http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/30/world/asia/china-blocks-us-navy-flotillas-visit-to-hong-kong.html?_r=0
Campaign in South China sea then?
>The denial was the first time the Chinese government had refused to allow an American aircraft carrier into the port in Hong Kong since August 2014
Wow, it's fucking nothing.
>>29781659
Isn't Hong Kong independent from China? Can't they just say to commies to fuck off and accept U.S ships at any time when they want ?
Wang Yi Talks about China's Four-Point Consensus on South China Sea Issue with Brunei, Cambodia and Laos
http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/zxxx_662805/t1358478.shtml
>On April 23, 2016, Foreign Minister Wang Yi expressed at inquiry when meeting with journalists in Laos that, during
>my visits to Brunei, Cambodia and Laos, I have exchanged in-depth views with all parties on current situation of
>the South China Sea, and reached important consensus respectively. The consensus can be summarized as follows:
>First, China and the three countries all agree that disputes over some Nansha islands and reefs are not an issue
>between China and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), and should not affect China-ASEAN relations.
>Second, China and the three countries all agree that the right enjoyed by sovereign states to choose on their own
>ways to solve disputes in line with the international law should be respected, and an imposition of unilateral will on
>others is opposed.
>Third, China and the three countries also agree that disputes over territorial and maritime rights and interests should
>be resolved through dialogues and consultations by parties directly concerned under Article 4 of the Declaration on
>the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC).
>Fourth, China and the three countries believe that China and ASEAN countries are able to jointly maintain peace and
>stability in the South China Sea through cooperation. Countries outside the region should play a constructive role rather
>than the other way round.
>>29781693
No. Hong Kong is a SAD fiefdom that is given some local authority handed down from Beijing. They're doing this for shitposting, as usual.
>>29781693
No, China owns them. They were owned by the British until 1997, when they were handed back over.
Good, glad to see the American Navy BTFO once more.
>>29781674
>since August 2014
>>29781886
>>29781910
God, this sucks. From British rule to communist regime. And this was after the Tiananmen Square massacre. How world even allow this?
>>29781659
Holy shit you are fucking stupid.
>>29782200
> How world even allow this?
Do not reply to ping pong threads. Sage goes in every field. They are paid trolls. This is normal Chinese dick measuring because cannot into carriers.
>>29782200
>How world even allow this?
It probably had to do something with the contract that Britain would have to give back 50% of the land around HK, which would make any attempt at keeping HK itself completely and utterly unfeasible.
Also the Chinese would just have waltzed into the city and taken it otherwise.
>>29782260
I'm pretty sure that the chinks wouldn't have risked a war with another nuclear power.
What ever happened to the US calling dick-measurers out? Remember in the 80s when we were killing Iranians and Libyans whenever they tried to start shit?
>>29782299
>How world even allow this?
Ignoring the bad English.
The UN supported China in that regard.
>>29782299
Britain had three options:
-Give back the city and the territories around it
->Everyone happy
-Give back the territories but keep the city
->Make holding HK completely unfeasible. They wouldnt even get water
-Keep both
-> Be the aggressor. China takes HK and the territories within 2 hours as the city peacefully surrenders.
>>29782327
Can't Britain just say no? Or you think EU or United States would impose sanctions on UK because communists want to grab some land?
>>29782299
>What is Korean War
>What is Sino-Soviet border clashes.
>>29782363
>Keep both
>Be the aggressor
What? How is this supposed to work? UK defend their verseas territory from communist China's claims. It's not an agression.
>>29782324
what's your point? you realizet that hong kong is part of china, farsical concessions to the locals aside. the commies can absolutely deny a foreign navy entry to one of their ports. this is literally a non-issue and who the fuck would complain if the us did it back.
they're not blockading hong kong and saying 'america can't come into this free and soveriegn port' they're saying 'we don't want the us navy to visit one of our ports'. this is a non-issue. there are still russian ports that NO ONE is allowed to visit.
quit the knee-jerk bullshit and get the fuck over it. did you even know that hong kong belonged to china?
>>29782408
They had a contract, Hong Kong wasn't a possession anymore.
>>29782424
But think about all the families who ordered tickets!
>>29782439
>They had a contract, Hong Kong wasn't a possession anymore.
This, people should not be shocked that a first world nation honors its contracts, the UK lease Hong Kong for 99 years and gave it back when that lease ran out and China would not renew it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_of_sovereignty_over_Hong_Kong
>>29782424
>and who the fuck would complain if the us did it back
China would, but they complain about everything for propaganda reasons
Obongo is doing whatever he can to bring shame to America, especially now that he sees most of his foulness is going to get turned around.
On the other hand, why the fuck would you let a foreign navy sail into your harbours?
>>29782408
It is as the land around HK was only bought for 99 years.
>>29782460
In fact HK itself was not part of the contract. Without the territories around it it wasnt habitable though, so not that it matters much.
Americucks are unable to understand that a sovereign country can choose to not allow foreigners in
>buh buh we can't keep out illegals, thats racist!
>buh buh we can't have segregated neighborhoods, thats discrimination!
fucking americucks
>>29782479
>literally believing this.
