I didnt know about this until weird Tube suggested it to me
so Rand Paul introduced a bill to get TFO from Afghanistan but the congress ( the senate ) last week voted to keep the Troops in Afghanistan by 68=23
vote margin, let that sink in, even though the president wants to leave Afghanistan from what Ben Swann says, the senate voted against it
so that tells me some thing, corruption is in both sides, no matter what they have in front of their names, D or R, intentions what unifies them
dont be fooled, politicians are mostly liars, if you're a democrat you know them, if you're a republican beware of them
as I mentioned several times before, im not an american but an observer from the outside, like looking at a chess board match from outside
here is Ben Swann
eta: its time to sleep in this part of the world, so see you tomorrow
edit on 7 7 2020 by Dr UAE because: (no reason given)
Nineteen years is far too many, but I have a question; Doesn't the president have the authority to pull troops out of any situation? Why is an
amendment to a defense bill needed? Since the senate didn't authorize an official war, what's stopping anyone from removing them? Aside from
protecting poppy fields for the CIA.
originally posted by: projectvxn
This is happening for two reasons:
To get the Orange Man and to keep a presence in Afghanistan for the business interests that own congress.
" the business interests that own congress "
The Poppy Fields that Enrich these Basstards Pockets . Time to RISE People , this Sheit is Not going Away . Traitors in Our Ranks Need to be Addressed
Right Now or Our Country Will be Lost .............
Help me out here OK? Rand Paul sponsored a bill to pull out of Afghanistan. You say the Senate voted on it, 68 for and 23 against. Yet according to
the list of senators voting, Paul voted nay, against the bill. So was there another bill that was made to shoot down his bill? Was a nay vote for or
against staying in Afghanistan.
People are always wanting the American soldier to shoulder burdens that don't belong to them.
Now you want these people to abandon the safety of their nation rather than having the people demand the end of the war and vote in reflection of the
values they hold most dear. The answer isn't to abdicate more responsibility. The answer is to accept more of it.
Sure the whole thing is far more nuanced than to simply stop having a military.
My point is the abundance of soldiers, there are so many more than is nescassarry for defensive purpose, this excess allows for things to happen like
in the op. You can't tell me soldiers in Afghanistan for the last 20 years are there to defend the U.S, they are there making people rich through the
spoils of war.
edit on 7-7-2020 by hopenotfeariswhatweneed because: (no reason given)
This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.