AbleIIKnow_wong wrote: Agreed about ANEX... at the same time I can only guess all the Brits did were fulfill their contract for the 99 year span... it was probably for the better because Hong Kong doesn't want to be a part of China anyways....
That's not the point of whether HK wants or doesn't want to be part of China - they were mainland China's territory and governed by the government of China until a powerful western third party came along - the method was illegal and personally I think it forms no basis for HK's wish to be a SAR. But fact is fact and HK is now SAR - what can we do? If the Chinese gov try to integrate them more into Chinese internal affairs, they will start screaming that the Gov is acting against human freedom again - what do I need to say it for, just look at what Martin Lee, Emily Lou are all screaming in HK.
AbleIIKnow_wong wrote: If someone can sum up the "true" reason to Brit's invasion of HK and the history behind it that will be nice... I would guess that Brits invaded HK because I thought they needed land... I know I'm probably wrong...
There was no invasion of HK - it was the exploitation of China by the British using opium additions and eventually to counter these imports the Chinese burnt the opium resulting in UK asking for compensation and HK was the compensation. As I understand it however, Deng Xiaoping eventually agreed with Margret Thatcher the current agreement - 99 years and HK would revert back to China - apparently she was so upset after this meeting with Deng that she tripped on some stairs shortly after the meeting. If it wasn't for Deng, HK would still be Chris Patterson their Governor, how horrible.