Why We Lost The Vietnam War

"ANDREW ROBERT BREEN" wrote in message
...

Having looked at Russia (from flights out to Japan) the USA is small
and the UK very small..


Yes, as I said, it depends on one's point of view.

"ANDREW ROBERT BREEN" wrote in message
...
In article .net,
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Spiv" wrote in message
...

I'm not comparing the UK with others. I am looking at the UK. It is
not
small.

I am looking at the UK too. It is small.

Having looked at Russia (from flights out to Japan) the USA is small
and the UK very small..


Yeah I recall an 8 hour flight from Leningrad that got me
about half way to Vladivostok.

Keith

In article ,
Keith Willshaw wrote:

"ANDREW ROBERT BREEN" wrote in message
...
In article .net,
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

I am looking at the UK too. It is small.

Having looked at Russia (from flights out to Japan) the USA is small
and the UK very small..

Yeah I recall an 8 hour flight from Leningrad that got me
about half way to Vladivostok.

Would that have been to Yakutsk? My former boss (now dead, sadly)
spent a fair amount of time working with the geophysical institute
there in the middle and late 80s, eventually leading to him being
immortalised by Steve Bell as the Plaid Siberu candidate in the
Vale of Yakutsk bye-election series of cartoons.

--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
"Time has stopped, says the Black Lion clock
and eternity has begun" (Dylan Thomas)

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"Spiv" wrote in message
...



Its 2/3 the size of Germany
Its 1/2 the size of Iraq
Its 1/2 the size of France
Its 40% of the size of Afghanistan
Its 3% of the size of the USA
Its 2 % of the size of the Russian Federation

London is closer to Tunis than Seattle is to Washington DC

The UK falls on the sall side of the distribution curve
in geographic terms

You really are hard of thinking. I am not comparing the UK with any
other
country sigh, just looking at the UK singularly. It is not small.




Small , medium and large are not absolute measures.
They are words that we use making comparisons and
are completely meaningless in a singular context.

and...?

"Brett" wrote in message
...
"Spiv" wrote:
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
link.net...

"Spiv" wrote in message
...

I'm not comparing the UK with others. I am looking at the UK. It
is
not
small.


I am looking at the UK too. It is small.

It holds 60 million people and can easy hold 30 million more.

You could probably fit 60 million people on the Isle of Wight (with not
much
"personal" space).

Such wisdom. Duh

"Brett" wrote in message
...
"Spiv" wrote:
"Brett" wrote in message
...
"Dave Holford" wrote:

...

I have been following this "discussion"? with amusement and would
like
to make the following contributions:

I recall that at one time every page of most atlases used in British
schools tended to have a corner insert of the British Isles to
provide
a
sense of scale - invariably they were tiny by comparison with the
countries being depicted.

I am old enough to have seen the Brabazon in the air, and it
certainly
gave me the impression of a large but ungainly aircraft which was
being
handled with great care. I have also flown in Britannias, Viscounts
and
Vanguards; and while I found all three comfortable it should be
obvious
to anyone that the Viscount was the only successful one.

The bit I find amusing is "Spiv" has yet to indicate that he even has
a
remote clue about the specification that led to the Viscount.

I never said I did.

Actually you have.

Enlighten us then.

I have.

Where?

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
link.net...

"Spiv" wrote in message
...

You really are hard of thinking. I am not comparing the UK with any
other
country sigh, just looking at the UK singularly. It is not small.

I've been to the UK. Looking at it singularly, it is small.

Could you walk around it in a day?

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
link.net...

"ANDREW ROBERT BREEN" wrote in message
...

Having looked at Russia (from flights out to Japan) the USA is small
and the UK very small..


Yes, as I said, it depends on one's point of view.

Depends on its ability to support people and feed them from the land. The
UK can do that with no problems - 60 million of them.

"ANDREW ROBERT BREEN" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith Willshaw wrote:

"ANDREW ROBERT BREEN" wrote in message
...
In article .net,
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

I am looking at the UK too. It is small.

Having looked at Russia (from flights out to Japan) the USA is small
and the UK very small..

Yeah I recall an 8 hour flight from Leningrad that got me
about half way to Vladivostok.

Would that have been to Yakutsk? My former boss (now dead, sadly)
spent a fair amount of time working with the geophysical institute
there in the middle and late 80s, eventually leading to him being
immortalised by Steve Bell as the Plaid Siberu candidate in the
Vale of Yakutsk bye-election series of cartoons.


No it was to Tashkent, I was working for ICI at the time
and they built the Soviets a Terylene Plant there.

Keith

In article , Spiv wrote:

"David Thornley" wrote in message
m...
In article , Spiv
wrote:

I know exactly what they are. Overseas territories, are just that, no
matter what the sovereign state calls them.

If you are going to suggest that Alaska and Hawaii are not part
of the US,

Yes I am. Alaska has a lot of Canada between it and the USA.

If you're going to talk some language vaguely related to English,
as opposed to English, you might as well let us know beforehand.

Alaska and Hawaii are part of the US. Between WWI and WWII, East
Prussia was part of Germany. Why is this so difficult to
understand?

you're suggesting something that nobody will agree with.

I couldn't care.

Obviously. Here's a clue: if you want to get anything out of
participation in Usenet, you really should be able to communicate.
Disagreeing with entire national populations about what a country
is does not seem, to me, like communicating.

BTW, local Hawaiians want independence. The US stole the
islands. It has now more westerners on it than locals.

Granted that the US stole the islands, like a lot of other US
territory, are you sure the locals want independence? I wouldn't
be surprised to find some do; on Puerto Rico (stolen in the 1898 war)
there are a good number of people who want independence, a good number
who want statehood, and a larger number who like the status quo.

BTW, "has now more westerners on it than locals" is a fairly good
description of most of the US, given suitable definitions of
"westerners" and "locals".

--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
| If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-