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?
it is liberal to blame America for 9/11 and run out of Iraq even if it means that al qaeda takes over and uses it as a base for terrorist operations.
A liberal tries to ‘understand’ al qaeda. Let’s get real: muslims are for a caliphate, universal sharia law and dhimmitude whether or not we are in Saudi Arabia or not. It’s part of their religion.
That’s something neither Bush nor Ron paul understands. Islam is not a religion of peace and they will fight us no matter what we do.