On 06/03/2014 21:16, Fredxxx wrote:
Nice thought but you have no idea of the maintenance of keeping a deep
mine open.

I do. It's almost as expensive and labour intensive as actually digging
the coal out.

I also know how difficult it is to re-open a pit after it's filled
itself with water and all the props have collapsed, fracturing
previously solid rock. For example, the Potteries coal field area still
suffers from frequent small earthquakes caused by yet another tunnel
collapsing, three decades after the last pit closed.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
On 06/03/2014 19:41, Rod Speed wrote:


"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
On 06/03/2014 13:11, bert wrote:
In message , Huge
writes
On 2014-03-06, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Thu, 6 Mar 2014 07:49:02 -0000, harryagain wrote:

The easy to extract stuff has long been used up.

There was plenty of easy to extract coal about until Thatcher waged
war on Scargill and lots of pits closed.

Again, the Labour Party closed more pits faster than Thatcher ever
did.


You mean faster than Scargill did.

It takes two to tango.

It took Thatcher *and* Scargill to kill the mining industry in the UK.

If either one of them had backed down or been willing to compromise
even slightly...

They still would have closed anyway.

Eventually, yes.

So it really doesn't matter when it happens.

Or they could have been mothballed, ready to open again when coal prices
rose.

The problem wasn't the coal prices, the problem was
that it is never going to be possible to compete with
open cut coal mining when the coal you have is
underground in very narrow and broken seams.

But from the sidelines, it looked like two alpha males, neither of which
would back down due to an excess of pride.

Sure, but the reality was that the industry had been dying
for a long time before Maggie got any say on anything.

Fredxxx wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Brian Gaff wrote

Yes and to be frank, If I were in Russia shoes at the moment with a
wobbly right wing load of oddballs in charge, and my fleet and lots of
Russians in that country, I'd probably do exactly what they did. its
all fine EU n and america wringing their hands, but they are not
sitting next door to them and do not have a fleet and ethnic russians
in that country do they .

As for the pipe line, the only reason I suspect Eu are involved in
Ukraine at all is the energy aspect. Its as transparent as a window.
You cannot be having vested interests and deny that others have them
also.

And it’s a bit rich the US and Britain howling about what
Russia is doing in the Crimea after what both did with Iraq.

That is the bit I don't understand.

We have interests in Falklands and Gibraltar, that we only hang onto by
the excuse that the indigenous population want to stay British.

And the Crimeans want to be Russian.

Those aren't in fact mostly the indigenous population tho.

And Britain has been very reluctant to let Scotland
say what it wants to do sovereignty wise.

The US had a full civil war over that particular issue.

We can hardly say that Iraq wanted to be "liberated"!

Quite a few of them did want to get rid of Saddam, and
basically told the west 'thanks for that, now **** off out
of our country RIGHT NOW' once they had done that.

Labour were happy to burn gas to give people cheap energy and invested
noting in mining or nuclear power, they gave the money to people employed
in make believe jobs in the public sector instead.


And nothing changes ... This time, they created make-believe jobs in the
green energy sector, and gave all the money to them. The latest lot have
gone along with that, and continue not only to do the same, but to create
ever more and more worthless jobs in the equally worthless eco-bollox sector
.... :-(

Arfa

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...
Yes and to be frank, If I were in Russia shoes at the moment with a
wobbly right wing load of oddballs in charge, and my fleet and lots of
Russians in that country, I'd probably do exactly what they did. its all
fine EU n and america wringing their hands, but they are not sitting next
door to them and do not have a fleet and ethnic russians in that country
do they .

As for the pipe line, the only reason I suspect Eu are involved in
Ukraine at all is the energy aspect. Its as transparent as a window. You
cannot be having vested interests and deny that others have them also.

And it’s a bit rich the US and Britain howling about what
Russia is doing in the Crimea after what both did with Iraq.


They don't have much choice but to howl, given that they signed a treaty in
1994 that pledged them to protecting Ukraine's borders in the event of a
Russian invasion, which 2000 or more troops crossing into the country, might
be considered as being ??

