“No, I wouldn’t. I wouldn’t risk American lives to do that. If someone wants to do that on their own because they want to do that, well, that’s fine, but I wouldn’t do that.”
In other words, Paul would have made the same decision as the actual president at the time, FDR, made, e.g., ashcanning the proposed air attacks on the Auschwitz facilities, http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0002_0_01610.html
and the same decision that each of the allied powers made at the time the Ottomans were slaughtering the Armenians in round I of the 20th Century world wars,
http://www.armenian-genocide.org/Education.56/current_category.117/resourceguide_detail.html
and the same decision that the Clinton administration made with respect to the massacres in Rwanda.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2001/09/bystanders-to-genocide/4571/
And so your point is . . . what? That US presidents are bound to put US troops at risk to satisfy your sense of moral outrage at the behavior of the Nazis, or some other band of murderous thugs? Are you volunteering for a mission to root out the North Korean oppressors who are starving their population today? Or to suppress the various slaughters underway in Africa and the disintegrating Middle Eastern states? If you are divinely called to mount such a mission, more power to you. A US president doesn’t have such a mandate. Several have ignored that limitation on their authority, but Ron Paul seems unlikely to follow suit.