>>29782424
Hong Kong city proper was ceded to the British in perpetuum, the British had no obligation to give that back in 1997.
However, the "New Territories" part of Hong Kong was leased to Britain through a treaty with the Qing dynasty. The treaty stated that Hong Kong was lent to the British for a period of 99 years starting in 1898.
After the lease expired, the PRC chose not to renew the lease, and the New Territories would be handed back to China. Without the New Territories, holding Hong Kong proper is impossible since so much infrastructure is in the new territories, which made up most of Hong Kong's landmass.
Imagine if the British just held Manhattan island, but not the rest of New York city. It's not possible to hold just Manhattan, because people with jobs on Manhattan live in all of NYC and need to commute, not to mention Manhattan gets it's utilities and food from the rest of New York. If the US blockaded Manhattan, it would not last long. Without the New Territories, China was in a position to blockade Hong Kong city.
So rather than try to do the impossible, and appear like an old Imperial power in front of the UN. The UK handed all of Hong Kong back to the Chinese.
>>29782033
0.50 cents have been deposited in your account
>>29782374
>>29782374
you mean couldn't they have just said no?
saying no would violate their treaty contract, and in doing so risk confrontation a long way away that they would have no chance of winning. so why the fuck would they risk armed conflict for the sake of some nip-nong ching-chongs? britain is also one of the founding states of modern, international diplomacy. they have never just gone around violating treaties for shits and giggles. despite what you might think, no one does, because if you do you fuck up everything and no one can be fucked going to war over every little silly fucking even that happens in the world.
i see so many people who just don't understand the time, expense and cost in actual human life that doing this shit actually takes. so many idiots on this board think that you can just act with unrestrained power and nothing bad will happen. half you dumb motherfuckers would go to war over a spilt drink.
>>29782408
because hong kong was leased for definite time period. after that time period, according to the very document that the british forced on the chinese, hong kong stopped being british. so according to british law (because a treaty becomes law) they had to give it back. and no, it's not stupid. if you don't sign and keep contracts and treaties, no one trusts you and you don't get anywhere. you'll learn this for yourself after you've had a job or two.
again, no one is going to risk a war for a city full of chinks on the other side of the world. especially as britain would both be on the wrong side of the legal argument (their own legal argument) and the loser.
>>29781659
China "We stronk! China win again! America did first! China did nothing wrong!"
>>29782460
>>29782487
>HK was only bought for 99 years
But not from fuckin communist China! They bought it from Quing China. Taiwan have more rights on this land that genocidal communist regime.
>>29781854
>laos
landlocked
>cambodia
no coast on the south china sea
>brunei
a sad excuse for a sovereign state
china is really grasping at straws, typical
>>29782439
You faggot bongs alway bring that, the real reason is you faggots are pussies.
>>29782591
the communist government is recognized as the successor state of the last imperial dynasty.
>>29782363
>Make holding HK completely unfeasible. They wouldnt even get water
Fresh water you mean? Cause the city would still have sea access.
>mfw imagining the scale of desalination plants that would be necessary for a city the size of Hong Kong
Mind is full of fuck
>>29781910
no, it was RENTED by the brits from china until 97
>>29782659
They knew the US wasn't going to back them up, since Clinton is funded by china. So what can they do other than let china take it over.
>>29783178
Imagine it like severing all of Manhattan from NYC.
All the pipes, streets, cables running in and out are now no longer usable. Sustaining Manhattan would be impossible, especially with a Chinese blockade around it.
The Brits didnt even think about the option.
>>29782518
>So rather than try to do the impossible
Berlin Airlift 2: Chink edition.
>>29782033
Fiddy Bong
>>29781659
Is this important?
>>29782424
Fiddy Bong
>>29782479
Fiddy Bong
>>29782500
low quality bait
>>29782556
Kik
>>29782408
You're simply ignorant.
>>29782556
Who are you quoting?
>>29782591
>The United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758 was passed in response to the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1668 that required any change in China's representation in the UN be determined by a two-thirds vote referring to Article 18[1] of the UN Charter. The resolution, passed in October 25, 1971, recognized the People's Republic of China (PRC) as "the only legitimate representative of China to the United Nations" and expelled "the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek from the place which they unlawfully occupy at the United Nations."[2] This motion came after US President Richard Nixon's announcement on July 15, 1971 of planning to visit Mainland China, which created an unfavorable climate[3] for the Republic of China's bid to remain in the UN. The General Assembly admitted the People's Republic of China with a two-thirds super majority of votes.
>>29782593
You seem to have trouble reading.
They are talking about ASEAN in general. Not the SCS. Despite what you Americans may think, ASEAN stretches from the Bay of Bengal to the tip of Papua New Guinea.
Impressive
Truly HongKong has the capability to know what is right from wrong. Stopping Aggressors from doing their bullying tactics is a common notion of a country with the moral high ground. Anyone who can't see this is like someone with eyes but can't see Mount Tai. The difference between Chinese dignity and Freedom from the twisted freedom of others is like comparing heaven and earth. Anyone who questions the honorable Chinese motives is courting death. I hope China and America will still be good friends after this American embarrassment.
