Oh, certainly I got the point, I just had to nitpick it.

It is a good lesson and history is the best teacher save for experience: have an armed and trained citizenry that can function as a support-force for police/military in a crisis means you limit your ability to rule. On the other hand, it may also act as a deterrent to criminals and invaders.

On the third hand, if an invader can subvert/suborn militia, they instead have force already emplaced if hostilities erupt. It all depends on the example picked (which pisses off ideologues to no end - reality isn't neat enough for their doctrines and disciplines).

On the fourth hand, /if/ you're going to wind up emptying your coffers to have peace - why not spend it on having a defensive deterrent anyway?

And on the fifth hand, reign in your quest for conquests to natural geographical borders.

(I'm stalling by the way - it's time for nightwalkies with the dogs and by looking busy, I'm trying to get the wife to wade out into the icy slush covering the yard.)