What is the standard that we use for deciding what leader is worthy of intervention against? Is it the level of support among their own population? Is it how much they seek to export their ideology and take over other countries?
I understand the analogy you're making with Chess. But perhaps you could also view it another way: MbS is a terrible dictator (with even less legitimacy than the still-illegitimate Chinese political process). The US could easily crush him, compared to do anything to seriously confront China's CCP domestically.
Given that our resources would have a direct impact on people's lives in Saudi & Yemen, whereas we don't have much ability to have any impact in China, why is it better to invest our resources in fighting Xi Jinping?
Do you know what OPEC is
Whoa - you can't post like that to HN, regardless of how wrong someone is or you feel they are.
Please stop posting flamewar comments generally - I already replied to another case where you did that in this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33266456. We ban accounts that take HN threads into flamewar, so if you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules, we'd appreciate it.
Lets use an analogy. Say you're playing a team chess match. Each board has a different prize associated with winning it. My question to you is how you should organize your team as a function of those prizes.
I don't think Yemen should be the one to stand up to China for precisely the reason that i dont think america should be the one to stand up to the saudis. Our resources are better invested elsewhere, and in particular, in confronting the tyrannical leader of China.