The problem with Ron Paul
Posted by iusbvision on March 11, 2011
This is what kills me about Ron Paul. He makes some points worthy of consideration and then he talks about how Bush Lied (no he didn’t) and “maintaining our empire all over the world” as if we had some moral equivalence with Russia or the old British Empire – NUTS. When you have some good points of serious consideration, why gum it up with “code pink” like nuttery?
His points (like the blowback argument), while worthy of consideration might not be as compelling as arguments the other way, but it is good to ask the questions and good to have the debate.
By the way, it was not blowback of the Shaw that radicalized parts of Iran’s population. The Muslim Brotherhood has been doing that since WWII. And that kind of militant Islam has been around since Mohammad invaded Medina.
It would be fair to say that when there is one side another side will escalate, but that is true about everything. For example: a bad blowback argument might have been “The USA should not have have stopped trade with Japan after it invaded China. The blowback was Pearl Harbor and Kamikaze attacks!”
The problem with Ron Paul is that many of his arguments, like my sample “blowback” argument, omit certain key truths.