[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]

>>Clinton Administration dropped 1.3MM tons of ordnance on Iraq just during 1999 – 2001 alone: http://www.rawstory.com/news/2005/Clinto&#8230;

There you go again. The rawstory points to a another document that does not support the Clinton=1.3Mton number. It does support 535Mton during Clinton 1999-2000 and 107Mton during Bush2 2001, for a total of 642<<1463. Not to mention that you are trying to make 2001 a Clinton year. I could only wish it was. You are so hell-bent on proving your own falsehoods that you are tripping all over yourself. The numbers are wrong, the attributions to Clinton is wrong, and 535/1463=0.37 is not > 1.00.

Why are you yapping on about Wikipedia and Vietnam tonnage? It has nothing to do with the lie I caught you in. Are you just trying to sow confusion again? I thought so.

Do we need another QED here, or should we just stop now?

[justme]

>>Clinton Administration dropped 1.3MM tons of ordnance on Iraq just during 1999 – 2001 alone: http://www.rawstory.com/news/2005/Clinto&#8230;

There you go again. The rawstory points to a another document that does not support the Clinton=1.3Mton number. It does support 535Mton during Clinton 1999-2000 and 107Mton during Bush2 2001, for a total of 642<<1463. Not to mention that you are trying to make 2001 a Clinton year. I could only wish it was. You are so hell-bent on proving your own falsehoods that you are tripping all over yourself. The numbers are wrong, the attributions to Clinton is wrong, and 535/1463=0.37 is not > 1.00.

Why are you yapping on about Wikipedia and Vietnam tonnage? It has nothing to do with the lie I caught you in. Are you just trying to sow confusion again? I thought so.

Do we need another QED here, or should we just stop now?

[justme]

>>Clinton Administration dropped 1.3MM tons of ordnance on Iraq just during 1999 – 2001 alone: http://www.rawstory.com/news/2005/Clinto&#8230;

There you go again. The rawstory points to a another document that does not support the Clinton=1.3Mton number. It does support 535Mton during Clinton 1999-2000 and 107Mton during Bush2 2001, for a total of 642<<1463. Not to mention that you are trying to make 2001 a Clinton year. I could only wish it was. You are so hell-bent on proving your own falsehoods that you are tripping all over yourself. The numbers are wrong, the attributions to Clinton is wrong, and 535/1463=0.37 is not > 1.00.

Why are you yapping on about Wikipedia and Vietnam tonnage? It has nothing to do with the lie I caught you in. Are you just trying to sow confusion again? I thought so.

Do we need another QED here, or should we just stop now?

[justme]

>>Clinton Administration dropped 1.3MM tons of ordnance on Iraq just during 1999 – 2001 alone: http://www.rawstory.com/news/2005/Clinto&#8230;

There you go again. The rawstory points to a another document that does not support the Clinton=1.3Mton number. It does support 535Mton during Clinton 1999-2000 and 107Mton during Bush2 2001, for a total of 642<<1463. Not to mention that you are trying to make 2001 a Clinton year. I could only wish it was. You are so hell-bent on proving your own falsehoods that you are tripping all over yourself. The numbers are wrong, the attributions to Clinton is wrong, and 535/1463=0.37 is not > 1.00.

Why are you yapping on about Wikipedia and Vietnam tonnage? It has nothing to do with the lie I caught you in. Are you just trying to sow confusion again? I thought so.

Do we need another QED here, or should we just stop now?

[justme]

>>Clinton Administration dropped 1.3MM tons of ordnance on Iraq just during 1999 – 2001 alone: http://www.rawstory.com/news/2005/Clinto&#8230;

There you go again. The rawstory points to a another document that does not support the Clinton=1.3Mton number. It does support 535Mton during Clinton 1999-2000 and 107Mton during Bush2 2001, for a total of 642<<1463. Not to mention that you are trying to make 2001 a Clinton year. I could only wish it was. You are so hell-bent on proving your own falsehoods that you are tripping all over yourself. The numbers are wrong, the attributions to Clinton is wrong, and 535/1463=0.37 is not > 1.00.

