I realize there were numerous other issues that occupied the attention of my fellow Americans. As for me, I found the big issue in Sunday night's presidential debate to be the following question:

Do you want to risk war with Russia over a city in Syria that one presidential candidate could not even name?

That city is Aleppo and the candidate is Gary Johnson. Last month the Libertarian Party nominee made headlines after he was asked about the crisis in the city and replied, "What is Aleppo?"

Answer: It's the city that could spark war between the U.S. and Russia if the next president decides to declare a no-fly zone in the skies over it.

Johnson, who's at third place in the latest poll with 9 percent, was not at that debate. But the two major-party candidates were. They were asked by moderator Martha Raddatz what they would do about the current Syrian government siege of Aleppo, much of which is held by rebel forces.

Hillary Clinton responded that she had supported imposing a no-fly zone in Syria when she was secretary of state "and I advocate today a no-fly zone and safe zones."

Donald Trump disagreed. He said he would take the side of Syrian President Bashar Assad and Russian President Vladimir Putin against the rebels.

"I don't like Assad at all, but Assad is killing ISIS," Trump said. "Russia is killing ISIS."

That led to one of the most curious exchanges in the history of presidential debates. Raddatz noted that Trump's running mate, Mike Pence, had said in the recent vice-presidential debate that he supports imposing a no-fly zone.

"He and I haven't spoken, and I disagree," said Trump. "I disagree."

So do I. Such a move would lead to war with Russia.

That's not my opinion. That's the opinion of top generals on both side.

Last week the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was asked about a no-fly zone at a Senate hearing.

"For us to control all the airspace in Syria would require us to go to war against Syria and Russia," Gen. Joseph Dunford said.

On the Russian side, "Major General Igor Konashenkov promised that no U.S. aircraft would be immune from the threat the S-300 and S-400 air defense batteries pose in case of military strikes on the government-controlled areas," the Southfront website reported.

Now that's a real red line. Why would any candidate, Democrat or Republican, risk crossing it?

In Clinton's case, she would simply be continuing the interventionist policies she followed in her term as secretary of state.

But what accounts for Pence? I doubt that in his duties as the governor of Indiana, Pence meets a lot of constituents who implore him to intervene in Syria.

But Pence also spent 12 years inside the Beltway as a congressman. And the accepted wisdom inside the Beltway is that imposing a no-fly zone in Syria is a really good idea.

I called military expert Chris Preble of the libertarian Cato Institute to find out why. Preble is one of the rare anti-interventionists in Washington and he caught a lot of heat from Republicans in the early years of the Iraq War.

I asked him why politicians of both parties would want to risk another intervention - this time with Russia on the other side.

"If you believe that demonstrations of resolve result in other countries backing down, then you would see no particular danger in threatening the Russians with this sort of action," he said. "I think there are a lot of people who see the world in that way and are not particularly worried about the danger of escalation."

Clinton is among those people, he said.

"As I've written, quite a bit over the course of her career she has shown she believes the use of American power has generally good effects," he said, "If given the choice to do something, her inclination is to act."

Clinton's got a lot of company on the GOP side in that regard. Most of Trump's Republican challengers supported imposing a no-fly zone in Syria, sometimes in terms a 10-year-old would be embarrassed to employ.

At one debate, our governor said "you call Putin, and you say to him, 'Listen, we're enforcing a no-fly zone, and that means we're enforcing it against everyone, and that includes you. So, don't test me.'"

Not to be outdone, Ohio Gov. John Kasich said "It's time we punched the Russians in the nose."

Has it occurred to any of these politicians that they might punch back?

As I was talking with Preble, he repeated to me an Ambrose Bierce quote, "War is God's way of teaching Americans geography."

The way the polls are going it looks like they'll be learning about Aleppo.

ALSO - PRINCIPLED POLITICIANS OR RATS DESERTING A SINKING SHIP?

State Senator Mike Doherty of Warren County goes after Lieutenant Gov. Kim Guadagno for what may well be her first political position ever:

State Senator Mike Doherty (R-Warren) swatted at Lieutenant Governor Kim Guadagno today following the LG's announcement that she won't vote for embattled Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump.

A movement conservative, Doherty was the first Republican elected official to back Trump in this year's primary.

"Guadagno says nothing for seven years," Doherty said. "Says nothing about the gas tax increase. Says nothing about Chris Christie running his reelection campaign through the Intergovernmental Affairs Office. She hires [former Christie COS Bill] Stepien, who ran the IGA political office.

"She finally becomes the moral conscience of the NJGOP to kick Trump when he's down," the senator added. "Pitiful."

MORE 'FACT-CHECK' FRAUD FROM THE AP: The Associated Press long ago turned into an arm of the Clinton campaign with news articles filled with opinion writing disguised as "fact-checking." Now check this article about how the AP attacked Trump for stating - accurately - that the Assad regime is fighting ISIS.

Here's AP's comment on Trump's assertion:

"Not true. Syria's President Bashar Assad considers the Islamic State [IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL] group to be among numerous 'terrorist' groups that threaten his government, but his military is not fighting them. It is focused on combatting Syrian opposition groups, some of which are supported by the United States," the agency said.

In fact, as the cited article notes, there are numerous instances of Assad fighting ISIS. And of course Assad has to defeat ISIS to achieve his goal of regaining control of the entire nation of Syria.

That would be a lot easier if he didn't also have to fight jihadists with Al Qaeda links that have been armed and trained by the Obama administration.

But you won't read that in the AP. They're in the bag for the Democrats.