Now who's playing by an old playbook?
Taking a play from an old playbook doesn't make that play any less wrong, or the user of that play any less wrong for using it. Accusing an earlier player of making a bad play while making the same bad play does not grant the current user any form of virtue.
One could go round and round saying the other's stirring the pot, but in my view, it's not just the States making that judgment on other countries' disputes. The "plaintiff" has to balance the risks and benefits to his country to another that's still there, 微软, in terms of respecting its neighbors, so I find it telling that he's still willing for his armed forces to participate in exercises that don't include the "defendant." (A suitable analogy - I'll stick with that in this post.)*
If the defendant's willing to push even an ally to potential starvation, what's it going to do to a neighbor who's right to be more than wary of association with it? (Or am I making too much of a connection between smaller fishing boats with dead crew on the one side, a more advanced fishing fleet with floodlights on the other, and a population decline in stocks - 90% of squid, IIRC - in the waters in between?)
If the defendant's willing to ignore a third party's decision on a dispute, and ignore even its own records regarding historical claims, I can believe it's perfectly willing to ignore that it's doing its own stirring.
However, since the fragrance of the men of this age hasn't evolved past OMG Chanel or Dior lolcopter eggplant!!111eleventy!one!! (and what's that Q and 17 stand for anyway?), perhaps it would be best to direct such opinions to the only thing left to sell when there's nothing left to sell.
Also, just because I don't want to ignore the antitrust thing going on - $13 billion in a day. How many t-shirts were involved in those gains, tentacle beast?
* Found this. Good thing I've also found printouts. On a related note, downplaying a military build-up because of the desire for peace won't stop that build-up.