Arfa

Arfa Daily wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Brian Gaff wrote

Yes and to be frank, If I were in Russia shoes at the moment with a
wobbly right wing load of oddballs in charge, and my fleet and lots of
Russians in that country, I'd probably do exactly what they did. its all
fine EU n and america wringing their hands, but they are not sitting
next door to them and do not have a fleet and ethnic russians in that
country do they .

As for the pipe line, the only reason I suspect Eu are involved in
Ukraine at all is the energy aspect. Its as transparent as a window. You
cannot be having vested interests and deny that others have them also.

And it’s a bit rich the US and Britain howling about what
Russia is doing in the Crimea after what both did with Iraq.

They don't have much choice but to howl,

Sure, but they don’t have any real credibility post the invasion of Iraq.

given that they signed a treaty in 1994 that pledged them to protecting
Ukraine's borders in the event of a Russian invasion, which 2000 or more
troops crossing into the country, might be considered as being ??

Sure, but it was nothing like what they did to Iraq.

In message , Arfa Daily
writes


"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...
Yes and to be frank, If I were in Russia shoes at the moment with a
wobbly right wing load of oddballs in charge, and my fleet and lots
of Russians in that country, I'd probably do exactly what they did.
its all fine EU n and america wringing their hands, but they are not
sitting next door to them and do not have a fleet and ethnic
russians in that country do they .

As for the pipe line, the only reason I suspect Eu are involved in
Ukraine at all is the energy aspect. Its as transparent as a window.
You cannot be having vested interests and deny that others have them also.

And its a bit rich the US and Britain howling about what
Russia is doing in the Crimea after what both did with Iraq.


They don't have much choice but to howl, given that they signed a
treaty in 1994 that pledged them to protecting Ukraine's borders in the
event of a Russian invasion, which 2000 or more troops crossing into
the country, might be considered as being ??

Arfa

Sounds like the sort of thing we did in 1938. NO doubt Hague will
shortly fly back from Kiev waving a piece of paper and declaring "peace
in our time"
--
bert

"bert" ] wrote in message
...
In message , Arfa Daily
writes


"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...
Yes and to be frank, If I were in Russia shoes at the moment with a
wobbly right wing load of oddballs in charge, and my fleet and lots of
Russians in that country, I'd probably do exactly what they did. its
all fine EU n and america wringing their hands, but they are not
sitting next door to them and do not have a fleet and ethnic russians
in that country do they .

As for the pipe line, the only reason I suspect Eu are involved in
Ukraine at all is the energy aspect. Its as transparent as a window.
You cannot be having vested interests and deny that others have them
also.

And its a bit rich the US and Britain howling about what
Russia is doing in the Crimea after what both did with Iraq.


They don't have much choice but to howl, given that they signed a treaty
in 1994 that pledged them to protecting Ukraine's borders in the event of
a Russian invasion, which 2000 or more troops crossing into the country,
might be considered as being ??

Arfa

Sounds like the sort of thing we did in 1938. NO doubt Hague will shortly
fly back from Kiev waving a piece of paper and declaring "peace in our
time"

Bet he doesnt, essentially because Britain is essentially irrelevant now.

On 09/03/2014 00:20, bert wrote:
....
Sounds like the sort of thing we did in 1938. NO doubt Hague will
shortly fly back from Kiev waving a piece of paper and declaring "peace
in our time"

Or, perhaps, even 'peace for our time', which Chamberlain did not say at
Heston Aerodrome, when waving the agreement, but later, after returning
to 10 Downing Street. There has been debate about how much it was a
genuine attempt at peace and how much it was a ploy to gain more time
for rearmament.

Colin Bignell

In message , Nightjar
writes
On 09/03/2014 00:20, bert wrote:
...
Sounds like the sort of thing we did in 1938. NO doubt Hague will
shortly fly back from Kiev waving a piece of paper and declaring "peace
in our time"

Or, perhaps, even 'peace for our time', which Chamberlain did not say
at Heston Aerodrome, when waving the agreement, but later, after
returning to 10 Downing Street. There has been debate about how much it
was a genuine attempt at peace and how much it was a ploy to gain more
time for rearmament.

