Muscatine

Raytheon Corporation, that's who.

In 2011, it was estimated that a single Tomahawk cruise missile costs $1,410,000.  It has been improved several times and, due to corporate divestitures and acquisitions, is now made by Raytheon.Raytheon Company is a major American defense contractor and industrial corporation with core manufacturing concentrations in weapons and military and commercial electronics.

The US buys over 165 Tomahawks every year. If we launch just 50 Tomahawks at Syria, we'll be paying over 70 Million extra dollars for them. Good news for Raytheon, as we're sure to order more missiles to replenish our stockpiles.

Raytheon has, like many large corporations, some controversies:

Government relationship
As the vast majority of Raytheon's revenues have been obtained from defense contracts, there has been a tight relationship of cooperation between itself and the U.S. Department of Defense and other U.S. government departments and agencies (e.g. in the Fiscal Year 2007 the National Science Foundation awarded Raytheon $152 million in grants, more than to any other institution and organization in the country, for managing NSF South Pole Station). This, along with heavy lobbying, has led to perennial charges of influence peddling. Raytheon, for instance, contributed nearly a million dollars to various defense-related political campaigns in the presidential election year of 2004, spending much more than that on lobbying expenses. And there are many tight ties between the company and all levels of government. For example, Richard Armitage, a former United States Deputy Secretary of State, is linked to the company through consultancy work. John M. Deutch, a former U.S. Director of Central Intelligence, sits on the board of directors, along with Warren Rudman, a former Senator. On the other hand, Raytheon has also been involved in several contract disputes with the U.S. Government.

Case of illegally obtaining classified information in a bidding process
In March 1990, Raytheon pleaded guilty to one felony count of illegally obtaining classified Air Force budget and planning documents. U.S. District Judge Albert V. Bryan, Jr. imposed a $10,000 criminal fine for one felony count of "conveyance without authority" and $900,000 in civil penalties and damages. The documents allegedly gave Raytheon an unfair advantage against its competitors in bidding for weapons contracts. Although the plea only involved 1983 Air Force documents, United States Attorney Henry Hudson said Raytheon also illegally obtained a wide range of secret Pentagon documents.

Disputed claims of the Patriot missile
During the 1991 Gulf War, Raytheon received widespread publicity in the United States in connection with its manufacture of the Patriot missile (MIM-104 Patriot). The Patriot missile is an anti-aircraft missile that was upgraded to have some capability against ballistic missiles. The Patriot had allegedly intercepted Scud missiles launched by Iraq in its defense against the U.S.-led invasion. When President George H. W. Bush traveled to Raytheon's Patriot manufacturing plant in Andover, Massachusetts during the Gulf War, he declared, the ""Patriot is 41 for 42: 42 Scuds engaged, 41 intercepted!" After the Gulf War had concluded, the staff of the House Government Operations Subcommittee on Legislation and National Security reported,
"The Patriot missile system was not the spectacular success in the Persian Gulf War that the American public was led to believe. There is little evidence to prove that the Patriot hit more than a few Scud missiles launched by Iraq during the Gulf War, and there are some doubts about even these engagements. The public and the United States Congress were misled by definitive statements of success issued by administration and Raytheon representatives during and after the war."

Contract disputes
In October 1994, Raytheon paid $4 million to settle a U.S. government claim that it inflated a defense contract for antimissile radar. The PAVE PAWS (Precision Acquisition Vehicle Entry Phased Array Warning System) system was designed to detect incoming submarine-launched ballistic missiles. The government claimed in a federal lawsuit that Raytheon inflated a contract to upgrade two of four PAVE PAWS sites by proposing to hire higher-skilled employees than were necessary for the job.
Just one year earlier, on October 14, 1993, Raytheon paid $3.7 million to settle allegations that it misled the U.S. Defense Department by overstating the labor costs involved in manufacturing Patriot missiles. "The recovery of this money is yet another warning to contractors that the Truth in Negotiations Act's information disclosure requirements will be strictly and sternly enforced," Frank Hunger, assistant attorney general, said in a statement.

Brazilian SIVAM project
Allegations of bribery were made against Raytheon in 1995 in connection with its efforts to win a 1.4 billion dollar radar contract from Brazil for the SIVAM project. SIVAM, the acronym for "System for Vigilance over the Amazon," was a complex radar surveillance system for use in monitoring the Amazon rain forest, allegedly to curb the trafficking of narcotics and to curb illegal logging or burning of the forest. Brazilian police wiretapped a telephone conversation between a special advisor to the Brazilian President Fernando Henrique Cardoso, and Raytheon's operative in Brazil, Jose Afonso Assumpcão. According to transcripts published in the Brazilian national weekly Isto É, when Assumpcão told Gomes dos Santos that Brazilian Senator Gilberto Miranda might block the Raytheon contract, Gomes dos Santos responded, "Damn, did you already pay this guy?". Gomes dos Santos and Brazil's aviation minister resigned because of allegations that this conversation suggested that bribes were paid. Nonetheless, Raytheon ultimately was awarded the contract after lobbying by the administration of U.S. President Bill Clinton.

