It’s a notorious fact that Ron Paul, along with all the other pro-peace supporters, live in their fantasy.
Not only is “pro-peace” a totally irresponsible and globalist view, I could only imagine the reactions the Europeans would have if one of their candidates labelled themselves “pro-peace”, but it’s also very stupid.
And once again… these statements are backed by no data, or any real proof whatsoever excluding the so-called blowback.
First off, if his ideas were true, than military intervention would have preceded terrorist attacks. That not being the case, this alone should infirm his statements.
Secondly, military skids are more common in the Russian army, in the French army, and in most of NATO’s forces than in the US Army. As a matter of fact, the US Army is the most and only military force to be a minimum transparent. Why isn’t there any blowback against these forces ?
Thirdly, the Muslim terrorists claim than above being anti-American, they are “Muslim extremists”. But if that was really the case, shouldn’t they be pro-American rather than anti-American knowing that the USA is the most open country to Islam of all non-Muslim States ? We allow full veil (burqa), religious signs, the construction of minarets and we actually condemn religious offense, which is not the case in most European countries for example. Moreover, and still unlike most European countries, we don’t have any nationalist or anti-Islam political party. We don’t have any congress or white house representatives that pride themselves in Muslim and Arab torture during the wars either, unlike the European Union.
Point four, where is the blowback against Germany for the Wehrmacht war crimes ? Where is the blowback against the Red Army ? Against the Chinese Army ? Surely, they have more war crimes to their actives than the US Army.
Lastly, saying that military intervention causes blowback is a massive oversimplification at best, and a blatant attempt at obscurantism at worst.
It’s like saying that all delinquents were previously victims of delinquency, all rapists were previously rape victims, all criminals were previously crime victims (all killers victims of kill ?).
Ron Paul is denying the whole predator/prey concept, as a matter of fact he is even denying the food chain. He is saying that if a chicken never eats foxes, when he crosses the road of a fox he will go unharmed.
Think of it this way, was there more disobedience in a concentration camp in 44 or in a rehab clinic nowadays ? If you can answer this question correctly, you are probably smarter than Ron Paul. Or less delusional.
War is not a catalyst for anti-Americanism, anti-Americanism (and especially ethnomasochism from our leaders) is a catalyst for anti-Americanism.
Ron Paul, may be the best “pro-peace”, “anti-government”, “anti-war” candidate. But for sure he is far from being a “pro-reality” candidate.