Sen. Rand Paul Drops Truth Bombs in Congress About Sending Americans to Die in Undeclared Wars

I really do agree that much of NATO is about sending a message to Russia not about our own national defense. The NATO expansion and the stupidity needs to end
youtu.be...

By Dr. Rand Paul

Today Sen. Paul took to the senate floor to shame his colleagues about not debating and voting for war before sending young Americans to fight in foreign countries. “Nobody wanted to have this debate,” Paul said. “They want to rubber stamp… and they want to send your kids to war with no debate.”

www.activistpost.com...

In light of this truth the best gift president Trump could give Americans would be to send the first army to capital hill and pound it with an unrelenting hail of artillery fire to show them what it is like in an uninvited war zone. But warn the good ones who have not voted or agreed to these wars so they can be led to safety first. I know, some will think that is horrible, while never shedding a tear for those sent to die in foreign war zones.

a reply to: 727Sky

Bless Rand Paul. Strange isn't it, a sane person in the senate

The Paul's are the greatest family in the US today. Too bad Ron or Rand could never make it to the Presidency. Trump says he is a fan of and likes Rand Paul, he needs to listen to him more.

The USA always needs a boogieman to validate the enormous military budget.

They played the terrorist card(s), Iran, North Korea, and now it's back to victimising Russia.

It's all a complete farce, designed to line the pockets of the military industrial complex/bankers.

Rand Paul would have been a very good president. Too bad the masses cant see past the stage show.

originally posted by: pirhanna
Rand Paul would have been a very good president. Too bad the masses cant see past the stage show.

Oh they could if they were allowed too..big difference

Indeed; Bush Jr. donned a flight suit in order to declare the war was over... Obama got in office because he said; he will bring all the troops back home. There and elsewhere as a peacekeeping force? I thought that was the U.N.'s job would have been and would be much cheaper to fund them as the peace keeping force than to keep playing that role. After all that's what they are supposed to be once a region has regained some stability; Iraq had elections... seems ISIS has been an excuse to keep medling; that medling of course is just cause for more guns and funding keeping the entire ball of nonsense going round and round...

and here's Mr. Rand Paul... um none of this is really legal what we are doing as a global force BTW as in we are just sort of there. When such places can handle it themselves; the yeah just sort of here so we might as well keep getting involved has ceased to be an excuse... Saudia Arabia even offered to foot the entire bill if we got involved in a fight they didn't want to be involved in but concerned them.

Since when is anyone other than the American people been the one to point a finger and say sick em boy? When we jumped into Iraq for a just cause we are kinda there after alread being in Afganistan... and from Iraq, and into Syria, and Turkey and here's Mr. Paul; Wait wtf none of that is our fight. Although it may concern us as global stability goes... our stability has taken a dive. Of course those that stand to make tons of money on such things happy to say stfu it means more contract money; but the US military isn't a contract military now is it? Is it? Because thats what it appears to have become... like a private Black Water force that the public is paying for.

I don't mean to get into conspiracy but... if someone wanted to invent a reason for war and spreading like fire leading to all up to now? To wipe out a so called "Axis of Evil" to make a new world order? How many buildings must fall to keep making the call for war?

I don't like agendas that do such a thing... so many lives and families lost world wide, gone broke and impoverished while some can't even fold their wallet it has grown so thick with blood money.

What a shame.

He got it exactly right. This is what I said in the other thread:

I don't think he has to. Rand Paul is a fiscal conservative with libertarian leanings. NATO is a money pit as few of its members contribute the requisite 2% of GDP on defense spending, nor have they met their readiness requirements. The US takes up the lions share of defense spending in Europe and people wonder why our defense budget is so high. Taking on another new member is just another mouth to feed while they shirk their responsibilities.

This was in response to another member questioning why Sen. Paul didn't qualify his vote after McCain made the accusation that Paul was working for Russia.

All of us who have served and been to war in the last 16 years were more than willing to get it done. But we do want and expect the civilian leadership to do their jobs too.

Looks like that's always been a tall order.

Be nice if he mentioned the millions of innocent that have died either directly through bombs or indirectly through lack of medicine and food due to our bombardment of infrastructure.

But who cares; they are Brown, Muslim and not Americans, right?