National Defence Spending Bill Opinion

Suasponta

1 trillion spent for war on terrorism. An endeavor that has, nor will ever come to an end. And people, don't give me the "what price for security" argument. If you believe that our military forces are not capable of defeating any other nations uniformed military force in the world because of antiquated weapons or equipment, you are either stupid, or ignorant, or both. As the attack on Iraq proved and showed clearly that our uniformed military force pitted against another uniformed military organization. However, where the US has failed, and could fail again, as the war in Vietnam proved, is a gorilla war. The gorilla war has always proved defeating against a larger uniformed, regimented, invading army going back to the roman empire. Terrorist fight unconventually. They have no uniform of distinction. No real regimentation. They always look for an ambush or to strike where least expected. They truly are prepared to die by destroying themselves in the process, as the suicide bombers have proved. This kind of warfare usually starts to wear on an invading army over time and in time becomes costly and unwinnable for the invading army, as it did in Vietnam. The Pentagon understands this and so does the Secretary of Defense and that is why they are making the suggestions to stop some of the spending for unnecessary military or national defense projects. However, the politician will not because of the military industrial complex of it all, the jobs it provides. So, congress is sending a message that war is good for the economy. This same mind frame was the same in Vietnam with congress providing 100's of millions of dollars becoming billions of dollars in dept that the country really couldn't afford, hoping for a payback with victory, which never happen, and starting the national dept which this nation has never recovered from. Some things never change.