Patriots at it again

[patricia]

This was mentioned on the "Arnett firing thread, but I thought it deserved it's own thread.
"The Fifth Estate", a Canadian news program, is re- running a doc. with a new first part, referring to the shooting down of a British Tornado down, by this "miracle" anti-scud/aircraft missell
The Patriot was reputed to be 100% effective in shooting down scuds in the 1991 war, in which the Iraqis were shooting scuds at Saudi Arabia and Israel. This was evidenced by Norman Schwartzkopf's enthusiasm and, even after the evidence of almost total failure, by Bush the First.
The actual success rate was between 0% and 4%.
They are using this dud again and the manufacturer, Raytheon, is the front-runner in the decision on which company will be contracted for the Super Duper Defence system, back on the table with this administration.

[Monte Smith]

patricia, I respectfully think you're barking up the wrong tree on this one. The Patriots were a young technology in 1991 and were not mind-blowingly effective. But this "dud" is performing pretty well this time around. There have been no scuds launched on Israel, of course, and now that the Western portions of Iraq are out of the regime's control, it is perhaps unlikely that any will be. However, maybe a dozen missiles (some reported to be scuds, others al-Samoud) have been fired at Kuwait. The majority were knocked down by Patriot systems operated by Americans or Kuwaitis. Others were tracked by the radar systems associated with the Patriots and allowed to land harmlessly in unpopulated areas or, in one case, the Gulf. I don't know what was "promised" this time vis-a-vis Patriot performance, but it has delivered 100% thus far.

As to that unfortunate friendly-fire incident with the Tornado, the jury is still out on that but it looks like the Tornado had been damaged or was malfunctioning such that its communications equipment--which should signal to Patriot operators and other coalition forces in the area that it is a friendly craft--was not operational. That sucks, but it happens.

One other incident should be mentioned--that's the Silkworm missile that appears to have been fired at the Kuwaiti coastline from parts unknown, damaging a waterfront mall in Kuwait City. The Patriot missile is not designed to interfere with a low-flying Silkworm. I don't think we knew that Iraq had any of those--of course, we don't know who fired it either.

Nope, the Patriot has performed exceptionally well. Kinda makes you appreciate missile defense technology.

[patricia]

I wish you were right, Monte, but unfortunately you're not.
The fabled "Patriot" missel performed abysmally [between 0% and 4% success] in the first Gulf War and has not improved. This anti-aircraft/missel weapon has not been re-worked or modified since it's failure in the first Gulf War.
Seeing something intersect on a screen does not mean that the target was intercepted and destroyed. It means that the Patriot hit *something*. Remember the wonderful video game, which was Gulf#1? In the first Gulf war, the "hit" on TV meant that a falling part of a scud was hit, since they tended to break up on descent. There were sometimes two or three explosions, which were interpreted as the Patriot destroying the scud. The actual scud warhead continued to fall, exploding on it's target, mainly Tel Aviv.
The Tornado, in this re-run, destroyed by the Patriot was, at first, blamed for it's own demise by the U.S., for not being properly marked, or the reasons you mentioned.
Then, it was admitted, reluctantly, that the Patriot cannot tell the difference between an friendly plane and the enemy, was set on auto and fired at the plane in error. The plane was on it's radar and, well........... Oops.

See, please, cbc.ca/fifth. Then, go to the search box, rh upper corner and search fifth estate,"the patriot".

[john williams]

http://www.cstrecords.com/html/uxo.html

AOL Time-Warner is one of the remaining major label record companies and owns Atlantic, Elektra/Sire, Asylum, Reprise, Warner, American, Maverick, and others. It also owns AOL, which is involved in a co-venture with Hughes Electronics Corp called DirecTV.
Hughes is owned 100% by General Motors. Hughes merged with Raytheon to form Hughes subsidiary Raytheon Industries. Raytheon Industries makes bombs.


Sony Corporaton is another of the major label companies. Sony is involved in a co-venture with the US Army and University of Southern California to develop advanced training simulations for use by the Army. Sony's face in this venture is known as Future Combat Sytems.


