Hong Kong is on the 'brink of total breakdown'

Daily Mail ^ | 12 November | TIM STICKINGS

[Vermont Lt]

Are theyinEnglish?

//just kidding

[Brellium]

Hong Kong was leased from China.
The lease was up.
China did not renew the lease

I have not posted in some time, and am currently remembering all html markups

The UK owned Hong Kong, but purchased a lease on the "New Territories". When the lease came up the UK declined to renew and as they would have been pushed back to the Hong Kong Island(s) declined to continue to hold on to Hong Kong as well. When releasing Hong Kong to PRC, they signed an agreement with the PRC that they would respect the "One China, Two Systems" approach signed into the agreement for 50 years and also provide the Hong Kong people "Self Determination" or general Democratic rights.

[Brellium]

Are theyinEnglish?

//just kidding

The documents also seem to indicate a plan to use them on Christians and "other groups" as well.

[Fai Mao]

I don’t think they’d turn SF red

[HamiltonJay]

They had a lease for Hong Kong. It expired they were required to return it

[matthew fuller]

I seem to remember that it was a 99 year deal, and it expired.
I am not certain about that, however- that was a long time ago!

[Ingtar]

The 99 year lease ended in 1997. A 50 year semi-autonomous Hong Kong was negotiated, but the Chinese Communists have become greedy, or were just feeling their oats. They started pushing the world to recognize it as an integral part of China and began cracking the whip too early. It was always their plan.

[The Westerner]

Those are the sweetest looking girls. Definitely flood the Western coastal cities with young people who are willing to fight for freedom. Give them free tuition to universities. Can you imagine the SJW confronting them?

[ifinnegan]

“Officially the “ownership” of Hong Kong was a 99-year lease which ended in 1997. I don’t know of all of the details of why the Brits set it up that way in 1898. This is different from our lease of Guantanamo which has no expiration date.”

Common misconception.

Hong Kong was ceded in perpetuity.

The agreement between UK and PRC did was not based on the lease of New Territories running out and was not mentioned or cited in the handover agreement.

[ifinnegan]

“Hong Kong was leased from China.
The lease was up.
China did not renew the lease”

Sorry. Wrong.

Commonly held but mistaken belief.

[fieldmarshaldj]

San Francisco is already 90% Commie Red.

[ifinnegan]

“When the lease came up the UK declined to renew”

In 1984 UK broached the subject with PRC to renew the NT lease. UK thought it was being polite and there would be no problem.

Deng said no and said the lease and treaties were all illegal in the first place and UK must give all three illegally held territories to PRC.

UK acquiesced.

[zeugma]

Too bad Hong Kong citizens don’t have a 2nd Amendment.

[zeugma]

‘Absolutely No Mercy’: Leaked Files Expose How China Organized Mass Detentions of Muslims

One of the few things I can't rag on China about. That is simple self-defense.

[wardaddy]

That’s how post modern Brits think

Like they fubared South Africa

They subjugated the Boers over two brutal wars in which they punished innocent Boer families in their pursuit of victory

Remind anyone of a war on US soil..

Then they forced Boers and others whites to give over South Africa to black migrants

Then the Brits mosty left after they screwed everything up

I talked to a Chinese person last nite who doesn’t like the Hk protestors

[wardaddy]

Really

Orientals vote heavily Democrat

Except Vietnamese

I’m not convinced

[KingofZion]

pity. HK was the only place I liked in China. Very civilized even with chicoms pulling the strings. But the chicoms will brook no dissent, similar to Stalin. so the result is fairly predictable. Mark my works, this will turn out to be tianamen square revisted 30 years later.

Nothing the US can do, we are not going to war with China over how they police their territory.

[SaveFerris]

[ Hong Kong is on the ‘brink of total breakdown’ ]

yikes

[Zhang Fei]

[Why did the British give HK away via a treaty anyway? Did someone in the House of Commons lose a bet?]

---

It’s said that Thatcher emerged ashen-faced from discussions with Deng because he stated his intent to invade Hong Kong if it weren’t handed back to China. I think the official statement that Thatcher yielded because Hong Kong couldn’t survive without the 99-year lease territories is face-saving bunk. The view might have been that Hong Kong was indefensible short of direct American intervention, and the casualties would be horrendous*. And at the time, it wasn’t quite clear yet that the revolution in military affairs revealed later by Desert Storm had made it possible for a well-equipped and -trained Western military to slaughter Warsaw Pact-standard armies while suffering minimal casualties. In other words, this wasn’t a business-style discussion between two CEO’s about a merger/divisional sale. It was a parley among national leaders where the alternative to a Hong Kong handover was war.

* The Chinese lost an estimated 800,000 men fighting in the Korean War (dialed down to 100,000+ in the publicly-released Chinese numbers, but probably fudged by them to save face), and it wasn’t even Chinese territory they were fighting over.

[polymuser]

Um...let me think about that...communist background...liars, cheaters, spies and thieves...anti-Christian...um...NO!