The amount of money the USA owes doesn't mean anything.
It's the Debt to GDP ratio that's the important figure and guess what? It's still lower than during World War 2 where it peaked at around 113% Debt to GDP ratio and yet the American government paid massive portions of it down after world war 2.

The important thing you should also keep in mind is that the United States as well as a majority of the worlds other major economies (Minus Australia essentially) entered a recession, but didn't decrease spending, but in-fact increased spending in order to push the economy forwards which drove up that debt to GDP figure.
That's not a bad thing however, if the USA government decreased spending, there would be less jobs in *every* sector, the entire country would have been hit far harder and in the end you could have ended up with a worse debt to GDP problem than you have now.

When your economy recovers, then that debt is less of an issue as you can afford it.

I don't agree with everything your Government did however, handing out Trillions to companies who then lined the pockets of CEO's, the American government should have done a similar thing to Australia, that is... Put that money to Nation building projects to directly create jobs and new business's, not bail out companies, Australia is building a National Fiber Network for about 40 billion smacko's spanning a land area almost equivalent to the continental USA, it would take years and make a ton of jobs for instance.

Plus, being a sovereign nation you have tighter control over the finances anyway, debt isn't that important in the wide scheme of things, you could have twice as much debt as you do now and still pay it off by playing with inflation.

I do agree with most however that the USA needs to stop policing the world, it should be trying to protect it's borders instead, plus bringing the soldiers home saves money and American lives, which is never a bad thing.
However in regards to Syria directly, I think the world should take action, Hundreds/Thousands of innocent women and children are being killed by chemical weapons, regardless of what country you live in, it shouldn't happen, but the responsibility shouldn't also just soley fall on the USA, every developed country should help out.

No because if syria falls to the sunni their will be a war on iran in a couple of years giving isreal the perfect opportunity to swipe all of the middle east. Everything that has happened in the last few years is a plan in order to cause more civil wars between mulsims and to weaken the arab countries.

That somehow reminds me of this: ;)

How many weeks until the U.S. reaches its debt limit (again) and thus becomes insolvent (again)?

Why does the US government love war so much? It's like an addiction

~http://www.theguardian.com/world/middle-east-live/2013/sep/03/syria-crisis-2-million-refugees-live

i hope not. i think this is one area the US needs to stay out of. of course prez dingle barry and the other dumb fucks in charge think different. the US should NEVER be on the side of al qaeda.

It has nothing to do with Iran - Iran have actually stated that whom ever used chem weapons needs to be punished.

Thing is, chemical weapons are potentially far worse wmd than nuclear due to size and ease of production. The USA realise that no one should ever be allowed to use such things as once it goes unpunished, the lid is off and all hell will break loose.

Except the US of course. It seems only they can get away with using such weapons. Remember agent orange or napalm? 

If US attacks Syria it will only be because of petroleum (money), and because they think they are the owners of the world.

Napalm is an incendiary, not a chemical weapon, and agent orange was used for defoliage and never meant to be used on people. If they wanted to use chem weapons, they would have dropped VX gas. That would have won them the war easily....but been probably the worst genocide since the concentration camps.

Eh ? What?

FIrst off, are you saying when peopel break the geneva convention and commit war crimes, we should ignore them?

Secondly, what the hell are you on about with Al Qaeda?!?!?! Newsflash, if Syrian forces didn't use it, then rebels did. This means Al Qaeda ALREADY have seized control of some of Assads chem weapons!!! HOW IS THAT NOT WORSE?! In such a situation, you would have to destory every stockpile to ensure no more fell into terroist hands.

With all the suffering they caused back in Vietnam, they really should of backed away from other countrie's affairs years ago. It's like conflict has become a drug to American presidents and congress, they feel they need at least one war to feel acomplished. Nothing else matters to them. The huge public opposition at home and abroad never matters to them and despite the economy being in such a state that don't seem to matter to them either.

Syria is no one's business. The civil war will end itself if it had the chance. And so what if Assad forces used chemical weapons? Currently it is nothing more than an allegation and is not really a reason for an escalated war even if it happened. War used to be a final resort, it should be treated as such. War also used to be a reaction to an actual threat. Syria is not a threat to the United States, it's more of a threat to itself than anything. And to make it worse if the US went in, it would fight along with Al Qaeda and other rebels despite what is happening in Afghanistan. it makes no sense.

Finally, what if Assad's opposition used chemical weapons? I'm sure war would escalate anyway.