So it's cool to invade countries next door if you have a dispute with them. But not okay if they're not your neighbors. What if they're technically not your neighbors, but still only like 100 kilometers away? Is that okay?

>So it's cool to invade countries next door if you have a dispute with them.

Straw-man much? It's not cool (and I didn't say that), but it's understandable. Neighbors have disputes, and that has been the case since forever, and it's understandable because they have common borders to settle (which are not god given), shared history, and so on.

Countries meddling with countries in the other end of the world just have imperialism and "national interests" to cheap oil and enforcing their preferred policies and ideology.

>What if they're technically not your neighbors, but still only like 100 kilometers away? Is that okay?

What if we stop asking silly questions and apply the principle of charity and/or common sense?

And yes, with nearby countries it's still natural to have disputes over e.g. this or that natural resource you both claim, this or that past war or whatever.

Now, France with Vietnam, the UK in Cyprus, or the US in Korea, not so much.

I'm sorry, I was trying to better understand your argument which seemed to be focused on geographic distance as a form of whether it was acceptable or not to have armed conflict.

Moving the goalpost?

No, establishing where it should have been naturally.

A country with shared borders and centuries of shared history with a nearby country is quite understandable to have disputes and even go to war with them.

With a country that had never interacted with it, and they have absolutely no reason being there (except entitlement and greed), not so much.

That's only controversial if one has blinders...

Exactly, but that doesn't go well with the murrican narrative, so you're being down voted.