When arguing for interventionist foreign policy, neocons love the old bait and switch. You point out how many of our recent (or not so recent) interventions have nothing to do with our national security or any rational strategic interest, and they change subject to argue in favor of intervention based on a defensive war, even though that defensive war was not the one you were arguing against to begin with.
Case in point: once the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, nobody was arguing against retaliation. Yet the interventionists attacked the American First Committee (who were trying to pursue a foreign policy that would have PREVENTED Pearl Harbor) as if they had opposed the retaliation.
Similarly, critics of "Nation Building" in Afghanistan, who question the wisdom of using US troops to help one tribe defend its hilltop against an enemy tribe on another hilltop, are attacked with the Red Herring of opposing the initial bombing of Al Quaeda strongholds in Afghanstan following 9/11, even though this isn't the point being argued.
And when all else fails, they play the Hitler card. A historian who questions the merit of our involvement in World War I (which liberal crusaders for "Democracy" like Wilson supported, and conservatives like Coolidge and Hoover rightly opposed) somehow gets changed to a discussion about Hitler and World War II. Similarly, you might point out that there is little sense going to war against tin pot dictators like Assad, Qaddafi, or Milosevic when they people they're fighting are as bad or in some cases far worse, and they'll counter by saying "You're just Neville Chamberlain appeasing Hitler." If Assad were Hitler, you'd think he would have made a lot more progress in taking over much of the Middle East by now, as opposed to fighting to hold onto (or is it retake) Allepo from the Al Nusra front.
Yep, they can spin every war on earth into a dire immediate threat to America. Like Kosovo.