[–] TheDaoReveals ago
You're factually correct but omit quite a lot. In the west there is the concept of healthy competition, so that all states being rivals is accepted until it reaches the level of military conflict. China however is targeting one particular state, which brings it above the level of competition.
You invoke the moral relativism of our actions, as if using the weapons you have in a conflict is somehow wrong. But you completely ignore the intent of the weapons being used. China is fighting the U.S., and we for the most part haven't fought back except on the terms we have agreed to in international law.
logically being a traitor doesn't mean that you were helping an enemy.
This doesn't make sense.
[–] LuciusAM ago
Why would you think that? I am sure they have their hands in a lot of countries, they would be foolish not to. We just have a UScentric viewpoint so we don't pay much attention to stuff that isn't directly fed to us by our news media.
China isn't "fighting" anyone other than separatist in their western provinces. They engage in diplomacy and espionage with a lot of countries (probably all of them to some degree) - same as we do. Likely, more of their resources are diverted towards us than most nations but I would be surprised to find out they didn't have similar levels of resources devoted towards say Russia or the UK.
There are many forms of betrayal, not all of them are at the behest of an enemy. If I were to leak classified documents to Germany, that would be considered treason even though they were our "ally". To be fair to you though, it is kind of a grey area because there is a dictionary definition of treason and the legal definition of treason which are surprisingly different. By the dictionary definition, giving state secrets to Germany would be considered treason while under the legal definition it would not. The legal definition is so hard to fulfill that it only happened like once. All of this is semantics of course, as my point is that I consider anyone who sells secrets to any country other than the US to be a traitor - regardless of that countries relationship with the US.
[–] TheDaoReveals ago
Your first point doesn’t stand.
Yes of course. This isn’t in dispute. But are they selling weapons specifically to other countries enemies? Are their currency manipulations designed to undercut any other specific currency? Do their generals write entire books designing a strategy around weakening ANY other countries? Their efforts are overwhelmingly concentrated on damaging the U.S., and not out of simple economic competition. They don’t see a distinction between kinetic war, economic war, and any other effort to destroy an opponent.
Your second point is refuted above, and your third is meaningless. You agree there are traitors but don’t agree they aid an enemy? The nature of it, legal or otherwise, is aiding an enemy. If it didn’t aid an enemy it would cause no harm, and so would not be a crime.