alt Hacker NewsAgain, context matters and we are likely not talking in a "let us decide whom to invade" context.
BTW "Declaring your neighbor "politically unstable" and presenting yourself as its savior was the clearest way in the 20th Century to declare war without any casus belli" is not really true, sometimes this happened, but wars have been declared for all sorts of putative reasons, like "our particular minority is being oppressed" or "the neighbouring government plotted against the life of our sovereign" or "they are infidels, go get them".
Anyway I don't really see what you propose. Binning expressions because someone someday used them in bad faith, in the belief that this will stop future invasions from happening?
This seems to be somewhat futile to me. Invasions aren't fundamentally caused by words. Words only work as a cloak and one cloak can be easily substituted by another, and it will, depending on the current state of politics in the invader and invadee country.
Note that the Russians explained their invasion into Ukraine by calling them "fascists". Should the Western civilization drop the word forever because of that?
The cloak of words has always been needed, for some reason, to convince a population to make the sacrifices necessary to go to war.
Yes, there have been other spoken reasons for invading a peaceful sovereign country. This does not change the fact that Russia is the belligerent party against Ukraine, or that China is the belligerent against a completely harmless and peaceful Taiwan.
Taiwan's situation right now is very similar to Czechoslovakia's in 1938. There is no international treaty with teeth to protect it. There is every reason for China to create a rationale for invading it. The people there have a decent life and don't want to live under occupation. And the reasons for invasion look similar; taking over industrial capacity under the guise of saving people from their confused political state.