why was hong kong given to china?

I'm a bit confused as to why the british government found it nessecary to give away a democratic government to those dirty communists does anyone have any idea what britan got in return? I can't believe no one outside of hong kong made a fuss over this. My girlfriends family moved from hong kong after the deal was made and they had to sell their home for very cheap and their jeep and jaguar too and now they are just barely scratching out a living here in the US thanks to the british government. There had better be a good reason for it or I'll just have to be pissed. Doesn't anyone think there is something wrong with deciding to give away peoples right to vote? Hell to give away their whole country? And to china of all countries... I wonder why I never heard of this matter in school. Why would a democratic nation give away another to a communist dictatorship for nothing? There must have been a deal here but what was it? Anyone know?

Treat your body like a $600 car. God didn't intend it to last so use it. Run it into the ground!

hmmm I thought that hong kong was a british colony

Treat your body like a $600 car. God didn't intend it to last so use it. Run it into the ground!

Yes, a contract merely expired. I think when Britain first made up the 1997(?) year mark to return it, they did that thinking that it would never last to see that year anyway. But, because it did, they had to abide by the contract that was made.

Sure, it was a British colony, but it was part of China before that...

-------------------------------------------
<font color=blue> "Trying is the first step towards failure." </font color=blue>

Actually the contract expired, but the contract was GIVEN to the Chinese. The UK HAD HongKong in perpetuity (forever), but then gave up the eight as a PR move.
And, IIRC, the contract actually expired at a later date (I think in a while to come) but the U.K. decided to accelerate the process as a way of appeasing China.

In the long run it's mostly PR. There was not threat with China under the original change to a 'lease' and the acceleration was simply to curry favour among the mainlanders.

As for commentsabout imperialism, etc. If you ask most people who lived there (I have ALOT of friends from HK [heck I live in Canada, a favourite escape route]) they were happier and beter off as a British protectorate than as a Chinese province. Expected/Promoised political freedom has not come. And only now is China reconsidering it's ations as HK becomes less of a world trading spot everyday. China hoped they could make Shanghai the trading hub, but it appears people aren't interested in that either. The advanatage of HK WAS that it was so indpendant, even while under British 'rule'.

Anywhooo, that's my take on it.

- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! <font color=green>RED</font color=green> <font color=red>GREEN</font color=red> GA to SK

Well they aren't totally communist... they are slowly getting closer and closer to the open market system. So in economy they differ less and less, now the political changes slowly come. Much has been improved if you compare now with Mao's time.

My CPU fan spins so fast that it creates a wormhole

F. They're way to strong and an attack would probably trigger a nuclear war.

Anyway I know some people who visited China and they're pretty positive about it. I don't say you can call it a totally good/free/whatever country but they're making progress. But yes they have a long way to go.

My CPU fan spins so fast that it creates a wormhole

Hiya Svolly...nice title!

I agree with you about the people of China. A good friend of mine just spent about 6 months there, and had to leave recently due to SARS, but she had nothing but good things to say about their society and people. It's sad though, that governments can act so independantly of what their people desire...

Oh...wait...


<font color=red>Ignorance never settles a question.
<b>--Benjamin Disraeli</b></font color=red>

You're exactly right. And our apathy is what the government counts on if you ask me. Unfortunately, it seems that even when we DO raise our voices to protest the actions of our government, we are overlooked, or overruled, or what have you...



<font color=red>Ignorance never settles a question.
<b>--Benjamin Disraeli</b></font color=red>

how much would it have cost to install some water purification plants? It's a freaking island, water was not the reason they gave it to china. Supplies could be carried in, its been done before. Remember the berlin airlift? Britan either took the easy way out or there was something else that they didn't want us to know about.

Treat your body like a $600 car. God didn't intend it to last so use it. Run it into the ground!

The Berlin Airlift was only temporary. They couldn't have maintained that level of supply for much longer. Besides, that was half of Berlin that needed food, and they had all the airfields landing planes constantly (I mean like, 2 landing on the same strip at the same time), just to give the people enough to live off of. Hong Kong has many more people than Berlin of that day had, and the people there would not settle for enough food and water to "get by".

With Berlin it was absolutely necessary to keep it out of Soviet control, with Hong Kong it wasn't. Granted, it'd be doable, but not worth the cost of building all that infrastructure + pissing off China.

Some day I'll be rich and famous for inventing a device that allows you to stab people in the face over the internet.

They DID. They moved to Canada!