AGES lawsuit
In 1996, a corporation called AGES Group filed a lawsuit against Raytheon in a federal court in Alabama over a $450 million contract to service C-12 Huron and U-21 military aircraft. The Boston Herald reported that AGES alleged that the security firm Wackenhut Corporation, hired by Raytheon, used video and audio surveillance to spy on a consulting firm hired by AGES to help it prepare its bid. AGES also alleged that stolen confidential pricing documents were turned over to Raytheon. Both Raytheon and AGES had been vying for the contract, which Raytheon had held for decades but which AGES won in 1996. On May 12, 1999, Reuters reported that Raytheon would pay $3 million to AGES Group and purchase $13 million worth of AGES aircraft parts to settle the AGES lawsuit. The settlement was exceptional in that the parties agreed that judgment would be entered against Raytheon, legally establishing the validity of AGES' allegations.

Securities litigation
In October 1999, Raytheon was the subject of a number of securities class action lawsuits alleging it had issued a series of materially false and misleading statements including overstating the company's 1997 and 1998 revenues, concealing cost overruns and inflating its financial results. The suits were brought in response to a massive drop in value of Raytheon's common stock as traded on the New York Stock Exchange. On Tuesday, October 12, 1999, Raytheon shares were trading at about 45% below the level at which they had been traded on October 11, 1999. The plunge in stock prices was triggered by a Wall Street Journal report that Raytheon was over cost or behind schedule on more than a dozen fixed-price defense contracts. This crash represented a loss of about $8 billion in market value in a single day. On May 13, 2004 Raytheon reported that it had reached a preliminary agreement to pay $410 million in cash and securities to settle a class-action lawsuit alleging it misled investors by not disclosing difficulties on various Pentagon and construction projects five years before.

Swanson's Unwritten Rules of Management
On April 24, 2006 in a statement released by Raytheon, CEO Swanson admitted to plagiarism in claiming authorship for his booklet, "Swanson's Unwritten Rules of Management," after a report by The New York Times. On May 2, 2006, Raytheon withdrew distribution of the book. The following day, the company's board of directors announced that "In response to this matter, the Board has decided not to raise Mr. Swanson's salary above its 2005 level, and will reduce the amount of restricted stock for which he is eligible in the coming year by 20 percent."

Ray gun testing on prisoners
In August 2010, Raytheon announced that it had partnered with a jail in Castaic, California in order to use prisoners as test subjects for a new non-lethal weapon system that "[...] penetrates about a 64th of an inch under your skin. That's about where your pain receptacles are. So it's what it would feel like if you just opened up the doors of a blast furnace."

Harvesting personal data from social networking websites
In 2010 Raytheon developed an "extreme-scale analytics" system named Rapid Information Overlay Technology (RIOT), which allows the user to track people's movements and even predict their behavior by mining data from social networking sites including Facebook, Twitter, Gowalla, and Foursquare. Raytheon claims that it has not sold this software to any clients, but has shared it with US government and industry.

Environmental record
Two lawsuits were filed against a Raytheon Company plant in St. Petersburg, Florida due to concern with health risks, property values, and contamination in April 2008. Raytheon was given until the end of the month to independently test whether or not the groundwater that originated from its area was contaminated. According to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), the groundwater contained carcinogenic contaminants, including trichloroethylene, 1,4-dioxane, and vinyl chloride. The DEP also reported that the clouds contained other toxins, such as lead and toluene.

In 1995, Raytheon acquired Dallas-based E-Systems, including a site in St. Petersburg, Florida. In November 1991, prior to Raytheon's acquisition, contamination had been discovered at the E-Systems site. Soil and groundwater had been contaminated with the volatile organic compounds trichloroethylene and 1,4-Dioxane. In 2005, groundwater monitoring indicated polluted groundwater was moving into areas outside the site. According to DEP documentation, Raytheon has tested wells on its site since 1996 but had not delivered a final report; therefore, it was given a deadline on May 31, 2008 to investigate its groundwater. Contamination in the area has not affected anyone's drinking water supply or health, yet due to negative local media coverage lawsuits are being filed with claims against Raytheon citing decreases in property values.

In another case, Raytheon was ordered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to treat groundwater at the Tucson Plant (acquired during the merger with Hughes) in Arizona since Raytheon used and disposed metals, chlorinated solvents, and other substances at the plant since 1951. The EPA further required the installation and operation of an oxidation process system to treat the solvents and make the water safe to drink.

On 9 August 2006, The Stream Contact Centre in Derry, Northern Ireland, which had a contract with Raytheon at the time, was attacked by protesters. They destroyed the computers, documents, and mainframe of the office, and proceeded to occupy it for eight hours prior to their arrest.