Why are you yapping on about Wikipedia and Vietnam tonnage? It has nothing to do with the lie I caught you in. Are you just trying to sow confusion again? I thought so.

Do we need another QED here, or should we just stop now?

[justme]

Allan,

You may very well be cherry-picking sources, but what I said is that even your own source did not support your bombing tonnage claim. You then go on about how said claim is well known and that there are all kinds of sources, blah, blah.

GIVE ME SOME REAL SOURCES, WITH A LINK.

The answer is, there is no reputable source that will support your claim. You are a liar. End of story.

And, no, you cannot rewrite and twist your old statements to make them sort-of-right-bit-still-very-misleading AFTER I point out all the falsehoods. What you said was FALSE, period. It is not sophism to point out your falsehood. You are the sophist, here, and not a very sophisticated one at that.

QED? It stands for Quod erat **demonstrandum**, smart guy. You should have paid more attention in math class and perhaps learned some logic, too. I did.

[justme]

Allan,

You may very well be cherry-picking sources, but what I said is that even your own source did not support your bombing tonnage claim. You then go on about how said claim is well known and that there are all kinds of sources, blah, blah.

GIVE ME SOME REAL SOURCES, WITH A LINK.

The answer is, there is no reputable source that will support your claim. You are a liar. End of story.

And, no, you cannot rewrite and twist your old statements to make them sort-of-right-bit-still-very-misleading AFTER I point out all the falsehoods. What you said was FALSE, period. It is not sophism to point out your falsehood. You are the sophist, here, and not a very sophisticated one at that.

QED? It stands for Quod erat **demonstrandum**, smart guy. You should have paid more attention in math class and perhaps learned some logic, too. I did.

[justme]

Allan,

You may very well be cherry-picking sources, but what I said is that even your own source did not support your bombing tonnage claim. You then go on about how said claim is well known and that there are all kinds of sources, blah, blah.

GIVE ME SOME REAL SOURCES, WITH A LINK.

The answer is, there is no reputable source that will support your claim. You are a liar. End of story.

And, no, you cannot rewrite and twist your old statements to make them sort-of-right-bit-still-very-misleading AFTER I point out all the falsehoods. What you said was FALSE, period. It is not sophism to point out your falsehood. You are the sophist, here, and not a very sophisticated one at that.

QED? It stands for Quod erat **demonstrandum**, smart guy. You should have paid more attention in math class and perhaps learned some logic, too. I did.

[justme]

Allan,

You may very well be cherry-picking sources, but what I said is that even your own source did not support your bombing tonnage claim. You then go on about how said claim is well known and that there are all kinds of sources, blah, blah.

GIVE ME SOME REAL SOURCES, WITH A LINK.

The answer is, there is no reputable source that will support your claim. You are a liar. End of story.

And, no, you cannot rewrite and twist your old statements to make them sort-of-right-bit-still-very-misleading AFTER I point out all the falsehoods. What you said was FALSE, period. It is not sophism to point out your falsehood. You are the sophist, here, and not a very sophisticated one at that.

QED? It stands for Quod erat **demonstrandum**, smart guy. You should have paid more attention in math class and perhaps learned some logic, too. I did.

[justme]

Allan,

You may very well be cherry-picking sources, but what I said is that even your own source did not support your bombing tonnage claim. You then go on about how said claim is well known and that there are all kinds of sources, blah, blah.

GIVE ME SOME REAL SOURCES, WITH A LINK.

The answer is, there is no reputable source that will support your claim. You are a liar. End of story.

And, no, you cannot rewrite and twist your old statements to make them sort-of-right-bit-still-very-misleading AFTER I point out all the falsehoods. What you said was FALSE, period. It is not sophism to point out your falsehood. You are the sophist, here, and not a very sophisticated one at that.

