Why We Lost The Vietnam War

"D. Patterson" wrote in message
...

"Spiv" wrote in message
...

"D. Patterson" wrote in message
...

"Spiv" wrote in message
...

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

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in
message
...

The Tu-104 was in service before the Comet 4 and 707
for sure.


The Tu-104 began passenger operations in September 1956.



I once flew to Moscow in one during the
mid 70's , strange aircraft with that glazed nose one
almost expected to see a bombardier sitting there.


The Tu-104 was essentially a modified Tu-16 bomber.

The 707 was essentially a modified bomber too. Uncle Sam paid for
the
development.

No, the Boeing 707 was never a bomber.

They took a lot from previous Boeing bombers. Look at the wings of some
of
them. What a give away. A company that is making bombers, essentially
large transports, of course would fall back on the technology they are
familiar with. They didn't forget it, pretend it wasn't there and start
all
over again.

Previous Boeing jet bombers, B-47 and B-52, all had swept-back high wings
suited to bombers, which are unlike the low to swept-back mid-wing design
of
the Boeing 707 series suited to airliners.

Fighter aircraft also have wings, but that certainly does not make them
bombers either.

Boeing's experience in producing bombers AND airliners does not make a
Boeing airliner a non-existant Boeing bomber.

Most of the bomber experience was transferred over to the 707. The wings
are virtually the same angle and shape. In reality Uncle Sam paid the lions
share of the 707s development.

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"Spiv" wrote in message
...

the merchant ships after all.

The country could feed itself that was for sure.

So why do you think Britain imported vast amounts
of grain from the USA and Canada and beef from Argentina

So people;le would be engaged in war production, rather than food
production.

The Germans wanted to sink
arms more than food.

Trouble is most of the ships sunk werent carrying arms.

Because that was imported the most, and raw materials.

Pete wrote:
"Spiv" wrote in message
...

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in

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

Could you walk around it in a day?

Finally, we see the definition of "small".

By this measure, there is no such things as a "small" country".

Andorra, Monaco, Liechtenstein? Although I recall Andorra being the
relatively large one of the three. Monaco, pretty sure you could walk
around it in 1 day easy.

--
Cheers, www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA

20% of the world is real.
80% is gobbledygook we make up inside our own heads.

Gord Beaman wrote:
"Brett" wrote:


Simple mathematics, the Isle of Wight packed end to end with single
beds would allow about 60 million people their own bed.


With that kinda thinking it wouldn't be long before you'd need a
lot more beds...

In reference to my 'poultry farm' post, I wonder how one would handle
medical and emergency services? Maybe disease and fires would kill a lot of
people off. This is reminding me of a scenario I tried to run in a city
builder game called 'Zeus.' I wanted to build a city that was entirely tent
slums, but they kept on getting the plague and also burning to the ground!

--
Cheers, www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA

20% of the world is real.
80% is gobbledygook we make up inside our own heads.

"Brandon J. Van Every" wrote in
message ...
Pete wrote:
"Spiv" wrote in message
...

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in

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

Could you walk around it in a day?

Finally, we see the definition of "small".

By this measure, there is no such things as a "small" country".

Andorra, Monaco, Liechtenstein? Although I recall Andorra being the
relatively large one of the three. Monaco, pretty sure you could walk
around it in 1 day easy.


San Marino is definitely doable in a day as is The Vatican

Keith

"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.

Kenya is a hot country. This is like saying, oh Kenya is not a hot country
because Saudi Arabia is hotter.

Spiv wrote:

"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.

How does one look at a nation singularly? Through one eye? (^-^)))

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

How does one look at a nation singularly? Through one eye? (^-^)))


You'll have to ask Spiv.

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-

In article ,
James Hart wrote:
Brett wrote:
"James Hart" wrote:

It's an often mentioned piece of trivia but you could fit the entire
population of the world on the Isle of Wight if they were to all
stand up shoulder to shoulder. I'd like to see it proved

About 6.3B people on 135 square miles - so they would each get about
0.6 square feet to stand in.

Maybe it only works when the tides's out, or the tall people stand in the
sea.

Last I heard something like that, the world population was more like
three billion, which gives over one square foot per person, which
should be enough on the average. (I have big feet.)

On the other hand, I used to get mild claustrophobia attacks now and
then in large crowds, so if you don't mind I'll bow out of the
experiment.

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