Miscellaneous News
- Thread starter bd popeye
- Start date
They were always a fairly liberal leaning site. I used to follow Kaiser Kuo on quora, and for a time he was on the money, only paying lip service to western "ideals" for views, but later seemed to start taking those concepts seriously.
Pretty sure he was always funded by CIA.
manqiangrexue
Brigadier
I have no problem with that. I said one needs to follow the laws of the land. Why would you think I have an issue with anti-discrimination in China or the US? It has nothing to do with international business and by conflating it with domestic law, you are quite wrong.
Once again, domestic laws do not govern international trade. Your analogy makes no sense. Any country can ban trade with any other country and it would be well within its rights to do so.
As I said, this likely falls into the gray zone because it damages the third party by adding extra restrictions post contract but it is not unlawful and on the flip side, it would be a bigger violation of someone's rights to force the US to sell or continue to sell its technology. The buyer and the seller have to both agree and when one doesn't, for any reason, there is no sale. Very basic and no amount of crying about bullying is gonna change that.
LOLOL I understand everything else here other than, "You know what makes Bruce Lee mad? You know how he felt about those racist people?" LOL That, as it pertains to international trade, I don't understand.
Definition of what? I'm facing an argument here that if I dislike a guy, I have to apparently keep spending money at his business or I'm somehow bullying him. That's no dictionary definition and anyone can come up with something more valid than that.
Actually Taliban did that in their first government too more than 2 decades ago. By the time US invaded it was already eradicated, but when the US took control they allowed it to thrive again.
They should put half of those unemployed poppy farmers onto fentanyl precursor synthesizing, and enroll the other half in an international export commerce course offered by a local Confucius Institute.
Good, so you know using individuals as example for international politics is stupid. Then you should know better to not use it as example as you repeatedly have.
Well, not that the example is right for individuals in first place. But that is besides the point. I used the movie example as an equally awful argument. Individual relations do not apply to international relation.
Great, you get the point. Domestic laws do not govern international trade. The moment scope is beyond domestic matter it no longer applies.
Speaking of that, US is using domestic law to override international trade. It would be perfectly valid to cancel further American products to business selling to China. Not so much if the product is already sold after contracts. The same way domestic law cannot apply to arrest foriegners not obeying your law in their own country.
I guess you could say might makes right, and I won't refute that. I am not here to cry about morals. What is important is how China present itself.
I have been pretty consistent that China is a pragmstic country. China obeys international law, because it is good to. US do not, because it is shortsighted. It is pragmatic for China to expose how incompatible USA is to an international law based world order. It undermines US authority. It helps China on its next step of secure global leadership. When you have two equally powerful country struggle for leadership. One is firm and consistent, one is unhinged and irrational, which one to pick is obvious.
I say China should cry as loud as it can. Not because it will make bully stop being a bully, but to fuck with its reputation. Once justification is established, next time you can punch him in the face as hard as you can and no one will feel sorry for the stupid bully.
Interactions between individuals and groups of individuals living in a modern nation state do not make good analogy for interactions between nation states. One well-used definition of a nation state is that it asserts monopoly on violence within its jurisdiction. Individuals fighting each other with words and deeds can be made to stop by the nation state's enforcers.
No such thing between nation states.
CIA directive. Kaiser is not a smart cookie from what I see.
The strategic direction of the US towards China is clear as day. For him to go counter to that because he thought he is immune ("freedom of speech" lol), this should teach him some good lessons.
This often comes up about regional states not taking people but not understanding there perspective. These Gulf states are welcoming to foreigners who can contribute but they have transform there soft power by making religion of higher clans just like during time of Khazaria empire. This transformation made maintaining soft Power aka legitmacy even more important. It is not easy to explain in words. You can already see there is no Israel help with this ultimatum so how long will Gulf states keep the bargain when it impact there soft power.
Previously Israel need to be portrayed as strong power and in return Gulf states expect leader like Trump that can find effective solution for Europe and countries with confused identities.