[dnhz]

Each comment GP made corresponds to quote following the comment. i.e.:

>This one could apply to our relationship with China maybe?

>> Yes, we quarrel with the French. The members of a family argue pretty freely inside the home ; We quarrel with our allies, We don't quarrel with our enemies -- we fight them.

With that said, I wouldn't interpret the US relationship with China as one of alliance nor as one of enmity (yet).

[SiempreViernes]

Uh, the US military has declated China it's main adversary and the US just had a presidency that used "clash of civilizations" to describe the relationship with China, why do you think "enmity" is not an appropriate word?

[dnhz]

Because the relationship with China is more complicated than that. You can see it in the NIH funding research at the Wuhan virology lab or all the made in China goods that the US consumes.

It makes sense for the military to recognize the other forces that pose the biggest threat. But regarding declarations by politicians, it appears to me that internal politics in both countries are driving politicians to make such statements. As in, both American and Chinese leadership see advantage in creating an external enemy. Naturally, as China's power rises, the relationship changes texture, but how much of our attitude change is recognition of the changed situation versus a change in attitude induced by the political class?