BMG owns Arista, RCA, BMG and other record labels. The Power Corporation of Canada is a significant shareholder in BMG, and in turn has holdings in Pargesa Group and Groupe Bruxelles Lambert. These holding companies own a stake in Totalfina, which owns an interest in the venture between Hutchinson Worldwide and Barry Controls. This venture produces sundry parts used in fighter aircraft and other miltary vehicles.


Vivendi Universal is the fourth and final major label company, counting MCA, Polygram, Motown, Geffen-DGC, Interscope, and Universal among its holdings. It has an arm called Vivendi Environnement, which owns a stake in Fomento De Construcciones Y Contratas, which in turn has a stake in Espelsa. Espelsa works on mission planning systems for the P-3 Orion aircraft (Lockheed Martin), as well as systems for the Typhoon Fighter (or Eurofighter), made by British Aerospace. Espelsa also works with the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company, which produces military aircarafts and bombs, as well as with Alenia who, together with Boeing, makes bombs.

A correction for Lady P: It is not the Patriot missile which decides whether a target is friendly or not. Each aircraft carries a radar transponder called the IFF, or Identification Friend or Foe. It is the radar system which decides on the basis of the transponders response, or lack of response, when painted, or tracked, by the radar beam, whether the painted target is friendly or not.

If the IFF unit is kaput, the target is necessarily deemed enemy. This is why the rules of engagement sometimes call for *visual* ID before any defensive response is allowed.

In any event I personally don't know about Patriot effectiveness then or now. I DO predict however, that the proposed anti-ICBM system so dear to Georgie's heart will prove ineffective in practice against real ICBMs with decoy self defense capability.

Monte is correct in that the Patriot system was not intended to work against Silk Worm missiles.

[Monte Smith]

Thanks for the clarification, FredC. patricia, you continue to argue against the effectiveness of the Patriot system in the first Gulf War...and I don't dispute what you say. In this current conflict, however, the proof of Patriot effectiveness is before your eyes--missiles were destroyed over Kuwait and their warheads were not allowed to fall on Kuwaiti territory. None of them. Granted there have not been a huge number of Iraqi missiles to test the system--a very good thing, I bet you'll agree.

You say : "The fabled "Patriot" missile performed abysmally [between 0% and 4% success] in the first Gulf War and has not improved."

Except for the part where the missiles are being intercepted and destroyed.

[Darryl G. Thomas]

Judging by the news reports (CNN, BBC, etc) Monte is correct. Maybe info will come out later to dispute it but seeing as how none of us are on the ground to dispute the reports I'm willing to take the news agencies take on this. Plus, if missiles were raining down on Kuwait City we'd know about it.

What I'm wondering about is why Iraq's even bothering to fire weapons at Kuwait unless they're aiming them at US forces. Seems like a senseless act of frustration.

[Gentle Giant]

Silly me, I thought this post was about a bad trade that Bill Belichick made.

Shout out to patricia anyway. It's the former Jasontis, back to haunt the Corner as Gentle Giant.

Go Pats '03-04!

[Clay Fink]

Originally posted by Gentle Giant
Silly me, I thought this post was about a bad trade that Bill Belichick made.

Shout out to patricia anyway. It's the former Jasontis, back to haunt the Corner as Gentle Giant.

Go Pats '03-04!

Cogs in Cogs!

[Monte Smith]

Haven't seen it all over the media, but Sky News is reporting that maybe the FA18 Hornet that went down yesterday evening PST might have been shot down by a Patriot. Have to stay on top of this story, because its early yet to know for sure.

Meanwhile, in Germany...

A carnival float shows paper mache figure of German conservative opposition leader Angela Merkel emerging from the buttocks of Uncle Sam during the traditional Rose Monday carnival parade in Duesseldorf, March 3, 2003. Merkel has strongly criticized the German government's anti-Iraq war stance and recently visited Washington. The Rose Monday parades in Cologne, Mainz and Duesseldorf are the highlight of the German street carnival season. REUTERS/Ina Fassbender

[Monte Smith]

MEANWHILE IN NAJAF:

NAJAF, Iraq (Reuters) - After battling pro-Baghdad loyalists, U.S. troops moved into the center of Iraq's holy city of Najaf on Thursday, bolstered by an edict from a top local Shi'ite Muslim leader urging people not to interfere with them.

