[rbmillerjr]

"*either* side of this debate could selectively choose some facts and ignore others to make either case; i.e. that China would either side with or against the U.S.
Yet on you go, doing that very thing."

Who is ignoring the facts?

You downplay Korea...remember, SKorea and the US were attacked by NKorea first...1 million Korean civilians lost their lives and 50,000 Americans.

Vietnam: HoChiMinh trained with the Chinese PLA and trained thousands of communist cadre. China provided over 35,000 artillery pieces and millions of AKs to the NVietname...helping to kill thousands of Americans.

Iran: billions of dollars of ballistic missile systems sold, destabilizing the Mideast. Crusise missile technology also...there is a huge list of military items I could list here.

Syria: missile systems, 100s of million of dollars, likely more

[Southack]

All of the above is true, yet still ignores the other half of the picture. Yes, China did all of that against us, yet China also invaded Vietnam in the 1970's, broke with the USSR (and had several border wars with them), opened their doors to Nixon, and have expanded their capitalistic market approach and business arrangements with the U.S. and other allied nations.

Moreover, China is currently at war with radical Islamists in their Xinjiang province.

So by selectively choosing from either your above list of facts or from those that I mention above, and leaving out the other half, one could make *either* case that China was inevitably going to side either with or against the U.S.

But such selective statements do us no good. China *could* side against us. That's a very real possibility. China could also side with us. We share a common foe and we have large business ties with each other.

Right now, however, it is too early to tell which way China will break. They could go either way. Neither of their above options for or against us are set in stone.

Yet.

...And the smart money says that China will delay having to pick a side for as long as possible.