alt Hacker NewsOkay, 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!"
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.