• Womble@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Yeah the reason HK went the way it did was because China could credibly say “Give it to us or we take it”. Argentina already tried the take it by force way, when their military was in a much better state than it is now, and there was effectively no military garrison on the islands. Argentina have pretty much zero leverage here.

    • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      last I heard, the people on falkland don’t want to be argentinian either.

      Which should be the biggest, and loudest, reason to oppose Argentinian demands for the island.

      • tankplanker@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Majority of people in Hong Kong at the time didn’t want to be part of China either, a lot of them left China already for a reason.

    • Rediphile@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Hong Kong was a completely different situation as the British signed a specific lease for Hong Kong with a set end date that was known all along. Nothing like that happened with the Falklands.

      • Womble@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s a common misconception, the 99 year lease was on the New Territories, rural areas in the north of HK. Hong Kong Island and Kowloon (the heavily urban bits you think of when you think Hong Kong) were under no such lease, they had been permanently ceded to Britain when it was just a fishing village on the coast.