manqiangrexue
Brigadier
No, there are two dimensions to it. The first dimension is legal. If discussing the legal dimension, then international trade cannot be conflated to domestic law. But morally (to answer the question of whether something constitutes bullying), there are many comparisons that can be drawn. You drew the legal comparision asking if I can discriminate against Jewish customers in my business in the US. The comparison is a failure because you mixed domestic law with international trade in a legal comparison. But my comparison of boycotting a business in protest to its owner is based on a moral standpoint and perfectly valid.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.
No, they do morally, not legally. Your movie example was awful and your Jewish discrimination example is awful. Your Bruce Lee example was so terrible it completely ignored the fact that he was defending against imperialism occurring in his own country to try to counter whether inclusion/exclusion counts as bullying. Your example was so far off it was in outer space.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.
That was always understood legally, NOT morally.Great, you get the point. Domestic laws do not govern international trade. The moment scope is beyond domestic matter it no longer applies.
Some of this is correct and some not. America banning the sale of an item is legally and morally sound; you cannot force someone to sell you anything. But when America posts sanctions on a third country and interdicts their shipping, it is of course and overreach like it did to Iran and to other countries shipping thier arms.Speaking of that, US is using domestic law to override international trade.
Yes, no problemIt would be perfectly valid to cancel further American products to business selling to China.
Right, they don't apply, but the threat is that if the product is sold to China against American wishes, then they will receive no further shipments from the US thus collapsing their future business. Sometimes, it doesn't even come to that. Sometimes American diplomatic appeal is enough. That is within America's own rights and does not violate China's.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.
Not sure what this is a response to but it does seem you are here to cry about morals accusing America of bullying China just for witholding its trade and acting within its rights to coerce its partners into withholding trade from China. I'm saying that other than the US pirating shipments and starting color revolutions in countries that don't align with it, its trade and tech wars against China are fair game.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.
This does not register with me as a reply to anything I've said.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.
Last edited: