When I started reading your post I thought you were going to put...

When I started reading your post I thought you were going to put some counter arguments to Mearsheimer's position. But you did nothing of the kind. All you said was that you don't like Mearsheimer for his opinion and that they're that there are lots of other people who don't like him (pretending that those whop don't like him are in the majority which I doubt is true in the West and extremely unlikely to be true in the true majority of the world).

But there is one fundamental misconception you have about the the role of experts that you need to get right if we're to put any stock in the position you hold. So lets be clear. The primary role of experts is to inform us of the facts and considerations at play from which WE the listeners can arrive at an informed opinion of where the rights and wrongs of the situation actually are. That does not mean that the expert does not tell you what his opinion is based on the matters he puts forward. He does as John Mearsheimer does.But in the end the most important part of his commentary for our purposes are the facts and considerations he outlines for us to consider because to the untrained, uninformed eye those relevant matters might be overlooked by us in deciding our opinion on the issue.

Now the thing is, your post does not challenge the facts and considerations that Mearsheimer presents as relevant to our consideration of the situation. Instead all you do is you tell us that you dont like the opinion he draws from those considerations a and that there are lots of other people who dont as well. Fine! But tell us why. You need to do that otherwise you're just sounding like Bart Simpson.

Here, this will make it clearer for you. In 1962 as soon as JFK found out that Russia had put nuclear missiles in Cuba aimed at the USA he called over the Russian ambassador and said "Either you move those missiles or we invade and remove them for you". Nobody at that time or even today says anything about Cuba's sovereign right to host whatever armies or offensive weapons it wanted to within its boarders. So what Mearsheimer tells us is "these are the facts and matters you need to consider when deciding whether Russia was right to respond militarily to the threat that America posed by insisting since 2008 that Ukraine would be admitted into NATO. Now my opinion is clear America cant have it both ways. It cant say that when you threaten us we can invade but when we threaten you you cant. And America does this repeatedly. America justified its invasion of sovereign Iraq because it said the WMDs you have entirely within your boarders (a lie as it turns out, surprise,surprise) threatens us and our allies. Again, Mearsheimer says now that you know these facts is America right to have it both ways. My answer "ABSOLUTELY NOT"! Time for the hypocrisy to stop!