Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Well, there are some things that need to be stopped like the endless wars on the other side of the world, the extrajudicial drone bombing of their own citizens, the lawless surveillance, militarized seat of government, ramming civilian cargo vessels with battleships, the list of things to stop goes in and on. Of course an Adolph would try to distract focus from a oppressive unashamedly authoritarian regime towards…
My apologies if I caused offense. In terms of focus I advocate for the power of "and" although I disagree with your characterization of the problems raised as "smaller inward-focused." The wars and droning are not small nor inward-focused. The ramming was referred to in gallows humor as I don't think the Navy is so incompetent that they would think ramming cargo vessels would be effective, just incompetent enough to…
> 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.