Paul continues to be an asinine ideologue.
The idea letting Assad's regime stand would be better for Syrians is ridiculous and embarrassing to anyone who suggests it.
The idea is that it's better for America if Americans do not die overseas.
The idea is that it's better for America, and the world, to not have innocent people be slaughtered by a dictator. Your phrase is idiotic. It's like suggesting that had we known about the Holocaust we shouldn't have intervened because "Americans might die". Don't tell me that was different. Is there some number of people killed at which point some switch turns on and an intervention becomes acceptable? Nonsense. We have a moral obligation as a nation with the means to help those in Syria to help them. Every nation with the means to do so does. It's simple human decency.
You can save your "moral obligation" for when we're running surpluses, like during the 90's and everyone was screaming that Clinton should have helped Rwanda. The simple fact of the matter is, we can't afford to continue investing in military operations that don't actually enhance our national security.
How would we finance action in Syria? Would we continue to to build on our trillion dollar budget deficits, and print more money to sustain those deficits? It doesn't matter whether it's Syria, Somalia or Pakistan , you can only use budgetary tricks for so long, to maintain foreign investments but eventually you can do it no more. Johnson tried to use the same budgetary tricks to finance the War on poverty and the Vietnam war at the same time, he ran huge deficits and printed billions of dollars , because to maintain a war and not massively raise taxes you have to run deficits; once you raise taxes opposition for a war increases, every time. What did he do? He started the rapid printing of money, that would continue well into the 70's. The Hungarians tried the same budgetary tricks to finance world war 2 and the resulting hyperinflation caused the collapse of their currency all together.
There's always gonna be another if we intervene in Syria, I know because there was always another after Uganda, Rwanda, Bosnia, Somalia, Germany ext , there will always be another call for the Us to intervene. Unfortunately until we have a budget that's decreases our long term debt and our budget deficits any more intervention will just inch us closer to a complete financial collapse.
Why did France signal a complete withdraw from the middle east? Because they can't afford it.
Why can't America ever understand that you have to be fiscally responsible before you involve yourself in the affairs of of other countries.
You're not "disgusting", for realizing something that's obvious by just looking at the current state of the US economy.
Actually if it means people will wake up and realize that our current interventionist foreign policy isn't sustainable fiscally then I'd gladly be labeled "Disgusting" right besides the Ron Paul's/Gary Johnson and the rest of the anti interventionist in this country.
Oh please. No nation is an island and as global hegemon we have an obligation to promote a freer world. What the isolationists constantly fail to realize is that the world is made more safe, rich, and stable by being based upon liberal, democratic values. And letting murderous dictators like Assad continue unchecked strenthens the hand of those opposed to liberal values all over the world. But Paulista isolationists are so narrowly focused on short term exagerated problems while leftists only remember one failed past intervention that both forget that fighting for freedom now over the long run saves lives and increases the wealth of all. And enough with this "financial collapse" crap, the United States is still by far one of the safest investments in the world, just look at the money markets.
