When i said "why pick Vietnam", i meant "why pick Vietnam as an example to try and refute my comment", not "why would China pick on Vietnam". I thought that was pretty obvious.
To restate what i clearly said in my original comment: Where China has historically interfered with other nations, it has usually been with their near neighbours, so the fact that the Vietnamese might prefer a US dominated world to one with 2 superpowers is pretty irrelevant to the point i was making.
(Which is that most of the world that is not allied to the USA would probably breathe a little easier with some stronger checks on US power. And might have reason to expect china to be more restrained in their messing with other peoples' countries half way round the world)
Obviously Vietnam would not be included in this, because of their close proximity and history of war with China.
If anyone has any evidence or historic examples of china operating far from their own borders, building military bases or indulging in the sort of interventionism, destabilization or regime change that the USA has been performing all over the world since WW2 please bring them up. I've already acknowledged that people who live right next to china are unlikely to welcome China's ascent to global superpower status.
EDIT: The reason i think the USA is more of a military threat to the rest of the world (Aside from it's own allies) than China, is the USA's very powerful and influential military industrial complex, which means that whenever the USA stops bombing people, powerful forces will start pressuring the govt. to find a new target ASAP.
My bad, I should've read your original comment more carefully.
However, you still seem to believe in this idea of "Chinese exceptionalism" (maybe not the best word for it), the idea that China's rise is purely economic in nature, and that China will not use its newfound power to pursue its interests around the world, as every great power in modern history has done. When you argue that China has been a "superpower" in the past but never attacked anyone outside its region, the answer to this is obvious: it did not have global interests because it did not have the ability to project power or influence beyond its immediate region. I mean, it's hard to project power when your fastest mode of transportation takes half a year to reach nations outside your region. You can simply forget about maintaining supply lines when those time frames are involved.
You simply can't compare modern China to ancient China, for the same reason that comparisons of the US' supposed collapse with that of the Roman Empire are mostly inaccurate. The advent of modern technology has profoundly altered the realm of geopolitics; great powers are no longer limited to their immediate regions. They now have the ability to project power around the world. So yes, China hasn't engaged in global power projection in the past (although I recommend you read up on their activities in the Indian Ocean and Africa), but only because it never had the ability to do so. I mean, they only recently (in the past decade or two) emerged from absolute poverty. As I outlined in my previous paragraph, we're already seeing China turning its economic power into diplomatic and military power. This will only continue, and we will see China rise to directly challenge US interests around the world. We're already seeing this in the SCS, but you could argue that's China's immediate region, so it doesn't count.