<font color=red>Ignorance never settles a question.
<b>--Benjamin Disraeli</b></font color=red>

agreed though I don't see japan in much of a position to attack anyone in the next half century at least. They have almost no military. We should have let them get done with china last time they invaded

Treat your body like a $600 car. God didn't intend it to last so use it. Run it into the ground!

Although you might be right, I think one needs to consider Africa as a major source of problems. No water, no food, epidemic diseases, fundamentalism, racism, and nobody really looking to clean any of it up.

War with China...sure I can see it. I can also see a war over water though.

<font color=green>Everyone should be like the Dutch. They're perfect.</font color=green>
<font color=red>
<A HREF="http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,1086025,00.asp" target="_new">Is Nvidia cheating?</A></font color=red>

And oddly enough the USA gives a lot of aid. Way more than most nations if not all nations.

<font color=green>Everyone should be like the Dutch. They're perfect.</font color=green>
<font color=red>
<A HREF="http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,1086025,00.asp" target="_new">Is Nvidia cheating?</A></font color=red>

I agree. I totally agree. But for one moment imagine a war that starts by the invasion of a vulnerable country with 60% of it's population infected by AIDS, suffering from famine, and drought. What would that country do to defend itself if complete invasion and destruction was inevitable?

They slaughter, canibalize, rape, and pillage everything in sight right now. What if they got a powerfull weapon? Those would truly be the most desperate people able to use it.

It's much like the middle east in which the people are repressed and having nothing to live for. They blow themselves up among civilians.

Fresh water is one of the most precious items this earth has amoung 6B people approaching 11B within our lifetime. Where is everyone going to get theirs? Maybe that first country I talked about has water and the will to protect it at any cost.

<font color=green>Everyone should be like the Dutch. They're perfect.</font color=green>
<font color=red>
<A HREF="http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,1086025,00.asp" target="_new">Is Nvidia cheating?</A></font color=red>

It's more a matter of finding ANY foreign aid to Africa. Even the USA's aid is minimal.

<font color=green>Everyone should be like the Dutch. They're perfect.</font color=green>
<font color=red>
<A HREF="http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,1086025,00.asp" target="_new">Is Nvidia cheating?</A></font color=red>

Yes, by GDP it will always be true. By dollar amount, no, not even close. Japan and the USA are the biggest donors by far and are pretty much neck and neck from what I have read.

We're still talking small dollar amounts though given to represive dictator governments. What they really need, and want, is more trade.

Like I said though, back to the point, Africa is a big problem. In 50 years when oil isn't as important you'll see most of the middle east join them in a frenzy of desperation beyond what we probably expect.

It's within our lifetimes.

<font color=green>Everyone should be like the Dutch. They're perfect.</font color=green>
<font color=red>
<A HREF="http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,1086025,00.asp" target="_new">Is Nvidia cheating?</A></font color=red>

I can ditto that... it was in the paper a couple of weeks ago.
In percentage what the Americans spend is actually very low compared to a lot of other countries. IIRC The Netherlands are one of the countries that spend a lot in precentage... and please don't start joking about this, this is serious.

My CPU fan spins so fast that it creates a wormhole

No joking here (I've missed the whole Dutch joke obviously).

It bothers me that we feel we can pat ourselves on the back because we donate more dollars than other countries. If they are donating more per GDP, then it's because they believe that aid is an important responsibility that comes with wealth.

Regarding communism, I think that people in this country suffer from leftover McCarthyism, AND...we're very ethnocentric. Any system that is inherantly different from our own, and that would require massive lifestyle changes were it implemented here in the US is obviously evil. Give up overconsumption?? No way!

<font color=red>Ignorance never settles a question.
<b>--Benjamin Disraeli</b></font color=red>

Agreed.
I believe that we need to support our own communities first, and teach other nations to do the same. Relying on imports or exports for subsistance is folly...and giving aid to poor countries to build up their ability to <b>trade</b> is just creating a co-dependancy that is unhealthy for both partners.

If instead we taught them how to grow enough food to feed themselves, to clean their water, develop their economy, educate their citizens, and help their own suffering, we would be helping them so much more.

But, humanitarianism is not what drives our foreign aid policies. Material gain is what we're after.

Anyway...I'm with you Auburn. Donate locally, support local businesses, try to choose products that are NOT created through slave labor and inhumane practices. You may not be on that particular bandwagon...but that's where I'm headed. Do what I can locally, and teach my children the same. Eventually, that notion will spread, and perhaps change will be made.

