[justme]

[quote]:

…
justme: When you get done doing your math homework, let’s revisit some of my earlier questions to you.
…

[/quote]

Allan, I will contemplate doing that AFTER you acknowledge your error. Specifically, my conclusion to the investigation of your previous proganda statement.

—-

Conclusion: The Iraq 1999-2000 bombing tonnage was 1/2700 of WW2 USAF.

So yeah, the whole Clinton-bombed-more-than-WW2-USAF is off by a factor of 2700. Quite a large error, is it not.

—–

So, are you going to acknowledge that you were just spewing blatantly false propaganda, or not?

[justme]

Wait a second, the tonnage comparison is even more wrong than I thought. The WW2 USAF tonnage was 1,463,423 tons or 1.463Mton. The Iraq 1999-2000 tonnage was 535ton, not 535Mton.

So the ratio is 535/1,463,423= 0.00037 ~= 1/2700

Conclusion: The Iraq 1999-2000 bombing tonnage was 1/2700 of WW2 USAF.

So yeah, the whole Clinton-bombed-more-than-WW2-USAF is off by a factor of 2700. Quite a large error, is it not.

PS: I also spotted the error involving the 1.3M number from counterpunch. The counterpunch article converted tons to pounds, hence the ~1.3Mpounds versus ~624tons for 1999-2001(Clinton+Bush2). Keep in mind that Mpounds is a much smaller unit than Mtons, by a factor of ~1000/0.457=2188.

[justme]

Wait a second, the tonnage comparison is even more wrong than I thought. The WW2 USAF tonnage was 1,463,423 tons or 1.463Mton. The Iraq 1999-2000 tonnage was 535ton, not 535Mton.

So the ratio is 535/1,463,423= 0.00037 ~= 1/2700

Conclusion: The Iraq 1999-2000 bombing tonnage was 1/2700 of WW2 USAF.

So yeah, the whole Clinton-bombed-more-than-WW2-USAF is off by a factor of 2700. Quite a large error, is it not.

PS: I also spotted the error involving the 1.3M number from counterpunch. The counterpunch article converted tons to pounds, hence the ~1.3Mpounds versus ~624tons for 1999-2001(Clinton+Bush2). Keep in mind that Mpounds is a much smaller unit than Mtons, by a factor of ~1000/0.457=2188.

[justme]

Wait a second, the tonnage comparison is even more wrong than I thought. The WW2 USAF tonnage was 1,463,423 tons or 1.463Mton. The Iraq 1999-2000 tonnage was 535ton, not 535Mton.

So the ratio is 535/1,463,423= 0.00037 ~= 1/2700

Conclusion: The Iraq 1999-2000 bombing tonnage was 1/2700 of WW2 USAF.

So yeah, the whole Clinton-bombed-more-than-WW2-USAF is off by a factor of 2700. Quite a large error, is it not.

PS: I also spotted the error involving the 1.3M number from counterpunch. The counterpunch article converted tons to pounds, hence the ~1.3Mpounds versus ~624tons for 1999-2001(Clinton+Bush2). Keep in mind that Mpounds is a much smaller unit than Mtons, by a factor of ~1000/0.457=2188.

[justme]

Wait a second, the tonnage comparison is even more wrong than I thought. The WW2 USAF tonnage was 1,463,423 tons or 1.463Mton. The Iraq 1999-2000 tonnage was 535ton, not 535Mton.

So the ratio is 535/1,463,423= 0.00037 ~= 1/2700

Conclusion: The Iraq 1999-2000 bombing tonnage was 1/2700 of WW2 USAF.

So yeah, the whole Clinton-bombed-more-than-WW2-USAF is off by a factor of 2700. Quite a large error, is it not.

PS: I also spotted the error involving the 1.3M number from counterpunch. The counterpunch article converted tons to pounds, hence the ~1.3Mpounds versus ~624tons for 1999-2001(Clinton+Bush2). Keep in mind that Mpounds is a much smaller unit than Mtons, by a factor of ~1000/0.457=2188.

[justme]

Wait a second, the tonnage comparison is even more wrong than I thought. The WW2 USAF tonnage was 1,463,423 tons or 1.463Mton. The Iraq 1999-2000 tonnage was 535ton, not 535Mton.

