[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".

[dfwgator]

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

What about folks in North Korea?

[Leaning Right]

The folks in Crimea have an inalienable right to a fair election. Putin is the one who insisted on invading Crimea before the election.

I agree on both counts.

You are the one who supports Putin's invasion

I made no comment about the legitimacy of that invasion (and yes, it was an invasion). Rather, my point is that it is not appropriate for the US to meddle in this issue. We have no vital interest here. And who are we to lecture the Russians or the Ukrainians? This is a European issue, not an American issue.

Consider this imperfect analogy. Suppose that Maine was separated from the US in 1960, and today the US attempted to reclaim the state (that's not too far-fetched, think about 1861-1865). And suppose that this outraged Russia, and Russia decided to lecture us about our reoccupation of Maine.

What would your reaction be if you were the US president?? Would you thank Russia for giving you moral guidance? Or would you tell Russia to mind its own business?