Yes because an entirely different situation is directly comparable.
Falklands-
British territory invaded then retaken.
Hong Kong-
Chinese territory taken on as a known business contract which reached its end as expected.
Not that different and here's why:
Why have even hold a referendum if the territory was always British? It should be a total non-issue. But both cases involve two powers having a dispute over a piece of real estate, but with locals caught in the middle.
Funny how locals matter in one British territory while they don't in the other.
lol @ "business contract"
Also, no a garrison is not a legitimate settlement. It doesn't show an intent to stay and develop a land.
As long as they're there, why does it matter if they build roads or do nothing? Who decides what is right development? By that logic, hunters gatherers should give way to more advanced civilizations since the hunters never stay in one place and let precious natural ressources go to waste.
And anyway even if it was, it was a private French settlement, not an Argentinean one. The fact the mercenaries who made up the garrison were from Argentina doesn't make it Argentinian.
Yoiu're conflicting issues. They were officially part of the Argentinian federation, what was then Argentina and acting on their behalf. Who and what every single individual was is irrelevant. You're splitting hairs here.
I'm not trying to be a dick, but that's plainly ignorant. For one, North America, Australia and most of the Caribbean say hi as places that aren't "overseas outposts". For another, honestly it makes no sense at all. What does any of that have to do with the absurdity that British colonialism of South America is illegitimate, but Spanish colonialism isn't?
I'd be careful before calling anyone anything.
Why bring up North America? The US has been ccompletely independent from the UK for over 200 years. Canada still has ties has a consitutional monarchy, but largely independent. Australia is a republic now. As far as I'm concerned, they're different actors.
There might be a misunderstanding still. I meant earlier that I'd respect the Falklands better if they were an independent entity rather than just a pawn to the faraway United Kingdom. I view them as no better than St Pierre & Michelon in that respect (convenient fishing port for French boats).
Um what? Tibetans are a subjugated people. Israel actively suppresses and illegally takes land from Palestinians. What does this have to do with the Falklands? There are no Argentineans being subjugated, suppressed and no land has been illegally taken. Again, the British have held claim to the Falklands before Argentina was a sovereign nation. Consequently, it's the Argentineans who are acting like the agressors in this situation.
Ok just checking!