Ron Paul looks to block military operations in Syria ‎

[Donerail]

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.

And having innocent people slaughtered by American jets/drones and a dictator is better how?

[Simfan34]

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.

And having innocent people slaughtered by American jets/drones and a dictator is better how?

You're circumlocuting. We don't go about slaughtering innocent people, that's just hogwash. If you want to go to Iraq and Afghanistan, the data consistently shows that only about a third of the civilian casualties were caused by Coalition forces.

[Donerail]

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.

And having innocent people slaughtered by American jets/drones and a dictator is better how?

You're circumlocuting. We don't go about slaughtering innocent people, that's just hogwash. If you want to go to Iraq and Afghanistan, the data consistently shows that only about a third of the civilian casualties were caused by Coalition forces.

So only one of out every three people killed was killed by us? Is that supposed to be a good rate?
 
And if we start bombing Syria, which is more built-up than Libya or Afghanistan, there will be extensive civilian casualties; in simpler terms, a whole lot of innocent people will be slaughtered.

[Oakvale]

Ron Paul's support of civilian massacres is disgusting.

The bizarro world repulsion towards intervening in genocides and massive governmental abuses with respect to the relative elation with nation-building isn't even in the realm of disturbing anymore. It's just another nonsensical embarrassment that seems to have widespread acceptance and even support. Thank GOD for ideological purity/political profiteering.

At least some here still support the stopping of mass political killings. Its very sad that the consensus of humanitarian interventions is gone for now.

I'm certainly not opposed to humanitarian intervention in general, but I'm not convinced that intervening in Syria would be the best thing to do for anyone. I do think Paul is pretty disgusting, though.

[Simfan34]

Well, at least we agree on something.

[Purch]

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.

[Dereich]

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.

[Purch]

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.

We have an obligation to promote a freer world? Please don't feed me the same bs propaganda that's been used to justify military action in every conflict after world war 2. We were doing it for peace when we bombed Libya, we were doing it for peace when we bombed Iraq, we were doing it for peace when we killed people in Sudan, we were doing it for peace when we were bombing Afghanistan, we were doing it for peace when we killed thousands of innocent people in Vietnam, we were doing it for peace when we killed the Koreans, we were doing it for peace when we bombed Yugoslavia, we were doing it for peace when we used drones in Somalia, we were doing it for peace when we used drones in Pakistan. I mean what's the use of having a brain if all you have to hear is the words; freedom,democracy and evil, and you're ready to support military action unconditionally?

 At least the Vietnam generation knew when to stop listening to the  propaganda, apparently now everyone believes our governments foreign policy is the pillar of freedom and goodness and when we enter countries it's only to protect their freedoms. This current administration is basically using the exact same strategy to propagate for war in Syria as the last 4 administrations, where they spend months speaking about how hesitant they are to take military action because America's a peace loving country, then they prop up an incident using the mainstream media then before you know it we're at war or bombing a country.

And no I'm not an isolation, I'm a non interventionist. I'm all for strengthening our own security by not having embassies the size of the Vatican in the middle east.

And please who do you want to replace Assad another puppet American dictator like the one we had in Iran until the 80's or like the one we had in Egypt? The truth is Assad's one of the few people protecting the Christians in his country and the CIA backed rebels know that to. But I guess we want fundamentalist like the Muslim brotherhood in power as long as it destabilizes the power structure in the middle east.

Have you ever asked a foreigner why they despise U.S policies? That's why.

And confidence because of Money Markets is the biggest illusion we've had since 08. We have trillion dollar deficits, the price of gold continues to rise, the fed's trying to cap inflation, we have extremely high unemployment and we're 16 trillion dollars in debt. How long do you think countries are gonna let us borrow billions of dollars to finance debt that continues to grow? The only reason people are allowed to maintain this illusion is because other countries still buy into the petrodollar.

[Purch]

By the way before you cast away civilians as collateral go through the 574 pages of Iraqi civilian deaths.

Over 60 percent of the causalities in Iraq were civilians as wiki leaks clearly states.