Lord of War??

February 25, 2006 8:15 PM

US as Lord of War in Rwanda?
posted by pwedza (15 comments total)

I do rub shoulders some of the most vile sadistic men calling themselves leaders today. But some of those men, are the enemies of your enemies, and while the biggest arms dealer in the world is your boss--the President of United States, who ships more merchandise in a day than I do in a year--sometimes it is embarassing to have his fingerprints on the guns. Sometimes he needs a freelancer like me to supply forces he can't be seen supplying. So, you call me evil ... but unfortunately for you, I am a necessary evil.
posted by jefgodesky at 8:19 PM on February 25, 2006

Yeah, I saw the movie jef.

Also, how is this not total speculation? Planes are using fake callsigns, therefore, they are taking arms to Rawanda? seems kind of random.
posted by delmoi at 12:19 AM on February 26, 2006

Actually planes are using fake callsigns, apparently not meant to fool an observer into thinking that the planes were something that they weren't, to fly a flight that coincides with an arms dealing operation.
posted by insomnus at 2:34 AM on February 26, 2006

While operation Joint Guard ended in 1998, the name Operation Joint Guardian is used by the US military to refer to the peacekeeping operation in Kosovo.

What a crappy article.
posted by insomnus at 2:48 AM on February 26, 2006

the thought that the US military and the CIA might not be following the letter and the spirit of international law leaves me baffled
posted by matteo at 8:00 AM on February 26, 2006

and I saw the movie too, it was pretty good
posted by matteo at 8:01 AM on February 26, 2006

Wasn't quoting for people who hadn't seen it, but as a reminder. In any conflict in the world, it's a pretty safe bet that the U.S. is providing weapons to one side, the other, or both (and these days, more often, both)--either directly, or through intermediaries.

In other words, I was trying to find a nicer way of saying, "Well, duh."
posted by jefgodesky at 8:22 AM on February 26, 2006

Come on! Its economics 101!

1. Divide up the country into factions.
2. Sell factions weapons. (profit)
3. Let them kill each other.
4. When the country is weakened, take their wealth by offering loans which we know they will spend on killing each other instead of enhancing their own wealth. Without the ability to pay back creditors, the government is forced to sell their resources. (profit)

Alternative route:
1. Sell corrupted government loans we know they won't pay back.
2. Hold country in debt peonage (profit) and take country's resources on top of it (profit)
posted by j-urb at 8:43 AM on February 26, 2006

The call signs used don't make sense. JGO was a local Canadian carrier w/ no international flights, so wouldn't using it actually arouse suspicions with European ATCs?
posted by clevershark at 8:57 AM on February 26, 2006

the government is forced to sell their resources.
posted by pwedza at 10:39 AM on February 26, 2006

Contrary to what the article implies, the US military does not usually register their callsigns with the International Civil Aviation Organization. They do not always register flightplans, nor do they follow safety regulations. They're not the only military organization to ignore civil aviation regulations.

There are two possible explanations for the use of the JGO callsign. Either the US airforce was trying to mask it's flights (while making no other attempts to hide the existence or nature of these flights). Or they derived the callsign of the flights from the name of the operation they were part of and either did not know or did not care that the callsign, while inactive, was still registered in the ICAO database.

This article is total crap. I wish these reporters would take their heads up their asses and did some actual investigative journalism instead of printing innuendo and omitting relevant facts.
posted by insomnus at 12:57 PM on February 26, 2006

Out of their asses. Could we all just start speaking esperanto or something because this language of yours sucks.
posted by insomnus at 2:28 PM on February 26, 2006

I also felt the article was very speculative and quite attenuated. I appreciate your comments on the callsigns insomnus, because I have no idea myself. In fact, that is the main reason I posted.

As far as innuendo and relevant facts, I believe that most of us in the West are quite in the dark as to what is happening in the DRC and Rwanda. Most of what we hear about the DRC is vague reports of a sort of tribal war. And, while we do talk about Rwanda, it all seems very past-tense -- as if the problems ended a decade ago. Or in the context of the criminal court and local trials and the like.

I, for one, am fascinated that large scale wars don't stop the extrapolation, exploitation, and export of natural resources. The vaugeness of the article could be seen as the media grasping at straws. As insomnus alluded, maybe they don't make them like they used to...
posted by pwedza at 6:47 PM on February 26, 2006

Hey, it doesn't have to be weapon smuggling...
It could be drugs!
posted by indifferent at 5:36 PM on February 27, 2006

Or both..
posted by JokingClown at 8:53 PM on February 27, 2006