You could also claim that the deployment of the National Guard at Kent State University in 1970 hastened the end of the war in Vietnam.

ahh yes. Silly of me to have mispelled the word so consistantly. Maybe I should enroll in some spelling classes.... [img]smile.gif[/img] Its been almost 20 years since Ive been in school so perhaps a remedial spelling class would do me some good [img]smile.gif[/img]

Oooh, good point! Touche!

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear

USA have the national guard soldiers - why not use some of them in places like Afhganistan - I think that there is still enogh around for eventual trouble on the home front.

Otherwise they are just some guys playing weekend soldier once in while - I know that's what our 'home guard' is doing.

And letting the national guard shoot at student protesters are perhaps not their best use. ;)

<font color=orange>I can think of one place in particular, where an armed population could have prevented the massacre of half a million people. In Rwanda a half a million people were cut down by spear, axe and machette weilding attackers in a few days time. It's much easier to defend yourself with a firearm than a polearm or a knife against a gang. It's also a classic case of the Government not defending the people that needed defending.

One could make the argument that if the population had been armed then the attackers could have just shot their victims, but also at the risk of being shot themselves.

Other areas where an armed population might have made a difference are Kosovo, Myanmar (Burma), Tibet, Estonia, the Kurds in Iraq, Kuwait, Hungry in 1956 when the Russians came marching in to crush a fledgling socialist democracy and the American Indain (they were armed, just not with firearms.</font>

Ah, yes, the case in Rwanda is a particularly sad one. Yes, Donut, the (mis)use of the National Guard at Kent State changed the whole complexion of the national mood back then. Use of the military against civilian populations seems always to provoke violent resistance in the general population. I might cite the "Peterloo Massacre" in your own nation's history.

Too true Sir Talieson. That threat of recieving return fire would have detered the massacre. They might have killed alot of people anyway but some of them would have been taken down too.

A truly terrible event, unarmed men, women and children run down by armed troops. Inspired Percy Bysshe Shelley to write 'Mask of Anarchy' - brilliant poem.

In Rwanda the ethnic majority (hutus) attacked the minority (tutsies)
IIRC the massacres were stopped by the tutsi-dominated army (or rebel movement) that had guns. If the civilian hutus had had guns this intervention would IMO have failed.

As for the other areas - it might or it might not have helped - noone can say - but to go over them one at a time
Kosovo - the UCK had guns, but they were fighting a regular army
Myanmar - are talking about the current ruling junta?
Tibet, Estonia, Kuwait, Hungary (and DK during WW2) small contries attacked by a vastly supirior neighboor (China, USSR, Iraq, USSR (again) (and nazi-Germany) respectively) - guns in the hands of the general population wouldn't have helped - sheer numbers will (or would) dictate the outcome
Kurdistan - the kurds also have weapons - but they were f***** at the negotiating table (IIRC after WW1 (or was it WW2?)) - where 'their' territories were divided between Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and USSR)
American Indians - that's the same the world around - the European powers effectively combined military might and exploration to dominate the world.

<font color-orange>Epona, you just reminded my about one of the things that sparked the American Revolution. The Boston Massacre. I think it was in 1774. Engish soldiers fired on a crowd of civilians in Boston and killed many. It was one of the rally crys in 1775.</font>