[Leaning Right]

But in your stupid world one becomes a "neo-con" and a warmonger simply because they defend the right to the sovereignty of a country...

No. In my "stupid" world one becomes a neo-con when one insists on being the moral arbiter of everything, everywhere, all the time.

America crushed an internal rebellion in 1865. But no other nation may crush an internal rebellion unless America approves. Everything, everywhere is the business of a neo-con.

Don't get me wrong. America has vital interests to defend. But those interests are not everywhere, all the time. That's how empires go broke.

[FreeReign]

No. In my "stupid" world one becomes a neo-con when one insists on being the moral arbiter of everything, everywhere, all the time.

The folks in Crimea have an inalienable right to a fair election.

Putin is the one who insisted on invading Crimea before the election.

You are the one who supports Putin's invasion.

Yet in your world, you and Putin aren't the "moral arbiters of everything".

And folks who point out that your point of view is wrong are "neo-cons".

[KOZ.]

A foreign army rolling in 80000 soldiers and having a ‘vote’ is not an ‘internal rebellion’. It’s an invasion.

You either respect and defend a nation’s sovereignty, or you pay for it ten-fold later.