U.S. officers said they believed most of the Fedayeen paramilitary fighters loyal to President Saddam Hussein had dropped their equipment and fled -- but that a few were still in the city putting up a fight.

"Ideally, we would kill them all," Col. Joseph Anderson, a brigade commander of the 101st Airborne Division, told Reuters. "But if they choose to change their mind and flee, there's not much we can do."

The U.S. military said Iraq's senior Shi'ite Muslim cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, who had been held under house arrest by the government, had ordered local people in a "fatwa" (edict) not to interfere with the U.S.-led invasion troops.

"We believe this is a very significant turning point and another indicator that the Iraqi regime is approaching its end," Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks told reporters in Qatar.

A beacon of objectivity, that Vincent Brooks is!

As our dear departed friend, Randy Oliver undoubtedly would have said:

• Pule-e-e-z-e!

[Monte Smith]

No, I wouldn't expect an American general to be "objective" about this conflict, Chris. You are right to suspect he may have chosen a side in this fight.

Now, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, on the other hand.

This may be a new concept to you, Monte, but it is possible to choose sides without lying incessantly. You might wish to inform Gen. Brooks of that.

[Monte Smith]

Chris, on this and on some other issues, you are incapable of separating truth out from the filter of your bitter resentment.

[Tanager]

Chris, I hate to be the fly on the ointment, but what the hell do you expect a general giving a press conference to say?

"Well, I thought I'd disregard the prepared statement and answers to the expected questions that the other brass, including lots of folks who outrank me, agreed upon and do this one off the cuff. In other news, I hate my career and am looking forward to seeing the inside of Leavenworth."

I don't think General Brooks is lying, I think he's hewing to the party line because he's a good soldier, nothing more.

[Monte Smith]

C'mon, Tan. This is what General Brooks said: ""We believe this is a very significant turning point and another indicator that the Iraqi regime is approaching its end." Now obviously that is not a lie. But is it really a "party line" that defies the facts?

Originally posted by Tanager
I don't think General Brooks is lying, I think he's hewing to the party line because he's a good soldier, nothing more.

You are, of course, right, Tanager. I just think he lays it on a bit thick--so much so that it takes but a modicum of perception to tarnish whatever credibility he might otherwise have had.

Originally posted by Monte Smith
C'mon, Tan. This is what General Brooks said: ""We believe this is a very significant turning point and another indicator that the Iraqi regime is approaching its end." Now obviously that is not a lie. But is it really a "party line" that defies the facts?

It is a fact that any idiot would be a greater fool to contradict. Constantly referring to the Iraqi government as "the regime," is a bit of typical Bushery. It is not a regime as opposed to what we are saddled with in D.C. these days. That, too, is a regime. In fact, it one that sorely needs to be changed--as in kicked out! The Bush thugs have demonised the word--regime is not a derogatory term, but they would like us to feel that it is. This is the kind of thing that helps to make the Bush regime so odeous--to me, at least..

[Tanager]

Originally posted by Monte Smith
C'mon, Tan. This is what General Brooks said: ""We believe this is a very significant turning point and another indicator that the Iraqi regime is approaching its end." Now obviously that is not a lie. But is it really a "party line" that defies the facts?

And c'mon Monte, don't misquote me, I didn't say anything about defying the facts. I made the point that I don't think Gen. Brooks is directly to blame for the content of his statement, false or not. Do you dispute that what a senior military officer presents at an arranged press conference is 99% party line? Surely you're not that naive.

[Monte Smith]

Tan: when what the brass wants a Brig. General to tell is a story which is also the truth, I think it is disingenuous to point out that it is the "party line." When that General is telling a story that does not appear to be the truth, then is a good time to impeach his argument as "orders from above."

Certainly it would be naive to accept anything and everything that is posited by the US military--or anyone else--as gospel truth. No, you should look at any media source you can get your hands on and compare reports. Do that and I think you will find more truth coming out of Centcom in Doha than just a smidge.

It is naive to accept anything as gospel. It is also terribly, cruelly naive to close your eyes to the truth and blather about universal, conspiritorial deception--per Chris A and his frustration with the Bush administration..

Chris A......The use of the term "party line" does not imply either truth or falsehood, it is neutral in that respect. What it implies is that a given statement is the "preferred one" by the group having the "party line".

