The story of appeasement was basically that the Nazis kept invading places, country after country, until they tried to take on the USSR and got transformed into paste (the US getting involved being a major factor). It was really quite breathtaking in hindsight because they wouldn't stop and obviously didn't intend to stop, ever.

gp's argument has no parallel to appeasement.

> treating countries as though they are enemies can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. It can increase the threat rather than decrease it.

That's what I was referring to. Not appeasement exactly but seems like similar logic.

That logic is nothing like appeasement. Or if it is then appeasement is a great strategy that we should all be using daily at all levels of societal organisation.

Making enemies of people who are not enemies is one of the stupidest moves imaginable. It is hard to overstate how mistaken that sort of mistake would be.

Yes indeed. Two out of those three countries have never invaded outside countries, whether for freedom, WMD or some other crap excuse. One of them is actually a functioning democracy. On the other hand a citizen of a country that has invaded almost a dozen sovereign nations, conducted almost an equal number of proxy wars and even used nuclear weapons twice, thinks we are scary. And lumps Russia, China and India all into one ill defined category of "scary regimes"...

All this ignoring for the moment the general Western enterprise of erstwhile colonialism and current economic neocolonialism that makes the destruction wrought upon developing nations by direct war/attacks pale in comparison.

> Two out of those three countries have never invaded outside countries

Limiting ourselves to the currently existing states, India has annexed Hyderabad, Junagardh, Dadra, and Nagar Haveli, while China has invaded India and Vietnam, and is presently annexing the South China Sea. This doesn't excuse the US actions in Iraq, but it does show that they are less unique than you claim.

Most of those were merged into India, not invaded. The ones that were invaded resulted in minimal losses, in the order of hundreds. It also happened 60 years ago.

Now compare this to Afghanistan.

> Now compare this to Afghanistan.

The same Afghanistan that was invaded by the Soviet Union?

We are talking about India and China, not Soviet Union.

> Two out of those three countries have never invaded outside countries

If you consider Taiwan a country, that's technically true but misleading. China would have invaded long ago if the US weren't capable or (claiming to be) willing to defend it.

[citation needed]. US claims that’s true, but everyone who remembers Iraq knows US loves a good lie. China, on the other hand, explicitly declares they won’t invade. China also doesn’t have much to gain by invading, and everything to lose.

Could you point us to China saying that? AFAIK China's policy is precisely the opposite: they've repeatedly made it very clear they will use military force if Taiwan ever proclaims independence.

No - they made it clear that they will use military force if US invades Taiwan. They also made it very clear that they want peaceful solution, because their economy doesn’t depend on waging wars.

Feel free to prove otherwise; note that Chinese statements are quite often misquoted.

“If anyone dares to split Taiwan from China, the Chinese army will definitely not hesitate to start a war no matter the cost,” Defence Minister Wei Fenghe said during a meeting with Lloyd Austin on Friday.

“The PLA [People’s Liberation Army] would have no choice but to fight … and crush any attempt of Taiwan independence, safeguarding national sovereignty and territorial integrity.”

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/6/10/china-tells-us-it-w...

If anyone dares, not if Taiwan dares. Like I said, this is about third party involvement.

sorry but you sound like a wumao

And you don’t find it weird that any argument that doesn’t match current US policy looks wumao to you?

Perhaps not really fair to lump India in with China and Russia.

My biggest concern is domestic policy, given that being "top dog" would probably imply a general cultural and political movement towards whichever regime wins.

USA has done awful things, and nowadays seems to have a very uncertain future but values such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion are important to humanity and happiness imo and they still stand in the US despite all the craziness.

China and Russia shouldn't need any explanation in that respect, I can point to many sources. India's BJP is almost openly persecuting Muslims and doctoring history to be more Hindu.