QED? It stands for Quod erat **demonstrandum**, smart guy. You should have paid more attention in math class and perhaps learned some logic, too. I did.

[justme]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]justme: Here we go again, huh?

1. I said Clinton enforced the sanctions, and you confirmed this. Again, I never said Clinton instituted them, I simply said he enforced them.

2. The 500,000 number has been used by International Red Cross, Amnesty International, and UN Council for Human Rights. The number may be false, as it is an estimate. However, given that all three of those bodies have cited it at length does give it some credence. And, yes, this happened on Clinton’s watch, so it is directly attributable to him.

3. Raw tonnage of bombs dropped did exceed WWII. I was not using the Counterpunch article regarding the number, I simply said that the article spoke about the tonnage dropped under Clinton was the heaviest since the Vietnam War. If you do a little research (and you seem to think Wikipedia is the end all be all, you can easily verify this), you will find that the US bombing campaign in Vietnam absolutely dwarfed the bombing campaign over Germany during WWII. In point of fact, you can check the raw tonnage of bombs dropped during Operation Linebacker II in 1972 (the Hanoi and Haiphong Harbor campaign) and compare that to ALL the bombs dropped during WWII. So, if Clinton dropped more raw tonnage since the Vietnam War, and the Vietnam War exceeded WWII by a huge margin, well, quad erat demonstratum Bunkie.

SNIP

[/quote]

1. Allan originally said: Operation Desert Fox was part of an on-going Clinton Administration program that included sanctions, enforcement of the No-Fly Zone, as well as direct military intervention in Iraq.

Now read what you said: “an on-going Clinton Administration program that included sanctions,” That sure as hells sounds like you are saying that CLintin instituted the sanctions, does it not. Again, it was a UN sanction.

2. Allan originally said:Clinton’s sanctions were estimated to have killed 500,000 according to Amnesty International.

Again, you are lying. They were NOT Clinton’s sanctions. They were enacted by UN and Bush1. That the UN resolution was still in effect under Clinton is not relevant.
And the estimated death toll of sanctions is in dispute.

3. Allan said: So, if Clinton dropped more raw tonnage since the Vietnam War, and the Vietnam War exceeded WWII by a huge margin, well, quad erat demonstratum Bunkie.

Allan, you need to read properly. Even your own chosen source did not say what you claim above. Your own source said “He subjected Iraq (with British help) to the longest sustained bombing campaign since Vietnam”. You have to understand that “longest sutained since” or even “largest sustained since” (your own source did not even use that expression, but let us say it is true for the sake of argument) does not mean “larger than”. It would just mean that it was larger than any OTHER bombing campaign that took place after the Vietnam war. And it sure as hell does not make it bigger than Vietnam, nor WW2 bombing tonnage. The logic of you statements is just complwtely wrong.

In summary:

Allan, you can’t even twist your own hand-picked sources into agreeing with you. You need to stop.

And you need to accept that your contorted argument that Obama is worse than McCain because of Obama’s former pastor and a long list of irrelevant things that Clinton DID NOT do is just totally bogus. QED.

[justme]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]justme: Here we go again, huh?

1. I said Clinton enforced the sanctions, and you confirmed this. Again, I never said Clinton instituted them, I simply said he enforced them.

2. The 500,000 number has been used by International Red Cross, Amnesty International, and UN Council for Human Rights. The number may be false, as it is an estimate. However, given that all three of those bodies have cited it at length does give it some credence. And, yes, this happened on Clinton’s watch, so it is directly attributable to him.

3. Raw tonnage of bombs dropped did exceed WWII. I was not using the Counterpunch article regarding the number, I simply said that the article spoke about the tonnage dropped under Clinton was the heaviest since the Vietnam War. If you do a little research (and you seem to think Wikipedia is the end all be all, you can easily verify this), you will find that the US bombing campaign in Vietnam absolutely dwarfed the bombing campaign over Germany during WWII. In point of fact, you can check the raw tonnage of bombs dropped during Operation Linebacker II in 1972 (the Hanoi and Haiphong Harbor campaign) and compare that to ALL the bombs dropped during WWII. So, if Clinton dropped more raw tonnage since the Vietnam War, and the Vietnam War exceeded WWII by a huge margin, well, quad erat demonstratum Bunkie.