So the ratio is 535/1,463,423= 0.00037 ~= 1/2700

Conclusion: The Iraq 1999-2000 bombing tonnage was 1/2700 of WW2 USAF.

So yeah, the whole Clinton-bombed-more-than-WW2-USAF is off by a factor of 2700. Quite a large error, is it not.

PS: I also spotted the error involving the 1.3M number from counterpunch. The counterpunch article converted tons to pounds, hence the ~1.3Mpounds versus ~624tons for 1999-2001(Clinton+Bush2). Keep in mind that Mpounds is a much smaller unit than Mtons, by a factor of ~1000/0.457=2188.

[justme]

By the way, the tonnage error aside, I also find it disingenuous to compare bombing of air defense systems, primarily in the Iraqi desert, to firebombing and terror bombing of German cities. It is rather a different type of campaign.

[justme]

By the way, the tonnage error aside, I also find it disingenuous to compare bombing of air defense systems, primarily in the Iraqi desert, to firebombing and terror bombing of German cities. It is rather a different type of campaign.

[justme]

By the way, the tonnage error aside, I also find it disingenuous to compare bombing of air defense systems, primarily in the Iraqi desert, to firebombing and terror bombing of German cities. It is rather a different type of campaign.

[justme]

By the way, the tonnage error aside, I also find it disingenuous to compare bombing of air defense systems, primarily in the Iraqi desert, to firebombing and terror bombing of German cities. It is rather a different type of campaign.

[justme]

By the way, the tonnage error aside, I also find it disingenuous to compare bombing of air defense systems, primarily in the Iraqi desert, to firebombing and terror bombing of German cities. It is rather a different type of campaign.

[justme]

Allan,

The British source to the counterpunch.org article was a transcript of a session in British parliament. I will assume that the transcript has not been falsified, The tables in the transcript show in no uncertain terms that Clinton’s tonnage for 1999-2000 was 535 Mton << 1464 Mton. I believe this source, I don't see any reason to find another source. One could speculate how counterpunch came up with 1.3M. I suspect they double-counted by adding up both quarterly and yearly numbers. That is a big mistake. They may also have counted the UK contribution multiple times. >>I will prove the point, and I will find the sources to do so.

This is not a good approach, I think. One should first find the correct sources, and then draw the appropriate conclusions, and not the other way around.

Sorry, “no deal”.

[justme]

Allan,

The British source to the counterpunch.org article was a transcript of a session in British parliament. I will assume that the transcript has not been falsified, The tables in the transcript show in no uncertain terms that Clinton’s tonnage for 1999-2000 was 535 Mton << 1464 Mton. I believe this source, I don't see any reason to find another source. One could speculate how counterpunch came up with 1.3M. I suspect they double-counted by adding up both quarterly and yearly numbers. That is a big mistake. They may also have counted the UK contribution multiple times. >>I will prove the point, and I will find the sources to do so.

This is not a good approach, I think. One should first find the correct sources, and then draw the appropriate conclusions, and not the other way around.

Sorry, “no deal”.

[justme]

Allan,

The British source to the counterpunch.org article was a transcript of a session in British parliament. I will assume that the transcript has not been falsified, The tables in the transcript show in no uncertain terms that Clinton’s tonnage for 1999-2000 was 535 Mton << 1464 Mton. I believe this source, I don't see any reason to find another source. One could speculate how counterpunch came up with 1.3M. I suspect they double-counted by adding up both quarterly and yearly numbers. That is a big mistake. They may also have counted the UK contribution multiple times. >>I will prove the point, and I will find the sources to do so.

This is not a good approach, I think. One should first find the correct sources, and then draw the appropriate conclusions, and not the other way around.

Sorry, “no deal”.

[justme]

Allan,

The British source to the counterpunch.org article was a transcript of a session in British parliament. I will assume that the transcript has not been falsified, The tables in the transcript show in no uncertain terms that Clinton’s tonnage for 1999-2000 was 535 Mton << 1464 Mton. I believe this source, I don't see any reason to find another source. One could speculate how counterpunch came up with 1.3M. I suspect they double-counted by adding up both quarterly and yearly numbers. That is a big mistake. They may also have counted the UK contribution multiple times. >>I will prove the point, and I will find the sources to do so.

This is not a good approach, I think. One should first find the correct sources, and then draw the appropriate conclusions, and not the other way around.

Sorry, “no deal”.

[Author]

Posts