This does not answer my question....You said Trump should have done something I said this was a British deal.....They are the legal party in this treaty... So..you deflect.....admit it that the British is the party involved herr
oh, i thought you meant HK had no say in the deal involving them. You're right, the US has never inserted itself in international affairs to balance the scale against authoritarian regimes.
Wait what? How about South Korea, Japan, Taiwan and the Philippines? The US has bases surrounding China with Guam in the back for long range missiles... You really don't know what you're talking about, do you...
Why 20 years? Why can you not recognize that the US has multiple military bases surrounding China (unlike what you stated) while China has none around the US. Yes, China is getting expansive around the South China Sea and should be held to international law standards, but it's a bit complicated when the US itself refuses to abide by such laws. The US is trying to prevent China from applying the same measures the US uses as a superpower. Imagine what would happen if China offered Cuba the same military hardware that the US sells to Taiwan... I think the article that you did not want to finish because it was too dovish for you clearly offers an alternate route that doesn't end in a war that may find no winners. China needs to change and become more sophisticated when it comes to international affairs. It's a elephant in a China shop at this time, unable to modulate its policies towards those who disagree with them;. Better than North Korea but still... A long ways to go.
Because Ricter brought up the tired old trope of "bases around my country" when that hasn't happened around China (by US) in more than 20 yrs and the only one being a hawk in the region in the last 20 yrs is China itself. Cliffnotes: Same lame ass NATO/Putin excuse except worse.