As you do.
Ergo, you and they are Neocons.
Comprendo?"
I think I understand your problem -- you're not American, you're more like a Russian and so have no real understanding of American politics and political ideas.
That's how you can throw around words like "neo-con" without any real understanding of what they mean.
To you such words are simply weapons you can wield to shut-up anyone opposed to Vlad the Invader's "special military operations" in Ukraine, or anywhere else.
So, is it even worth the effort to attempt schooling you in American political history and ideas?
Probably not, I doubt if any amount of education would deter you from grabbing onto every available word-weapons you can find in defense of "mother Russia" against those evil Ukrainians, right?
So I'll just make some simple points:
- In early 1941, Joseph Stalin was 62 years old and Adolf Hitler was 51 -- Stalin was the senior.
They were allies and partners in war-crimes having together launched WWII by destroying Poland and murdering Poland's leaders.
Between Stalin & Hitler it is highly debatable as to which was, in early 1941, the bigger monster, the greater mass-murderer, the more aggressive empire builder.
For the vast majority of Americans (or Ukrainians) in 1941 there was no reason to favor one over the other, since both were manifestly evil.And yet, by the end of 1941, the USA was firmly allied with Stalin against Hitler -- what changed?
Answer: war, like politics, makes for some strange alliances. - I "get" that you wish to call every American who is not a pro-Russian isolationist a "neo-con" or "globalist", because those are weapon-words which work for you.
But those words make no sense unless you intend to call Donald Trump or Ronald Reagan "neo-cons" and "globalists".
And at that point your whole argument collapses into absurdity, since Reagan helped define the word "conservative" while Trump defines "MAGA" and "Put America First", both defying classifications like "neo-con" or "globalist". - By any serious definition, our radical Democrats cannot be "neo-cons" since the word itself identifies former Democrats who became "conservative" Republicans back in Ronald Reagan's time, due to the Democrat party's pro-Russian isolationism.
- Today's radical Democrats have nothing to do with "neo-cons" but are the very same pro-Russian anti-warriors who fought to defeat the USA in Vietnam and later.
That's why I believe their support for Ukraine is yet another pose, simply to make certain that -- when Ukraine falls (if Ukraine falls) -- Republicans will take the blame.
For radical Democrats, there's nothing more serious than that involved.
What Democrats do care about existentially is keeping our borders open and if that means they have to sacrifice Ukraine, they will.
None of this has anything to do with "neo-cons" or "globalists" and everything to do with our radical Democrats' war against the USA.
These people don't care about Ukraine.
They do care about electing Democrats, by whatever means necessary:
