neo-con usually refers to foreign policy.
If you supported the war with iraq because you thought saddam had to be taken out because he was a threat to the US, you may not necessarily be a neo-con.
If you supported the war because you want to turn iraq into a democracy or because you thought Saddam deserved it because he oppressed his own people, then you are a neo-con.
Then I guess that makes me a Super Neo-Con. I think it our duty as a Free Nation to seek the Freedom on all men, and should use whatever means at our disposal to accomplish that. Even if it means citizens forming extra-military groups to further that goal, primarily using 5GW methods.
If you supported the war with iraq because you thought saddam had to be taken out because he was a threat to the US, you may not necessarily be a neo-con.
If you supported the war because you want to turn iraq into a democracy or because you thought Saddam deserved it because he oppressed his own people, then you are a neo-con.
Your above post is mostly correct but you leave out that neo-con foreign policy is liberal foreign policy - nation-building, world policing, etc. So, it's amazing your next post calls Ron Paul 'liberal' on the war.
It's you who's liberal on the war, by your own admission of being a neo-con. The goal-posts have been moved, cleverly, and conservatism redefined by globalist, New World Order types.
If you supported the war because you want to turn iraq into a democracy or because you thought Saddam deserved it because he oppressed his own people, then you are a neo-con.
How many other dictators oppress their own people? How many countries aren't democracies? Do you propose invading each, or just 1 every 5-10 years?