Colson asked the question: Do our leaders understand the history behind the phrase "unintended consequences"? If they do, then they have sold out and are being paid to ignore it.

As Colson points out THREE out of four GOP candidates favors intervention in Syria. Of course, we all know that the ONE out of Four opposed to intervention in Syria is Ron Paul, the only candidate advocating a policy of NON-INTERVENTION across the board, not just in Syria.

As one columnist here suggested (perhaps) tongue in cheek, the US should never interfere when one set of muslims is busy killing another. But seriously, the US should stay out of ALL internal conflicts and civil wars of other nations. Period.

Our military should be focused entirely on DEFENSE ----defending US territory and our merchant shipping interests on the seas. It seems a very sick joke that we cannot control our southern border with Mexico but we throw away trillions in treasure, not to mention the blood of young Americans, into harm's way to occupy and police other nations.

The military industrial complex most certainly has "undue influence" as Eisenhower warned in 1961. As such, they are a threat to American liberty and our way of life.

Endless war is fiscal insanity and only one candidate from either BIG-GOV party gets it. Ron Paul gets it. The Founders got it. See Washington's farewell address. Their policy was "trade and friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none." Thomas Jefferson and later John Quincy Adams, were noted for saying that we are "friends of liberty everywhere, but guardians only of our own." See Jefferson's inaugural address of 1801.

A return to first principles and a wise policy of strictly neutral non-interventionism is the best way to keep America safe and to keep her treasure avoid more debt.

Steve, you are correct. Besides both sides hate us. The CFR types have to have their way

Whenever muslims are fighting each other - don't get involved - let 'em kill each other off.

We, as a nation, continue to believe that our values are in sync with the values of other nations. We are either naive or completely deluded as to the reality of geopolitics and diverse "cultures"..

There exists "nations" that have a 13th century worldview consisting of societies that celebrate an encapsulation that refuses to accept any outside influences which may "infect" their populace. Exhibit "A": Afghanistan: a nation that has embraced western technology only to the extent that it offers a more efficient method for killing each other. Disagree with their "religion" - we'll express our cultural inferiority complex by exporting our natural penchant for killing to you.

When are we, as a nation, going to accept the reality that everyone does NOT identify with our definition of freedom and do not embrace ANY similarity to it? On the contrary, the Muslims hate this nation simply because they understand their despotism and subjugation of their women are threatened.

STOP nation building, and protect our own culture.

I have yet to hear any explanation of why Syria is a national security issue for us.

For us, it didn't start that way, but Ron Paul is making more sense to us each day. Other than first aid, we should not be mucking around in another country's business.

The savages are killing each other, so be it. While they are so engaged they are not sending folks to shoot rockets into Israel. That is a good thing, let them solve their own problems, and if they become a problem to other nations (like Iran is doing), then hammer them hard, but until then, let these dogs lie in their own demise.