Comments:U.S. warships temporarily denied entry to Hong Kong

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Back to article

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Quick hints for new commentators:

  • Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
  • Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
  • You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading



Why should China allow them to dock anyway? Codes can require assistance or repairs, but lacking either justification I see no reason to expect them to allow foreign military ships to dock in their territory. 66.157.100.253 23:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well it was a previously planned event with their consent and one that seems to have occured in the past as well (though not too sure on how many times it has happened since China got HK back from the British). --SVTCobra 23:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to find this out but was mainly busy with Thanksgiving stuff today. So far it appears to have docked there at least once since the switchover to China. JoshuaZ 00:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, carrier battle groups don't just show up unannounced, saying "Hi, can we dock here?" unless they have some serious ill intent. China was definitely doing a little power-play. Happy Thanksgiving. --SVTCobra 00:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know this comment comes a bit late, and probably won't be read, but I have to say that navies from all nations routinely dock at foreign ports. I guess it's just tradition. I was on the Kitty Hawk from 2002 to 2005, and we made port visits to Hong Kong three times, Pusan twice, as well as Singapore, and Fremantle. We also visited Guam twice, but that island is part of the United States. The Australian navy makes regular port visits to Japan as well as several other navies from around the world.

A Chinese power play to deny entry to US warships that travel to Hong Kong from ports in Japan? Sure its only the Chinese playing around here? 66.157.100.253 01:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

well played, lol! why is the carrier there anyway? Apart from the politics of it, i think the idea of letting U.S soldiers stay in HK over thanksgiving probably didn't appeal to the police, they don't exactly have a reputation for not causing trouble! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.210.78 (talk) 05:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They also have a reputation for spending a lot of money, which is why they are tolerated. Hong Kong has a fleet landing and a large number of water taxis dedicated to ferrying sailors from all nations to and from their ships. Along with the dozens of brothels in Wan Chai, they bring hundreds of thousands of dollars into the local economy every year.

Why is a US warship trying to dock in China?!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.244.17.144 (talk) 18:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

visit to Kittyhawk 1963 in hong kong[edit]

Hi....I had the great pleasure to visit this great ship when it arrived in Hong Kong in 1963.Due to its size,it anchored off of Lantau Island. I was a School boy at the time,and remember my visit as if it were yesterday. I was treated superbly by the sailors at that time and given some memorabilia which I have today,and cherrish. I now live in Central Florida,and would one day love to re-visit her now she has gone into retirement. Can you please let me know how I can go about making such a visit. Thankyou. Robert A Allen..Orlando.—89.194.69.143 (talk) 07:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]