Just saw this movie for the first time.
Having never been in a war zone or engaged directly in civil unrest, I have no idea if the portrayal is accurate. I will say that it was a pretty damn powerful image of the news we were all reading about 10 years ago. I specifically found it interesting how the UN for shown....basically just standing around and using their rifles as not much more than part of their uniform. The only real political theme I picked up on was the suggestion that other countries turned their back on Rwanda once they had their own nationals safely removed from the region. Im not a big fan of using our military to save other people, so to be honest, I didnt disagree with that decision. People are always bitching about the US being the world police....and then the same people complain when we dont deploy troops to save everyone....everywhere.

Anyone see the movie?
Thoughts?

Excellent film and an accurate representation of certain forms of political violence/dehumanization of the other, as seen in the Balkans (where I worked for years).  Check out anything by Vamik Volkan on the topic if you're curious about the processes of ethnic strife.

Kofi Annan was the UN guy in charge of the peacekeeping operation there in Rwanda.  After the genocide the UN said "Great job" and made him Secretary General.

If you ever find yourself in the position where the UN is responsible for your protection or basic survival, you are in grave, grave danger.  Results, integrity, effectiveness, competency, accountability.....these words mean absolutely nothing to them.

For the people in the hotel they should have found a way to get some guns to defend themselves

Quoted: For the people in the hotel they should have found a way to get some guns to defend themselves

Many times during the movie I thought that same thing.

Very good movie. ALOT better than I thought it would be going into it.

Quoted: For the people in the hotel they should have found a way to get some guns to defend themselves

In all honesty - Even if they had them, would they have actually used them?

Self-defense is a reflex that so much of the world seems to no longer have. In a kill-or-be-killed situation, you might be surprised at how many people would just lay down and die.

AMAZING story

I never had any interest,maybe i will check it out.

The movie was very well-done, as movies go.  I have the DVD.

It is in many ways the un-"The Killing Fields."  The message of "The Killing Fields" is that every military intervention just exacerbated the local political problems.  "Hotel Rwanda" presented a powerful case for the opposite.

With all the lefties running around pretty much stating that all a military does is rape, pillage, and slaughter - it is nice to see a movie that has an opposite message - namely that the intervention of military force can STOP rape and pillage and slaughter.

In this world, there are good guys and bad guys.  Sometimes the good guys have to kill the bad guys.  Singing Kumbaya and having peace marches helps very little.

It also was an interesting SHTF premise, and clearly showed the moral bankruptcy of both Clinton and Annan.

My wife and I both loved the show.   Powerful images.    Definately a good movie to rent and watch at least once.  I don't own it, but won't say that I never will.

It's a good flick. I know a guy who just made it out of that country with the clothes on his back. It was a crazy situation. Real SHTF.

Quoted: I specifically found it interesting how the UN for shown....basically just standing around and using their rifles as not much more than part of their uniform.

The UN general in charge basically ran around screaming "I'm losing civilians, I'm losing soldiers, but if you give me more troops I can salvage this."

The UN said "Not a chance. Deal."


Later he had a nervous breakdown and tried to kill himself. He had not nearly enough troops nor any support at all to even try and do anything.

Quoted: Quoted: I specifically found it interesting how the UN for shown....basically just standing around and using their rifles as not much more than part of their uniform. The UN general in charge basically ran around screaming "I'm losing civilians, I'm losing soldiers, but if you give me more troops I can salvage this." The UN said "Not a chance. Deal." Later he had a nervous breakdown and tried to kill himself. He had not nearly enough troops nor any support at all to even try and do anything.

If he had had 200,000 troops under UN command the result likely would have been the same.

But one company of Executive Outcomes mercenaries if directed to could have gotten the situation in hand in 2 months… Executive Outcomes in Sierra Leone in the mid 90s stopped a civil war and ethnic slaughter with 170 men.

Quoted: If he had had 200,000 troops under UN command the result likely would have been the same. But one company of Executive Outcomes mercenaries if directed to could have gotten the situation in hand in 2 months… Executive Outcomes in Sierra Leone in the mid 90s stopped a civil war and ethnic slaughter with 170 men.

True enough.

EO did a study on Rwanda and found they could've done that cheaply too.

The answer to the Darfur situation IMO is the UN contracting mercenaries to fight the Sudanese paramilitaries.  Right now, it's mainly the African Union led by Nigeria (biggest military in Africa) doing the job they know the UN would only do badly.

Actually you can learn a lot from the Rawanda massacre. One is that even if no one has guns you can still have genocide! SO much for more guns = more crime.
Second the thing to read is Jared diamonds book 'Collapse' in which he puts the real reasons into perspective. Although "ethnic strife" was the excuse, the real reason for the massacre was much more primordial than even that! Just prior to the event it was noticed that the land in Central Africa had essentially reached "peak capacity". There was literally no land left for anyone. And what land families did have had to be divided up into smaller and smaller parcels with each generation. Thereby increasing poverty, crowding, anger and suspicion. This is'nt even talked about it the movie. Also bad land management led to less productitivity per acre hence the need for even more land per person. In nature when this happens to animals like mice or deer or whatever, they all starve until there are fewer survivors and the cycles gets into balance again. For humans it is genocide . Although this may sound Evil, nature knows no morals. And here is the outcome of genocidal strife- 1. Less people alive therefore more "resources" for the survivors like land and food and water. 2. restructuring of the social order, some old corruptions get swept away and the poor get a little richer as they plunder and debts and records are erased. (remeber fight club? ) 3. With the destruction of infrastructure then there is a need to rebuild, hence jobs for everyone. (remeber WWII?) 4. Social progress, hopefully the people will remeber what got them into the trouble in the first place, like having too many children, and learn to aviod such things in the future thereby making the future a little better. But then again, humans are pretty dumb.

