“Tai_Chung noted, the 99-year lease between the UK and China ended in 1997.”
Hong Kong was ceded in perpetuity, as was Kowloon.
That was not the reason Hong Hong was turned over.
Stop saying ignorant things.
> Stop saying ignorant things. <
Why in the world must you resort to a personal insult? I am not an expert on Hong Kong. But I am an expert on Relativity. I’ve taught college courses on the subject. Sometimes folks will say something here on that subject that I feel is wrong. I offer a correction. But I do not insult them. I am not ten years old on a school playground.
Anyway, my post re Hong Kong was an overview. And that whole “perpetuity” thing meant absolutely nothing. The UK could hold Hong Kong proper only as long as it had the strength to do so.
As I noted in an earlier post, if the UK had insisted on enforcing the perpetuity clause, a single Chinese division could have overrun the place in a day.
If you want to continue this discussion civilly, fine. Perhaps you could offer insights that I would be interested in. But if you want to just trade insults, I’m not interested in that at all.
There was absolutely a 99 year lease agreement.
Why do you think there wasn’t. What are we mistaking?