SNIP

[/quote]

1. Allan originally said: Operation Desert Fox was part of an on-going Clinton Administration program that included sanctions, enforcement of the No-Fly Zone, as well as direct military intervention in Iraq.

Now read what you said: “an on-going Clinton Administration program that included sanctions,” That sure as hells sounds like you are saying that CLintin instituted the sanctions, does it not. Again, it was a UN sanction.

2. Allan originally said:Clinton’s sanctions were estimated to have killed 500,000 according to Amnesty International.

Again, you are lying. They were NOT Clinton’s sanctions. They were enacted by UN and Bush1. That the UN resolution was still in effect under Clinton is not relevant.
And the estimated death toll of sanctions is in dispute.

3. Allan said: So, if Clinton dropped more raw tonnage since the Vietnam War, and the Vietnam War exceeded WWII by a huge margin, well, quad erat demonstratum Bunkie.

Allan, you need to read properly. Even your own chosen source did not say what you claim above. Your own source said “He subjected Iraq (with British help) to the longest sustained bombing campaign since Vietnam”. You have to understand that “longest sutained since” or even “largest sustained since” (your own source did not even use that expression, but let us say it is true for the sake of argument) does not mean “larger than”. It would just mean that it was larger than any OTHER bombing campaign that took place after the Vietnam war. And it sure as hell does not make it bigger than Vietnam, nor WW2 bombing tonnage. The logic of you statements is just complwtely wrong.

In summary:

Allan, you can’t even twist your own hand-picked sources into agreeing with you. You need to stop.

And you need to accept that your contorted argument that Obama is worse than McCain because of Obama’s former pastor and a long list of irrelevant things that Clinton DID NOT do is just totally bogus. QED.

[justme]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]justme: Here we go again, huh?

1. I said Clinton enforced the sanctions, and you confirmed this. Again, I never said Clinton instituted them, I simply said he enforced them.

2. The 500,000 number has been used by International Red Cross, Amnesty International, and UN Council for Human Rights. The number may be false, as it is an estimate. However, given that all three of those bodies have cited it at length does give it some credence. And, yes, this happened on Clinton’s watch, so it is directly attributable to him.

3. Raw tonnage of bombs dropped did exceed WWII. I was not using the Counterpunch article regarding the number, I simply said that the article spoke about the tonnage dropped under Clinton was the heaviest since the Vietnam War. If you do a little research (and you seem to think Wikipedia is the end all be all, you can easily verify this), you will find that the US bombing campaign in Vietnam absolutely dwarfed the bombing campaign over Germany during WWII. In point of fact, you can check the raw tonnage of bombs dropped during Operation Linebacker II in 1972 (the Hanoi and Haiphong Harbor campaign) and compare that to ALL the bombs dropped during WWII. So, if Clinton dropped more raw tonnage since the Vietnam War, and the Vietnam War exceeded WWII by a huge margin, well, quad erat demonstratum Bunkie.

SNIP

[/quote]

1. Allan originally said: Operation Desert Fox was part of an on-going Clinton Administration program that included sanctions, enforcement of the No-Fly Zone, as well as direct military intervention in Iraq.

Now read what you said: “an on-going Clinton Administration program that included sanctions,” That sure as hells sounds like you are saying that CLintin instituted the sanctions, does it not. Again, it was a UN sanction.

2. Allan originally said:Clinton’s sanctions were estimated to have killed 500,000 according to Amnesty International.

Again, you are lying. They were NOT Clinton’s sanctions. They were enacted by UN and Bush1. That the UN resolution was still in effect under Clinton is not relevant.
And the estimated death toll of sanctions is in dispute.