Quoted: Actually you can learn a lot from the Rawanda massacre. One is that even if no one has guns you can still have genocide! SO much for more guns = more crime. Second the thing to read is Jared diamonds book 'Collapse' in which he puts the real reasons into perspective. Although "ethnic strife" was the excuse, the real reason for the massacre was much more primordial than even that! Just prior to the event it was noticed that the land in Central Africa had essentially reached "peak capacity". There was literally no land left for anyone. And what land families did have had to be divided up into smaller and smaller parcels with each generation. Thereby increasing poverty, crowding, anger and suspicion. This is'nt even talked about it the movie. Also bad land management led to less productitivity per acre hence the need for even more land per person. In nature when this happens to animals like mice or deer or whatever, they all starve until there are fewer survivors and the cycles gets into balance again. For humans it is genocide . Although this may sound Evil, nature knows no morals. And here is the outcome of genocidal strife- 1. Less people alive therefore more "resources" for the survivors like land and food and water. 2. restructuring of the social order, some old corruptions get swept away and the poor get a little richer as they plunder and debts and records are erased. (remeber fight club? ) 3. With the destruction of infrastructure then there is a need to rebuild, hence jobs for everyone. (remeber WWII?) 4. Social progress, hopefully the people will remeber what got them into the trouble in the first place, like having too many children, and learn to aviod such things in the future thereby making the future a little better. But then again, humans are pretty dumb.

No, I dont think any of that's true.  It really comes down to one tribe holding a grudge against another tribe for about 100 years, but not being able to do anything about it because of colonial powers imposing order.

One thing about all that that people dont care about is that the French helped the Hutus wipe out the Tutsis, primarility because the Hutus were the colonial wards of France and spoke French, and their victims spoke English.  I really hate the French, you cant even imagine.

good movie

Great movie.

don cheadle was amazing. the film was actually filmed in rwanda as well.

Weapon of Choice in the Rwandan Genocide:  THE MACHETE!

Weapon of choice on 9-11: BOX CUTTER KNIFE

Sorry ADL-B'nai B'rith but civil disarmament leads not to peace but extermination!

If you are interested in the Rwanda topic beyond just the story of the Hotel, I recommend the following book:  We wish to inform you that tomorrow we will be killed with our families by Philip Gourevitch.  A sad time for the human race to be sure...

Great movie...

I remember one scene where the UN is trying to convoy Tutsis out of the hotel and come upon a roadblock.  I looked at my wife and said, "Don't stop.  Don't ever stop."  The Canadian (Dalliare) screams "STOP!"  Wrong answer.  

That scene was based on a true story, and the people in the convoy were lucky to escape with thier lives.  

The UN's mission in Rwanda ended with the deaths of Belgian Paras, for two reasons.  No one on the planet will respect a force that's unwilling to defend itself, let alone a bunch of third country civilians.  Second, every Western country had visions of Somailia dancing through their heads if their own troops took casualties, so the paralysis was complete.  

So one of the great failures of the Somailia experience was the fact that no only did hundreds of thousands of Somailis die because we botched the operation, we set the stage for millions of Tustis to die because we had become so risk averse after the Aidid raid.  Clinton's failure in Somailia doomed millions.

The answer isn't mercs or UN intervention, IMO.  Airdropping thousands of Stens and Topper 12 guages to those targeted by genocidaires would have evened the military balance in both Rwanda and Bosnia.  The weapons would have been of little use to a military force, but would have derailed a genocide.

At one time Eben Barlow had a lot of this shit in order over there.  Too bad the US/UN ordered him and his crew out of Africa.  

Once again.....Thank you slick willie.

I watched it.

I knew what was coming but I still could not believe the french sent in crates of machetes.

For those doing research a similar thing happens where blood diamonds come from, the UN disarmed folks and then gangs came in and ran things with force and machetes.  I forget where blood diamonds come from, with my luck they come from rwanda but I believe the blood diamonds and the problems involving them were occuring before the killings shown in the movie rwanda.

Overall it is something I research now and then and I am sickened by some folks who do not know what happened or who gloss over those involved in what happened and act like it was an accident.

A bit of info on general Romeo Dallaire.
www.cbc.ca/news/background/dallaire/

Quoted: Quoted: For the people in the hotel they should have found a way to get some guns to defend themselves In all honesty - Even if they had them, would they have actually used them? Self-defense is a reflex that so much of the world seems to no longer have. In a kill-or-be-killed situation, you might be surprised at how many people would just lay down and die.

I sure as hell hope so, why should we save their ass if they wont even try to save themselves

Quoted:.  I forget where blood diamonds come from, with my luck they come from rwanda but I believe the blood diamonds and the problems involving them were occuring before the killings shown in the movie rwanda.

"Blood diamonds" usually refers to Angola or West Africa [Sierra Leone, Liberia), such as when the RUF controlled the diamond producing areas (before EO and the SL troops pushed them out, before the UN removed EO and the RUF took over again).

IIRC, Rwanda doesn't have diamond production at all.

Anyway, "blood diamonds" are a bad deal, and make no mistake some of that has gone to AQ. So says one of my prof's from Sierra Leone anyway (who also hates most liberals because they called the RUF a "liberation group" and sent them money).

Basically, if you're buying diamonds, try and make sure they came from Canada or elsewhere.