Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Win-Lose-Draw who wrote (138865)	12/16/2001 8:41:56 PM
From: eddieww	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

I believe the SAS, and Britain's military in general, operate under some of the same restrictions as in the US. Making the group with all the best weapons a domestic polity is a recipe for disaster, since they can (and do) use force or the threat of force domestically to assert their political point of view, whether that is good for the majority or not. Democracy doesn't work very well at the point of a gun. If we had credible enemies at our borders it might make them more important, but not a polity in and of themselves. The military needs to remain firmly under political control, not controlling politics. In the US, and Britain too, I believe active members of the military are not allowed to hold public office. There are very good reasons for this, both historically and currently. Yes, we are very lucky people. Our Constitution has not been abrogated and we have not lived under a military dictatorship. Even in beleaguered countries like Israel, the military remains under the control of elected officials.