Comment by mnkyokyfrnd

"Invasion by proxy" is very much a thing. And I am not trying to make it sound like equivalent to a full-on invasion, like the one the US did later on, but it is a thing the same way "being in a proxy war" is a thing, and of course, that is not the same as being "full-on at war".

Insisting on dichotomy between attempting to destabilise a union or one of it's bordering states, a client/satellite state is clutching at the straws.

You overlook categorical differences where it matters and then makeup binary lines for nuanced and things that happen on a spectrum like destabilisation where it is convenient for you. That is lazy at best, or dishonest at worst.

> But conquer Canada? Why would we do that?

You seem to have no idea about US is conduct with it's allies throughout history where it comes to her interests priority. Henry Kissinger didn't say "It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." because he felt like it. It is a reflection of US's modus operandi. Liberia, Panama, Argentine Junta, Iraq, Iran, Iraqi Kurds of 70s, Peshmarga of 2020s, Nicaragua in 80s, endless examples.

The problem is not with the analogy, it is your lack of understanding of US's modus operandi and her historical conduct.