The activists were charged with criminal damage and affray. The trial of six of the accused began May 19, 2008, in the Laganside Courts in Belfast. Colm Bryce, Gary Donnelly, Kieran Gallagher, Michael Gallagher, Sean Heaton, Jimmy Kelly, Paddy McDaid and Eamonn O'Donnell were acquitted of all charges on 11 June, with Eamonn McCann found guilty of the theft of two computer discs.

Who will gain if we attack Syria? Raytheon already has:

Just last week, Raytheon stock hit an all time high.
http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/blog/techflash/2013/08/raytheon-reaches-all-time-high-on-talk.html

We're buying bombs from criminals to help terrorists who hate us in a civil war in a country have no viable interest in.

God Bless America, or should I say, "Allah-Hu-Akbar?"

The obumbler????

Senator Bob Corker: “What is it you’re seeking?”

General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff: “I can’t answer that, what we’re seeking.”

— Senate hearing on the use of force in Syria, September 3

We have a problem. The president proposes attacking Syria, and his top military officer cannot tell you the objective. Does the commander-in-chief know his own objective? Why, yes. “A shot across the bow,” explained Barack Obama.

Now, a shot across the bow is a warning. Its purpose is to say: Cease and desist, or the next shot will sink you. But Obama has already told the world — and Bashar Assad in particular — that there will be no next shot. He has insisted time and again that the operation will be finite and highly limited. Take the shot, kill some fish, go home.

What then is the purpose? Dempsey hasn’t a clue, but Secretary of State John Kerry says it will uphold and proclaim a norm and thus deter future use of chemical weapons. With a few Tomahawk missiles? Hitting sites that, thanks to the administration having leaked the target list, have already been scrubbed of important military assets?

This is risible. If anything, a pinprick from which Assad emerges unscathed would simply enhance his stature and vindicate his conduct. Deterrence depends entirely on perception and the perception in the Middle East is universal: Obama wants no part of Syria.

Assad has to go, says Obama, and then lifts not a finger for two years. Obama lays down a red line, and then ignores it. Shamed finally by a massive poison-gas attack, he sends Kerry to make an impassioned case for righteous and urgent retaliation — and the very next day, Obama undermines everything by declaring an indefinite timeout to seek congressional approval.

This stunning zigzag, following months of hesitation, ambivalence, contradiction, and studied delay, left our regional allies shocked and our enemies gleeful. I had strongly advocated going to Congress. But it was inconceivable that, instead of recalling Congress to emergency session, Obama would simply place everything in suspension while Congress finished its Labor Day barbecues and he flew off to Stockholm and St. Petersburg. So much for the fierce urgency of enforcing an international taboo and speaking for the dead children of Damascus.

Here’s how deterrence works in the Middle East. Syria, long committed to the destruction of Israel, has not engaged Israel militarily in 30 years. Why? Because it recognizes Israel as a serious adversary with serious policies.

In this year alone, Israel has four times launched airstrikes within Syria. No Syrian response. How did Israel get away with it? Israel had announced that it would not tolerate Assad’s acquiring or transferring to Hezbollah advanced weaponry. No grandiloquent speeches by the Israeli foreign minister. No leaked target lists. Indeed, the Israelis didn’t acknowledge the strikes even after they had carried them out. Unlike the American president, they have no interest in basking in perceived toughness. They care only about effect. They care about just one audience — the party to be deterred, namely Assad and his allies.

Assad knows who did it. He didn’t have to see the Israeli prime minister preening about it on world television.

And yet here is Obama, having done nothing yet but hesitate, threaten, retract, and wander about the stage, claiming Wednesday in Sweden to be the conscience of the world, upholding not his own red line but the world’s. And, incidentally, Congress’s — a transparent attempt at offloading responsibility.

What should Congress do?

To his dovish base, Obama insists on how limited and militarily marginal the strike will be. To undecided hawks like Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, who are prepared to support a policy that would really alter the course of the civil war, he vaguely promises the opposite — to degrade Assad’s military while upgrading that of the resistance.

Problem is, Obama promised U.S. weaponry three months ago and not a rifle has arrived. This time around, what seems in the making is a mere pinprick, designed to be, one U.S. official told the Los Angeles Times, “just muscular enough not to get mocked.”

That’s why Dempsey is so glum. That’s why U.S. allies are so stunned. There’s no strategy, no purpose here other than helping Obama escape self-inflicted humiliation.

This is deeply unserious. Unless Obama can show the country that his don’t-mock-me airstrike is, in fact, part of a serious strategy for altering the trajectory of the Syrian war, Congress should vote no.

— Charles Krauthammeris a nationally syndicated columnist. © 2013 the Washington PostWriters Group

Do you see the first target we should hit in the photo. Hint... it's in the upper left-hand corner...