This in no way excuses anything currently going on, but I think you are missing the forest for the trees and flying off the handle without engaging with a valid point of discussion because it wasn't a perfect example.
One can condemn the invasion while also considering what would happen if a US neighbor cozied up with its geopolitical rivals. How about the Soviet Union/Cuba? How did the US react to that?
We all know how they reacted, so there is no need for hypotheticals that serve no purpose. And in the last 9 months the US has made multiple strong suggestions that they think that Canada should 'join' the US (by hook, crook, or force) and they've threatened to annex Greenland (similarly) and are currently in the process of setting up a military offensive against Venezuela.
We don't need fairytales, we have history and present day events to guide us.
Okay, but then what point are you attempting to make? You are arguing against the comparison, but then go on to describe other aggressive acts instead. As though to seethe, "it's not an apple, it's a fruit!"
> Would the US not be forced to react in some way if a pro-china party took over in Canada with the help of chinese influence?
This sets you up for saying 'no'
> And China had the goal of integrating Canada into its military alliance?
And this denies Canada the right to engage into treaties.
Neither of which has any bearing on the topic and on actual reality, there is no 'pro china' party in Canada and even if there was the US would not be 'forced to react'. It probably would react but it would not be forced to do so.
So this all just muddies the water by 'just asking questions'. We should stick to reality rather than engaging in positioning strawmen for the express purpose of taking them down, we have an actual war going on right now with a belligerent that is committing warc rimes by the hundreds on a daily basis and which was started on the pretext of another sovereign nation being a threat when that clearly wasn't the case.
That is the topic (see title). Besides that, the hypothetical does not stand even in principle because the US has been the aggressor in very recent history.
So I'm not just arguing against the comparison, I'm questioning the value of making such comparisons in principle because they are just attempts at sowing discord without any basis in fact. If you see it differently then you're welcome that.
I think there is value in treating other actors with some semblance of rationality and using that to gain insight into how one might deal with them, rather than considering them fully sui generis.
For example it would be a similar mistake to think that the recent swing in US politics is a uniquely American phenomenon to which one's own population is inherently immune.
If instead one thinks, maybe we're not so different after all, perhaps one may better understand how better to deal with it.
Especially if the alternatives are, "we just need to get rid of the bad people" or "I guess there's no hope for a better world"
> For example it would be a similar mistake to think that the recent swing in US politics is a uniquely American phenomenon to which one's own population is inherently immune.
Indeed it would be and I'm under no such illusion, rather the opposite. Unfortunately as much as I do it will never be enough. But I'm putting as much time, money and effort into that as my means and energy levels allow.
> If instead one thinks, maybe we're not so different after all, perhaps one may better understand how better to deal with it.
Oh, but we are different, on an individual level. It's as soon as you start talking about 'China' or the 'USA' as homogenous entities with plans and responses (rational or otherwise) that the trouble starts. Before you know it you've defined an in-group and an out-group and that is precisely when rationality gets thrown out.
> Especially if the alternatives are, "we just need to get rid of the bad people" or "I guess there's no hope for a better world"
I don't think we can get rid of bad people, but what we can do is identify them and keep them from the levers of power. The fact that the world over we keep finding megalomaniacs in these positions even though we full well know what it leads to is something that we will have to deal with sooner or later.
And as for hope for a better world, I think that that hope should be rooted in really learning our lessons from the past rather than insisting on re-learning them every couple of generations.
The rest of your comment does not deserve an answer.