<font color=red>Ignorance never settles a question.
<b>--Benjamin Disraeli</b></font color=red>

It is strange.
The difference is that we kill other peoples through apathy, and people who hate us use weapons.

Same outcome though. People die.

<font color=red>Ignorance never settles a question.
<b>--Benjamin Disraeli</b></font color=red>

As I see it, the problem with communism is that it enlists everyone to a lifetime of government service while lowering the productivity of The State. One of the axioms of government is that government always seeks out its own interests and its own benefit. And frequently, the interests of a government is not the same as the interests of its people.

In a communism, The State can justify repressing its people as being beneficial to the commune. People lose their individual rights and freedoms and are forced to defer their own interests to those of The Motherland. It's much like a religion, from my perspective. People are forced to worship The State.

Government is, by its nature, inefficient. Why? Human nature. People who are given money with no incentive to spend it wisely will waste it. This is I don't believe politicians who tell me my tax money is going to be used to fix this, or to improve that. And I'm an American, and in a democracy, there is at least the option of punishing politicians of low acumen by electing them out of office. Imagine a communism, where the State is under no requirement to defer to the will of the people.

Communism does a fair job of creating economic equality on a large scale, but what good is economic equality if, in the final anlysis, most people are living in relative squalor? The great, fatal flaw in Marxism is that it assumes people <i>want</i> economic equality, when, in reality, people <i>want</i> freedom and opportunity more. Communism attempts to create the ideal State by eliminating social discontent of economic origins, but it fails to recognize that assured equality of results devolves into equality of production...everything sinks to a level of mediocrity. Why would one farmer strive to outproduce another if there is no incentive to do so? Think about it...take yourself as an example. Let's say you are striving towards your desired career, and the government tells you, "Our analysis of your aptitudes tells us you can best serve the state by being an auto mechanic. Therefore, you are going to serve in the military auto-pool for two years, and then you are going to work as a state-employed auto mechanic for the remainder of your career.

First of all, you would probably not be particularly content with the profession chosen for you by The State. Secondly, if you were being paid the same as the laziest and most incompetent auto mechanic, what incentive would you have to outproduce him?

The failing of communusm is that it results in equality. Mediocre equality. And the Soviet Union was a perfect example. The State was very strong and very effective at the executive level of government. Why? Because careers in the military or in high government were preferrable to anything else, and the smartest, most talented, and best-educated individuals ended up having a more cmfortable life in high stations. The People, however, were foundationally weak, and the government couldn't remain standing on that foundation.

Communism is bad because it destroys ambition.


<font color=green>The Netherlands is where you go when you're too good for heaven.</font color=green>

HA!
You think that people WANT to work at McDonald's??
MOST people in America would not CHOOSE their jobs. True, the possibility exists to change it, but MANY people here find themselves trapped in a low paying job with no where to go.

Communism, I agree, may have looked like an ideal on paper, where the reality is that it just doesn't work.

However, the same could be said for Capitalism. The American dream is the carrot held in front of our noses. The American dream is couched in lofty words of freedom and enterprise...but for many people it equates to nothing more than nearly slave-like <b>consumerism</b>!!

Remember 9-11? One of the first things that happened after that was a HUGE media campaign to get people "buying" again..."They can't take away our spirit! Buy a big-ass flag to wave from your car and a t-shirt that proclaims your nationality so that no one can mistake you for one of THEM!"

Personally, I think we need to find a new "ism".


<font color=red>Ignorance never settles a question.
<b>--Benjamin Disraeli</b></font color=red>

Problem is that that isn't communism (surtaintly not the communism Marx taled about) but Stalinism... full dictatorship with communist flavours.

Personaly I think socialism is the best option... it combines the bests out of capitalism and communism.

My CPU fan spins so fast that it creates a wormhole

Communisim in theory is the best.


dictatorship CAN WORK if you get a good leader (but that never works after the good leader dies and his kids take over)


capitalisim in the true sense would NOT WORK, but is kept held together with democracy.




democratic socialism i think would perhaps work.

vote in a public voice (they have no power) this person is the face of the nation and does the talking on behalf of everyone (but has no opinion of his/her own)

everyone gets to vote on everything, a computer by the door, and everyday as you come home you are asked to vote on that days topic.


this way the views of the greatest numbers of people can be brought across, (instead of the current democracy where its kinda dictatorship/democracy roled into one)



you need a system with NO GOVERNMENT as such.
but still a sense of order created by the wishes of the people


Alltaken