“I’m still waiting for you to answer my question as posed at the end of my post #41.”
Just as I supported most (if not all) of the Neocon interventions during the Cold War, I base my opinion on whether it’s justified. I’m not into absolutes, like BLIND SUPPORT of the Neocons, or blind support of any other country.
“Just as I supported most (if not all) of the Neocon interventions during the Cold War, I base my opinion on whether it’s justified.”
But, you see, you have just proved my point, that the term “neocon” is meaningless; BECAUSE it is purely situational: You will support and applaud a “neocon” if you agree with his or her actions, or “justifications;” but you will vilify and condemn that very same “neocon” if you disapprove of his or her actions, or “justifications.”
“I’m not into absolutes, like BLIND SUPPORT of the Neocons, or blind support of any other country.”
Fine. You have just confirmed what I said: The term “neocon” is meaningless. You oppose “blind support” — which is a smart way to be, regardless of the subject — of neocons; but you DO support them if you agree with them. And, in some situations, you clearly DO agree with them, which makes you, by association at the very least, a “neocon.” You are, in fact, that which you condemn. Which makes the term meaningless, UNLESS you accept that you yourself fit the term.