> The g-parent comment asserts that "China must be stopped" and I started thinking about what aspect(s) of China do they want to stop. Certainly they don't want to end the country and its inhabitants. Maybe they want to stop some behaviors that cause harm in the world? What behaviors would those be? The comment uses the past tense "stopped" instead of "stop" so the implication is that some not-China entity performs the stopping.

> So what behavior to stop and what entity to do the stopping?

Honestly, it sounds like you're playing ignorant here. Those aren't hard questions to answer, though the post you're commenting on likely had some government/nation confusion. I suggest you spend some quality time with Wikipedia and a good newspaper.

> Are the actions necessary to stop the behavior proportionate and are they likely effective? To predict this, I look to the track record of previous attempts to "stop" nations and it isn't pretty. My comment came from thinking about what has happened in the US over the course of this century as it has embarked on ever newer crusades to stop this or that.

The US had at least couple of successes in the last century. Anyway, your thrust seems to be towards fatalism, which is perspective that should be rejected out of hand.