But the short take-away is that China and the US are engaged in a struggle for dominance based on economics, and from our economic systems flow our view of how the world should function. I don't believe that America's trepidation towards China's rise is driven by a militaristic nature, but rather by the desire to compete and win economically. We have created a regime (liberal free trade, rule of law, favoring democracy) that allows us to prosper. Under China's system (based on concepts of racial supremacy, rule by law with favored groups above the law, lack of respect for property rights), our success is not assured.
That's why we cannot allow China to reshape the global order--not because it's China specifically that is challenging us, but because the CCP's way of doing things is not compatible with/anathema to our own. Japan's rise caused anxiety in the US, but never the level of fear that China's rise has created; and that is because Japan's system was different, but still recognizable to us. China's is not.
If China further converges with Western standards and becomes the Singapore writ-large that I have been predicting, then you will see the "China threat" stance dissipate, because our systems will have become compatible. This is how Pax Britannica peacefully transitioned to Pax Americana, and it is still a possibility for the transition to Pax Sinica. But that's up to China.
In terms of IP, China has many IP related cases between Chinese companies. A company in China used MJ's logo and even his photos to sell jerseys and sporting equipment. MJ sued, he lost.
What this tells us is, China has IP laws, it's just if you don't register it, you will lose.
American government will never be able to tell China what to do, so if you want to play in China, you must register in China. I don't see many Chinese going to America and not obeying American laws and customs. So this Chinese store can only stay in China, where the copy right of MJ is his. Whether this is good or bad, is debatable, but this is China, even American and British laws have different interpretations. I heard in the UK, the guilty have to prove they aren't while in the US the prosecutor must prove he is guilty. Nobody's complaining about this difference.
Though MJ may get it back, for now, he lost. Not having IP protection and different IP protection is very different. I can't remember which one, but foreign companies have won IP cases if they did it the Chinese way.
Where's the part where the US fights a world war to protect China from Japan, or is attacked by China in the Korean War, or the US putting hostilities aside to open diplomatic relations and beginning a massive manufacturing outsourcing effort to China in order to split it from the USSR?
Japan bombed America, Chang wanted to use battle of Shanghai to get you guys in, but you didn't. Now I'm not saying we don't appreciate the help, but it's not like it's out of nowhere. Besides, how many Chinese died to make sure the Japanese pose no threat while America fought in Europe first. It's a very practical world, nobody does anybody favors.
The Korean situation is messy, the SK president is no charmer either, there were skirmishes, but Kim did do the biggest offensive. The UN could have just stopped at the line, but US wanted to take all of Korea, and hence the attack. Restore Status Quo was a option that the US didn't choose.
As to US sending China jobs, you sended some, we took the others. We both benefited, America is far richer today than ever. Now whether you feel the American working class has benefited as much is not China's concern, but the American government's. Chinese government is not responsible for the American public, unless the American public want to pay taxes to China.
We got bombed by Japan because of our attempts to deter Japan from expanding in China and elsewhere in Asia. You have a poor understanding of logic and linearity. I'm sure you believe or were taught that Japan decided to randomly bomb Pearl Harbor after an extended cocaine party, in response to nothing in particular. In the real world, Japan bombed the US in response to the US reaction to Japan's expansion in Asia, foremost of which was its aggression in China.
Now I'm quite convinced that you are under the influence.
America was supplying Japan with oil... and supplying weapons and aid to the KMT.
Let me demonstrate how insane your "logic" is: since China didn't aid America in its fight against the British Empire, and continued to trade with the British Empire, China in essence funded the British war effort against the US. How do you like that?
The US had no ethical obligation to start a war with Japan to protect China (we had no colony in China). The US condemned Japan's actions, and then used economic sanctions to try and deter Japan. That is far more than what most Western countries did, and the US was not obligated to do so, especially in its isolationist state at the time.
Since you are not clever enough to use the contemporaneous standards to judge the US, and instead use today's standards to judge the US of the 1930s, it's a waste of time arguing with you. You can go ahead and parrot whatever propaganda you've absorbed as your final word. I won't see it, because you'll be on my ignore list.
America wanted didn't want a Japan that dominated Asia, same as today's China. We didn't even do anything and American rhetoric is already this high, Japan had half of China and most of ASEAN.
Now if Chang had won, China would have given America the decisive advantage over the USSR, making it surrounded on all sides. Chang lost, so you didn't see that benefit.
It just turned out American plans didn't work here, but if it did, America would have gotten a lot for its contributions.
