WHAT "facts" might those be?
They were in the rest of my post that you either ignored by choice or had no ability to comprehend it. If it's the former, then stop reading here. In case it's the latter: In a nutshell, the amount of chinese imports to the US accounts for 1% of the US economy in terms of GDP. The US is not dependent on China. Rather, it could be said that it's the other way around. Go to the source I provided.
This is my second post of trying to explain to you what I said in my first post. If you don't get it now, then you'll never get it. Go back to all the teachers you've ever had and slap them. Hard.
Then why did you argue that a Naval blockade could do exactly that?
I'll grant you the benefit of the doubt and suggest that you may not have read my initial post before dashing off your reply. I extend this act of kindness, because the alternative would be a defict in your basic reading comprehension skills.
In a nutshell, the amount of chinese imports to the US accounts for 1% of the US economy in terms of GDP. The US is not dependent on China.
Well, I tell you what. You stop that "1%" from hitting the shelves for a while and then see how "the masses" take it.
It's not merely a numbers game. It's what that "1%" consists of that matters.
You could probably get along just fine with 21% less air -- unless that "21%" is the "21%" that comprises the O2 content in the air.
In a nutshell, the amount of chinese imports to the US accounts for 1% of the US economy in terms of GDP. The US is not dependent on China.
Try not to be such a snotty little upstart and maybe you'll be able to learn something. Like, for example, the definition of "a stern chase".
To help you in that goal, I'll give you the answer: A stern chase is a long chase.
If you want to know the meaning of that axiom, well, you're on your own. Fish, cut bait, or learn to dance with your hands in your pants. I don't care.