Why We Lost The Vietnam War

"Spiv" wrote in message
...



France is NOT repeat NOT a geographical territory. Its
a political construct who's geographical boundaries have changed at
least 3 times since 1870. French Guiana is also a department of France
like any other but geographically it happens to lie in
Central America. Its citizens hold French passports, they
use the Euro, Jacques Chirac is their president etc.

Nation states are not synonymous with the real estate they
sit on. Denmark like the United Kingdom , Germany and
Poland is a POLITICAL entity NOT a geographical one.

We can look at it the other way. The Isle of Man is not in the EU and has
some strange binding, non-binding link wit the UK. It is right in the
middle of the UK with the UK either side of it. It means nothing as it IS
a
part of the UK by proximity.


It is NOT part of the UK
It is part of the British Isles

One is a poltical entity the other goegraphical

La Reunion, Greenland, Gib, Falklands, Puerto Rico, Greenland etc are NOT
a
part of their mother countries (the country that has sovereignty over
them).

SOME are , having the same sovereignty is what defines a nation state.

La Reunion , Guiana and a part of the European continent make up the
country called France.

England is a geographical entity that is part of
the political entity called England and Wales

England and Wales are in turn part of that political enity
called the United Kingdom. The UK IS a nation state,
Scotland, NI, Wales and England are not at present but have been
in the past.

Countries change even when geography is static.
The territiry known as AlsaceLorraine has at various times
in the past century been both part of France and part of
Germany.

They are separate entities, irrespective of what they are politically
called.

Please TRY and understand that political entities and geographical entities
are not the same thing. One describes the topology of the planet and
the other the political system under which it is ruled.


Keith

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"Spiv" wrote in message
...



France is NOT repeat NOT a geographical territory. Its
a political construct who's geographical boundaries have changed at
least 3 times since 1870. French Guiana is also a department of France
like any other but geographically it happens to lie in
Central America. Its citizens hold French passports, they
use the Euro, Jacques Chirac is their president etc.

Nation states are not synonymous with the real estate they
sit on. Denmark like the United Kingdom , Germany and
Poland is a POLITICAL entity NOT a geographical one.

We can look at it the other way. The Isle of Man is not in the EU and
has
some strange binding, non-binding link wit the UK. It is right in the
middle of the UK with the UK either side of it. It means nothing as it
IS
a
part of the UK by proximity.


It is NOT part of the UK
It is part of the British Isles

One is a poltical entity the other goegraphical

La Reunion, Greenland, Gib, Falklands, Puerto Rico, Greenland etc are
NOT
a
part of their mother countries (the country that has sovereignty over
them).

SOME are , having the same sovereignty is what defines a nation state.

La Reunion , Guiana and a part of the European continent make up the
country called France.

England is a geographical entity that is part of
the political entity called England and Wales

England and Wales are in turn part of that political enity
called the United Kingdom. The UK IS a nation state,
Scotland, NI, Wales and England are not at present but have been
in the past.

Countries change even when geography is static.
The territiry known as AlsaceLorraine has at various times
in the past century been both part of France and part of
Germany.

They are separate entities, irrespective of what they are politically
called.

Please TRY and understand that political entities and geographical
entities
are not the same thing.

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

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, you're suggesting something that nobody will agree with.

Now, if the US can be geographically split, why can't France or
Denmark? Without actually looking at a globe, I'd imagine that
Greenland is closer to continental Denmark than Hawaii is to
the continental US.



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

"David Thornley" wrote in message
...
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, you're suggesting something that nobody will agree with.


Damm you beat me to it

Keith

"David Thornley" wrote in message
...
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.

you're suggesting something that nobody will agree with.

I couldn't care. BTW, local Hawaiians want independence. The US stole the
islands. It has now more westerners on it than locals.




Now, if the US can be geographically split, why can't France or
Denmark? Without actually looking at a globe, I'd imagine that
Greenland is closer to continental Denmark than Hawaii is to
the continental US.



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

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-

"David Thornley" wrote in message
...
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.

As is are the Falklands a part of the UK if we go to the point of who has
sovereignty. However these places are not a part of the main mother. They
are detached and acquired much later.

Between WWI and WWII, East
Prussia was part of Germany.

And it disappeared because it was not a part of the mother country.

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?

Last I read.

I wouldn't
be surprised to find some do; on Puerto Rico (stolen in the 1898 war)

Not a part of the USA apparently being some sort of protectorate as are the
US Virgin Islands.

"Spiv" wrote:
"David Thornley" wrote in message

...

Granted that the US stole the islands, like a lot of other US
territory, are you sure the locals want independence?

Last I read.

This thread would lead most sane people to believe you don't actually have
that in your skill set.

In article , Spiv wrote:

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

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.

As is are the Falklands a part of the UK if we go to the point of who has
sovereignty.

Sovereignity is not the issue here. Do the people who live in the
Falklands vote for members of the Parliament that sits in London?
Do they have UK citizenship? It is possible to have sovereignity
over a territory without it being a part of the sovereign country.
That's not the point here.

However these places are not a part of the main mother. They
are detached and acquired much later.

Some are, some aren't. The Falklands is not a part of the UK in
the same way Hawaii is part of the US.

Between WWI and WWII, East
Prussia was part of Germany.

And it disappeared because it was not a part of the mother country.

No, it disappeared along with a good chunk of Silesia, in a
Stalin-dictated border shift.

Granted that the US stole the islands, like a lot of other US
territory, are you sure the locals want independence?

Last I read.

Could be. It really doesn't matter much, except to them.

I wouldn't
be surprised to find some do; on Puerto Rico (stolen in the 1898 war)

Not a part of the USA apparently being some sort of protectorate as are the
US Virgin Islands.

Puerto Rico is in its own anomalous status, and it isn't really part of
the US by the standards I set. It is conceivable that it could be
formally independent within the next ten or twenty years, although
it would surprise me. That isn't happening with Hawaii.


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

"David Thornley" wrote in message
...
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, you're suggesting something that nobody will agree with.

Now, if the US can be geographically split, why can't France or
Denmark? Without actually looking at a globe, I'd imagine that
Greenland is closer to continental Denmark than Hawaii is to
the continental US.

In your logic all of the British Empire was the UK. And Britain killing
100,000 Japs in the "UK" was not worth it, as it was a distraction of some
sort and all Britain's forces should have been around Japan. Hawaii is not
even in the American continent.