" reason for invasion. He had to proof that he did not have WMD ?  If WMD would be the core issue, there are too many other countries with worse (Pakistan, North Korea...ect), but that is not the aim.  Do not forget from which state the president & vice president was and family relationships with foreign leaders.
Buying uranium:  check history (google: Yellow Cake, Niger, 2003), they made even a movie on it starring Sean Penn " Fair Game".  A book on the story can also be found
Refining uranium:  Perhaps misinformation on the pipes for refining ?
                             Wikipedia "Iraqi aluminum tubes" :      Aluminum tubes purchased by the nation of Iraq were intercepted in Jordan in 2001. In September 2002 they were publicly cited by the White House as evidence that Iraq was actively pursuing an atomic weapon. Prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, many questioned the validity of the claim. After the invasion, the Iraq Survey Group determined that the best explanation for the tubes' use was to produce conventional 81-mm rockets; no evidence was found of a program to design or develop an 81-mm aluminum rotor uranium centrifuge.

I do not claim to know, but I can apply logic to a fair extent, something did not sound well when Bush wanted to invade. Subsequent information uncovered pretty well what went on and it wasn't the "Official Line"

I am sorry to oppose your "clear cut" view, Red.



Offline MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
« Reply #418 on: May 12, 2015, 08:46:45 AM »
I read something interesting a long time ago that if true I feel was grossly under reported.  It was about a process taking place in Iraq's military because of the long-standing rivalry between Iraq and Iran.  During the Saddam era the Iraqi military was engaging in a long-term disinformation campaign to intimidate Iran.  They continuously let on that they had WMDs in their military radio chatter that they knew that Iran was listening to.  Presumably the American military was listening to the same radio chatter.

So it's possible that that factored into America's and Bush's decision to issue the ultimatum.  People always like to complain and whine that the US does not have a crystal ball that tells them exactly how the future will unfold.  The classic line is that "The US created, and is to blame for, the creation of Al Qaeda and OBL because of the war in Afghanistan."  It's a no-win situation.  You can't demand that US intelligence be perfect and they were "supposed to know" that the Iraqi radio chatter was fake and that a huge terrorist organization would ultimately develop due to the 1979 war in Afghanistan.

Just like the thought experiment goes, "JFK had to get shot because we know the world survived afterwards and it's too uncertain to know what would have happened had he lived, the same kind of thought-experiment argument could be made about Iraq.  If there were no 1991 and 2003 wars, then Iraq could have developed the bomb, then lobbed a few at Israel.  Israel retaliates, then perhaps Pakistan would have lobbed some of their own, and before you know it Israeli submarines are unloading their strategic defence nukes and the entire Middle East becomes burnt glass and 50 million people die and the entire world is then completely destabilised because of the ensuing oil shock, etc, etc, etc.

It's like "The City on the Edge of Forever."

You can criticize the "Get out of Dodge" ultimatum, but it is possible that if Saddam and his sons left (one of them was a deranged hyper-violent murderous psycho) that the war would _not_ have taken place.  But Saddam made a decision to the great detriment of his people.  In WWI the Germans surrendered when they were materially spent and exhausted, and that saved millions of lives.  Contrast that to WWII, where the Germans literally fought to the last square block and millions of lives were slaughtered needlessly.

There are no easy answers but to proclaim Bush the "big bad evil guy" is really not true in my opinion.  I think in the long term history is going to be kind to him.  We will have to wait and see.

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
« Reply #419 on: May 12, 2015, 09:23:51 AM »
I read something interesting a long time ago that if true I feel was grossly under reported.  It was about a process taking place in Iraq's military because of the long-standing rivalry between Iraq and Iran.  During the Saddam era the Iraqi military was engaging in a long-term disinformation campaign to intimidate Iran.  They continuously let on that they had WMDs in their military radio chatter that they knew that Iran was listening to.  Presumably the American military was listening to the same radio chatter.

So it's possible that that factored into America's and Bush's decision to issue the ultimatum.  People always like to complain and whine that the US does not have a crystal ball that tells them exactly how the future will unfold.  The classic line is that "The US created, and is to blame for, the creation of Al Qaeda and OBL because of the war in Afghanistan."  It's a no-win situation.  You can't demand that US intelligence be perfect and they were "supposed to know" that the Iraqi radio chatter was fake and that a huge terrorist organization would ultimately develop due to the 1979 war in Afghanistan.

Just like the thought experiment goes, "JFK had to get shot because we know the world survived afterwards and it's too uncertain to know what would have happened had he lived, the same kind of thought-experiment argument could be made about Iraq.  If there were no 1991 and 2003 wars, then Iraq could have developed the bomb, then lobbed a few at Israel.  Israel retaliates, then perhaps Pakistan would have lobbed some of their own, and before you know it Israeli submarines are unloading their strategic defence nukes and the entire Middle East becomes burnt glass and 50 million people die and the entire world is then completely destabilised because of the ensuing oil shock, etc, etc, etc.

It's like "The City on the Edge of Forever."

You can criticize the "Get out of Dodge" ultimatum, but it is possible that if Saddam and his sons left (one of them was a deranged hyper-violent murderous psycho) that the war would _not_ have taken place.  But Saddam made a decision to the great detriment of his people.  In WWI the Germans surrendered when they were materially spent and exhausted, and that saved millions of lives.  Contrast that to WWII, where the Germans literally fought to the last square block and millions of lives were slaughtered needlessly.

There are no easy answers but to proclaim Bush the "big bad evil guy" is really not true in my opinion.  I think in the long term history is going to be kind to him.  We will have to wait and see.
My suggestion to you is to read the PNAC documents.  The strategy was to invade Iraq and use it as a firebase from which to attack Iran.  The war on Iraq was going to happen no matter what.  In 2002 James Woolsey was working the debate circuit arguing that Afghanistan had been a walk in the park, and all would fall and tremble before the USA's incredible might.  History students might note just how well Afghanistan has really gone.

Bush chose to unilaterally invade a country that had neither attacked the USA nor presented any imminent threat.  The 9/11 hijackers were Saudis and Egyptians, not Iraqis.  The opening of the war was advertised in the terroristic terms of "shock and awe".  The neocons are the "big bad evil guys".  In the promotion of their vision of the "New American Century" they have made the world a far more dangerous place, killed upwards of a million people, and incited an entire generation if not two of nut jobs that think the way to paradise is butchering others.  What other than evil does one call a person prepared to do what these war criminals have done in anything but self-defense?  Sadaam was a nasty evil guy.  There are lots of nasty evil guys in this world.  A bunch of them ran our government for eight years.

 

OneLink