Cycling Forums - View Single Post

07-18-2003, 09:52 AM

luigi12081@cox.net (Luigi de Guzman) wrote in message news:<308301c1.0307151912.7a801e5c@posting.google. com>...
> Jim Price <maxxard@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3f14800f$0$15035$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.co m>...
> > Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 09:36:17 +1000, "Deep Floyd Mars"
> > > <deepfloydmars@yDONTaBEhSHYoNOWo.co.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>The whole of Europe is a former warzone!
> > >
> > >
> > > Where isn't?
> >
> > Antarctica and the moon spring to mind. In more populated areas,
> > Thailand has done reasonably well, I believe.
>
> my memory's bad, but I seem to recall there were a number of wars
> between Siamese and Khmer rulers. wish I had my references easily at
> hand.
>
> More recently, the Thai made out extremely well from the Second World
> War, siding at first with the Japanese (and of their own initiative
> carving out bits of British Malaya and French Indochina) and then
> switching sides and favouring the allies.
>
> I would have gone somewhere more remote, like, say, Bhutan, but I
> doubt even then that there hasn't been a war at some time or other
> through that particular bit of the world.
>
> Among the more populated places in the world, Switzerland has done
> remarkably well over the past several hundred years, in the sense that
> there has been no war contested within its territory, nor has it been
> an active belligerent in any.
>
> -Luigi
>
> trivium: "War" in the social science literature requires two
> indentifiable political communities to be in conflict with each other,
> and that that same conflict should result in more than 1,000 deaths on
> both sides.

Re the last point: that means the Gulf conflicts weren't wars! In both
the alliance lost less than 1000. I don't think the Brits lost more
than a 1,000 in the Falklands either. I didn't ride through Albania;
the Shokodra to Kukes road I needed to use to get to Kosovo has has a
travel warning from both the FCO and the US gov. I was told by a
friend in Prishtina that I wouldn't make it. You can't get more of a
stark warning than that. I went back into Montenegro to get to Kosovo,
which is quite safe BTW. With 50,000 KFOR troops there, and seemingly
every other car being a police car, it could hardly not be.

By 'war zone' I meant a country that had had land conflict on it's
soil. So yes, that means lots of Europe is a former war-zone from WW2.
But, by that definition, not the UK (in the air, yes), Portugal,
Spain, Bulgaria (was occuppied but no fighting) and Switzerland. Of
course, if think air war over a countries territory makes it a war
zone then you have to include the US, because of Pearl Harbour. No
where else in Europe had conflict as recently as 1999, like Kosovo. I
didn't worry to much about land mines in Germany!

07-18-2003, 09:52 AM	#6 (permalink)
GB Guest Posts: n/a	Re: Cycling Europe luigi12081@cox.net (Luigi de Guzman) wrote in message news:<308301c1.0307151912.7a801e5c@posting.google. com>... > Jim Price <maxxard@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3f14800f$0$15035$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.co m>... > > Just zis Guy, you know? wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 09:36:17 +1000, "Deep Floyd Mars" > > > <deepfloydmars@yDONTaBEhSHYoNOWo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > > >>The whole of Europe is a former warzone! > > > > > > > > > Where isn't? > > > > Antarctica and the moon spring to mind. In more populated areas, > > Thailand has done reasonably well, I believe. > > my memory's bad, but I seem to recall there were a number of wars > between Siamese and Khmer rulers. wish I had my references easily at > hand. > > More recently, the Thai made out extremely well from the Second World > War, siding at first with the Japanese (and of their own initiative > carving out bits of British Malaya and French Indochina) and then > switching sides and favouring the allies. > > I would have gone somewhere more remote, like, say, Bhutan, but I > doubt even then that there hasn't been a war at some time or other > through that particular bit of the world. > > Among the more populated places in the world, Switzerland has done > remarkably well over the past several hundred years, in the sense that > there has been no war contested within its territory, nor has it been > an active belligerent in any. > > -Luigi > > trivium: "War" in the social science literature requires two > indentifiable political communities to be in conflict with each other, > and that that same conflict should result in more than 1,000 deaths on > both sides. Re the last point: that means the Gulf conflicts weren't wars! In both the alliance lost less than 1000. I don't think the Brits lost more than a 1,000 in the Falklands either. I didn't ride through Albania; the Shokodra to Kukes road I needed to use to get to Kosovo has has a travel warning from both the FCO and the US gov. I was told by a friend in Prishtina that I wouldn't make it. You can't get more of a stark warning than that. I went back into Montenegro to get to Kosovo, which is quite safe BTW. With 50,000 KFOR troops there, and seemingly every other car being a police car, it could hardly not be. By 'war zone' I meant a country that had had land conflict on it's soil. So yes, that means lots of Europe is a former war-zone from WW2. But, by that definition, not the UK (in the air, yes), Portugal, Spain, Bulgaria (was occuppied but no fighting) and Switzerland. Of course, if think air war over a countries territory makes it a war zone then you have to include the US, because of Pearl Harbour. No where else in Europe had conflict as recently as 1999, like Kosovo. I didn't worry to much about land mines in Germany!