3. Allan said: So, if Clinton dropped more raw tonnage since the Vietnam War, and the Vietnam War exceeded WWII by a huge margin, well, quad erat demonstratum Bunkie.

Allan, you need to read properly. Even your own chosen source did not say what you claim above. Your own source said “He subjected Iraq (with British help) to the longest sustained bombing campaign since Vietnam”. You have to understand that “longest sutained since” or even “largest sustained since” (your own source did not even use that expression, but let us say it is true for the sake of argument) does not mean “larger than”. It would just mean that it was larger than any OTHER bombing campaign that took place after the Vietnam war. And it sure as hell does not make it bigger than Vietnam, nor WW2 bombing tonnage. The logic of you statements is just complwtely wrong.

In summary:

Allan, you can’t even twist your own hand-picked sources into agreeing with you. You need to stop.

And you need to accept that your contorted argument that Obama is worse than McCain because of Obama’s former pastor and a long list of irrelevant things that Clinton DID NOT do is just totally bogus. QED.

[justme]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]justme: Here we go again, huh?

1. I said Clinton enforced the sanctions, and you confirmed this. Again, I never said Clinton instituted them, I simply said he enforced them.

2. The 500,000 number has been used by International Red Cross, Amnesty International, and UN Council for Human Rights. The number may be false, as it is an estimate. However, given that all three of those bodies have cited it at length does give it some credence. And, yes, this happened on Clinton’s watch, so it is directly attributable to him.

3. Raw tonnage of bombs dropped did exceed WWII. I was not using the Counterpunch article regarding the number, I simply said that the article spoke about the tonnage dropped under Clinton was the heaviest since the Vietnam War. If you do a little research (and you seem to think Wikipedia is the end all be all, you can easily verify this), you will find that the US bombing campaign in Vietnam absolutely dwarfed the bombing campaign over Germany during WWII. In point of fact, you can check the raw tonnage of bombs dropped during Operation Linebacker II in 1972 (the Hanoi and Haiphong Harbor campaign) and compare that to ALL the bombs dropped during WWII. So, if Clinton dropped more raw tonnage since the Vietnam War, and the Vietnam War exceeded WWII by a huge margin, well, quad erat demonstratum Bunkie.

SNIP

[/quote]

1. Allan originally said: Operation Desert Fox was part of an on-going Clinton Administration program that included sanctions, enforcement of the No-Fly Zone, as well as direct military intervention in Iraq.

Now read what you said: “an on-going Clinton Administration program that included sanctions,” That sure as hells sounds like you are saying that CLintin instituted the sanctions, does it not. Again, it was a UN sanction.

2. Allan originally said:Clinton’s sanctions were estimated to have killed 500,000 according to Amnesty International.

Again, you are lying. They were NOT Clinton’s sanctions. They were enacted by UN and Bush1. That the UN resolution was still in effect under Clinton is not relevant.
And the estimated death toll of sanctions is in dispute.

3. Allan said: So, if Clinton dropped more raw tonnage since the Vietnam War, and the Vietnam War exceeded WWII by a huge margin, well, quad erat demonstratum Bunkie.

Allan, you need to read properly. Even your own chosen source did not say what you claim above. Your own source said “He subjected Iraq (with British help) to the longest sustained bombing campaign since Vietnam”. You have to understand that “longest sutained since” or even “largest sustained since” (your own source did not even use that expression, but let us say it is true for the sake of argument) does not mean “larger than”. It would just mean that it was larger than any OTHER bombing campaign that took place after the Vietnam war. And it sure as hell does not make it bigger than Vietnam, nor WW2 bombing tonnage. The logic of you statements is just complwtely wrong.

In summary:

Allan, you can’t even twist your own hand-picked sources into agreeing with you. You need to stop.

And you need to accept that your contorted argument that Obama is worse than McCain because of Obama’s former pastor and a long list of irrelevant things that Clinton DID NOT do is just totally bogus. QED.

[Author]

Posts