This is like you and me playing a game, and I find out you're a cheater.. and you say, 'what are you upset about? You invited me here'
Before you call me jingoistic I have worked and lived in China and they just have a different outlook on "scam" business there.
Which outsourcing destination has the same environmental and worker safety protections as the in the West?
A western factory polluting rivers and freely harming employees could compete quite well on the world stage.
And what a coincidence, the US decides what fair is. Bombing other countries and occupying them for their oil and other resources is totally fair.
Sure, Iraq exports more oil to China (21%) and India (20%) than it does to the US (13%).. but I'm sure that was somehow part of the conspiracy. So dont let that change your opinion.
I've had these arguments with internationals living, working, and studying in America with Americans and its a dead end.
What confuses people like you is that you think selling the oil is the only way the US has to benefit from the war. The US most of all, like all superpowers before it, wants control of the market.
The US didn't level Iraq in fact. The Iraqis leveled Iraq trying to murder each other in a large civil war that the US tried for years to stop (it could have just left instead). The US lost thousands of soldiers and a trillion dollars stepping in-between those factions. The Sunni and Shia in Iraq have hated each other for hundreds of years and immediately began killing each other after Saddam's Government fell. Saddam's 'solution' for that conflict previously was extreme oppression of the majority Shia. The only rational solution is to split the country into pieces; until then the conflict will continue perpetually.
> has been occupying it for almost 20 years
You're inventing that.
The US isn't occupying Iraq and certainly hasn't occupied it for 20 years. The US has single digit thousands of troops in Iraq in mostly supporting roles, at the invitation of the Iraqi Government. It previously left at the request of the Iraqi Government during the Obama Admin.
Please tell me how the US can occupy Iraq with a few thousand soldiers, when it couldn't control Iraq previously with more than a hundred thousand soldiers.
> you think selling the oil is the only way the US has to benefit from the war. The US most of all, like all superpowers before it, wants control of the market.
The US had dramatically more control of the Iraqi oil market before the war, with the ability to raise or lower output at will, using the aggressive sanction regime that was in place against Saddam Hussein's government. If the US wanted more Iraqi oil on the market, all it had to do is relax sanctions or look the other way as countries cheated on the sanctions.
Now Iraqi oil output is heading to new record highs, with the US having very little control over it. In fact, in your theory the US has an incentive to decimate the Iraqi oil industry rather than see it thrive. The US is the world's largest oil producer and has the most to gain from that. Projections are for US oil production to climb to 15-18 million barrels per day, far beyond Saudi and Russia, over the coming decade. It would be a large benefit to US oil producers - keeping prices up - to not have Iraq producing so much oil over that time.
The post Saddam ten year era in Iraq - the occupation - was about nation building, a foolish exercise of a superpower. The same is true about trying to prop up the Afghanistan Government vs the Taliban (a nearly impossible task). The US has vaporized a trillion dollars in Afghanistan, there is no way that can ever be recouped. The US had prior success with nation building in Europe and Asia and ignorantly believed it could accomplish a positive outcome in the Middle East.
You should leave international politics aside and go back to tech or whatever the hell you do in your daily job.
And all those 'reconstruction' billions and decades long military contracts don't benefit anyone I'm sure.
Perhaps that's exactly why China feels the need to cheat? From their point of view, the deck was stacked against them. They need to even the odds.
You and Tiger Woods, golf, go! Good luck.
But that aside, the point of my comment is "the opponent expecting to win, does not imply unfair odds."
"America thinks trade is good" does not imply "China gets to steal IP"
So, if America fails to find a way to win, the game is rigged? I mean, if this über country doesn't find a way to win, game being rigged is the only explanation... Where did I hear this before?
> This is like you and me playing a game, and I find out you're a cheater...
No, this is like you and me playing a game and if you don't win, you accuse me of being a cheater.
With this understanding, if any side finds that they are on the "losing" end of a deal, they should be upset. The United States has increased its wealth partially by increasing everyone else's wealth (as have other countries) and that is the way it should be.
Devil's advocate: the only disadvantage of US companies in China is FCPA.
Google failed in China because Kaifulee can not gift one iPad to a high rank communist party official. iPad were considered luxury at that time. Every other competitors do.
In other industries, some European joint adventures do govn't lobbying and media manipulation. Since media is controlled by the Chinese govn't, you must have "connections" or "guanxi" to pull things off.
If US can have exemption allowing companies have "convenient" business strategies in China, Chinese govn't and domestic copycats do not stand a chance.