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.
The “blowback” is the new fancy term coined by no other than Ron Paul to describe, rationalize or even justify blatant anti-Americanism from other countries. Once again, coming from Ron Paul, this concept is very idealistic, biased and with no anchor whatsoever in reality.
According to Ron Paul, if there is anti-Americanism in the world, it’s because America assaulted the “world” first and they are just defending themselves. It’s a very simplistic way of define these issues, and I’m sure that it fits perfectly the ethnomasochist mindset of most of our media.
To explain this concept he takes the examples of war in the middle-east. Not only does he blames our “preemptive” wars for the terrorist acts against America, but he even justifies them.
Obviously this is completely wrong, and the main reason of anti-Americanism in the world is that Americans adopted ethnomasochist views and rejected nationalism.
The same goes for immigration. In countries with strong national identity, the immigrants do everything they can to fit in, communitarianism only builds in ethnomasochist countries.
To get back to Ron Paul’s example of “blowback”, if what he was saying was true, how come the United States are the only ones touched by this “blowback” ?
Compared to some European countries, our intervention in the middle-east was fairly clean : no assaults on civilians, no lootings… Why is there no blowback for the Europeans ?
Does Ron Paul know anything about Al Qaeda ? They are said to target countries that oppose the charia laws.
But if that was really the case, why didn’t they target European countries who are much more islamophobic that the USA ? In the USA there is religious freedom, even the extremist Muslims can build mosques, wear religion symbols, not be discriminated by the judicial system due to their ethnics, and even burn American flags without being persecuted.
Moreover, the Wehrmacht and the Red Army have done much worse than the USA in eastern Europe, so why wasn’t there any blowback for them ?
The blowback is a joke and so is Ron Paul.