Engage with less vitriol :) it's in the spirit of the guidelines.
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?