Similarly your slant on the word "regime" is incorrect. The word is neither derogatory nor praising. It implies a given governmental administration, hence both Saddam's bunch and Dubbya's bunch are both properly called regimes.

Another word often misapplied is "propaganda", taken as false information. Not so, it is just the information some given group wants us to accept. It is truth neutral.

Don't be swayed either way by someones using emotionally weighted words, particularly when the users have an agenda of their own, good or bad.

Think and reason. That's why you have a brain, and a very good one.

Thanks, Fred.

Originally posted by FredC Chris A......The use of the term "party line" does not imply either truth or falsehood...

Actually, I think it was someone else who used the "party line" term here.

Similarly your slant on the word "regime" is incorrect. The word is neither derogatory nor praising. It implies a given governmental administration, hence both Saddam's bunch and Dubbya's bunch are both properly called regimes.

I thought I mentioned that both are "regimes," which is why I criticized Brooks, et al for applying the term solely to the Iraqi government and thus implying that it is derogatory, or at least ssomething less than what we have.

Another word often misapplied is "propaganda", taken as false information. Not so, it is just the information some given group wants us to accept. It is truth neutral.

"Truth neutral," I like that, Fred. But if the information is factual, does presenting partially or within a deceptive context not give it a slant that qualifies it as propaganda. Surely, the truth. presented straight, is not propaganda, is it?

Think and reason...

Good advice, Fred. I'll have to work on it!

[willy]

"Surely, the truth. presented straight, is not propaganda, is it?"






Kind of like the "truth" Peter Arnett presents?

I guess someone read it to him....

Chris A: Surely, the truth. presented straight, is not propaganda, is it?<

Yes, it can be. As I said, propaganda is a statement, display, movie, etc., **intended to sway another party or group to a desired point of view.** It is truth neutral.
Example: It is generally conceded that smoking tobacco is harmful to human health. Messages from the American Cancer Society to educate that this is a fact are just as much propaganda (in the symantic sense) as are the messages from American Tobacco Company poo-pooing the idea. (Although the tobacco interests are much quieter these days.) One is probably true, the other is probably untrue, but both are technically propaganda.

The idea that propaganda is evil comes from a concept that "what I say is factual, but what my enemy says is propaganda!", implying it to be false.

A former President, otherwise no great favorite of mine, nevertheless made one statement that always seemed sound to me: "Trust, but verify."

[patricia]

Originally posted by Gentle Giant
Silly me, I thought this post was about a bad trade that Bill Belichick made.

Shout out to patricia anyway. It's the former Jasontis, back to haunt the Corner as Gentle Giant.

Go Pats '03-04!

Hey Jasontis [Gentle Giant]!!!!

Monte, and anyone else who wants the latest debacle, as well as the earlier investigation, involving the Patriot, please go to:

google and then:

fifth estate,"patriot" for the latest stuff.
As I said earlier, Monte, I'd love to be wrong.

The updated program is being shown, now, on CBC Newsworld. The hearings and the interviews with the participants of the hearings are very troubling.

[willy]

What I find troubling is that after the google search the first links are for the CBC and the World Socialist Web Site!


Beakons of objectivity they are (the World Socialist Web Site? Good Lord).

[patricia]

Originally posted by willy
What I find troubling is that after the google search the first links are for the CBC and the World Socialist Web Site!


Beakons of objectivity they are (the World Socialist Web Site? Good Lord).

Willy,
You're right that the third link *is* the *World Socialist Web Site*.

THAT'S NOT the information to which I was directing you. The top search is the several investigative reports which were broadcast about the Patriot, as well as "The Forgotten People", which was the abandonment of the Kurds, after the first Gulf War.
The Fifth Estate is not anything to do with Socialism. It's a well-respected investigative news program, which has been around for decades.

Of course, if you, and others who have commented about the Patriot's marvelous effectiveness, are convinced that the Patriot is a wonderful defense system, no evidence will convince you otherwise.

Read the items, and if you can, see the documentaries.

BTW, why did the third link make you say that it was unreliable?? Although it wasn't the one to which I directed you, do you assume that Socialists always lie?? Just curious.