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.
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, you didn't fix it; you snowflaked it. Sorry, but I don't do that shit where looking at someone the wrong way or telling them you don't wanna be their friend or hang out with them is bullying. Some people feel if 5 people are a group of friends but don't wanna add them, they're being mercilessly bullied. That's not my definition nor was it ever. If you didn't violate anyone's rights, you didn't bully anyone; that's how I see it and it's not cherry-picked from anything. That's how it was from a time when people didn't kill themselves because they got mean Facebook messages.
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.
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.
Great, you get the point. Domestic laws do not govern international trade. The moment scope is beyond domestic matter it no longer applies.
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.
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.