Colin Bignell
Either way the Czechs were stuffed, just like the Ukrainians will be,
and for the Poles read Estonians.
--
bert

On 09/03/2014 23:48, bert wrote:
In message , Nightjar
writes
On 09/03/2014 00:20, bert wrote:
...
Sounds like the sort of thing we did in 1938. NO doubt Hague will
shortly fly back from Kiev waving a piece of paper and declaring "peace
in our time"

Or, perhaps, even 'peace for our time', which Chamberlain did not say
at Heston Aerodrome, when waving the agreement, but later, after
returning to 10 Downing Street. There has been debate about how much
it was a genuine attempt at peace and how much it was a ploy to gain
more time for rearmament.

Either way the Czechs were stuffed, just like the Ukrainians will be,
and for the Poles read Estonians.

We didn't have a treaty with Czechoslovakia, but we did have one to
guarantee Polish independence, which is not unlike the NATO commitment
to the Ukraine.

Colin Bignell

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 09/03/2014 23:48, bert wrote:
In message , Nightjar
writes
On 09/03/2014 00:20, bert wrote:
...
Sounds like the sort of thing we did in 1938. NO doubt Hague will
shortly fly back from Kiev waving a piece of paper and declaring "peace
in our time"

Or, perhaps, even 'peace for our time', which Chamberlain did not say
at Heston Aerodrome, when waving the agreement, but later, after
returning to 10 Downing Street. There has been debate about how much
it was a genuine attempt at peace and how much it was a ploy to gain
more time for rearmament.

Either way the Czechs were stuffed, just like the Ukrainians will be,
and for the Poles read Estonians.

We didn't have a treaty with Czechoslovakia, but we did have one to
guarantee Polish independence, which is not unlike the NATO commitment to
the Ukraine.

But that is a NATO commitment and not a british treaty.

And we wont see britain declare war on russia now, you watch.

On 10/03/2014 05:06, Rod Speed wrote:


"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 09/03/2014 23:48, bert wrote:
In message , Nightjar
writes
On 09/03/2014 00:20, bert wrote:
...
Sounds like the sort of thing we did in 1938. NO doubt Hague will
shortly fly back from Kiev waving a piece of paper and declaring
"peace
in our time"

Or, perhaps, even 'peace for our time', which Chamberlain did not say
at Heston Aerodrome, when waving the agreement, but later, after
returning to 10 Downing Street. There has been debate about how much
it was a genuine attempt at peace and how much it was a ploy to gain
more time for rearmament.

Either way the Czechs were stuffed, just like the Ukrainians will be,
and for the Poles read Estonians.

We didn't have a treaty with Czechoslovakia, but we did have one to
guarantee Polish independence, which is not unlike the NATO commitment
to the Ukraine.

But that is a NATO commitment and not a british treaty.

It is a commitment made under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. In
return for the Ukraine giving up its nuclear weapons, the nuclear powers
within NATO stand as guarantors.

And we wont see britain declare war on russia now, you watch.

That never has been a realistic possibility.

Colin BIgnell

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 10/03/2014 05:06, Rod Speed wrote:


"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 09/03/2014 23:48, bert wrote:
In message , Nightjar
writes
On 09/03/2014 00:20, bert wrote:
...
Sounds like the sort of thing we did in 1938. NO doubt Hague will
shortly fly back from Kiev waving a piece of paper and declaring
"peace
in our time"

Or, perhaps, even 'peace for our time', which Chamberlain did not say
at Heston Aerodrome, when waving the agreement, but later, after
returning to 10 Downing Street. There has been debate about how much
it was a genuine attempt at peace and how much it was a ploy to gain
more time for rearmament.

Either way the Czechs were stuffed, just like the Ukrainians will be,
and for the Poles read Estonians.

We didn't have a treaty with Czechoslovakia, but we did have one to
guarantee Polish independence, which is not unlike the NATO commitment
to the Ukraine.

But that is a NATO commitment and not a british treaty.

It is a commitment made under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

But not by Britain.

In return for the Ukraine giving up its nuclear weapons, the nuclear
powers within NATO stand as guarantors.

Bet they don't over the Crimea.

And we wont see britain declare war on russia now, you watch.

That never has been a realistic possibility.

But was what NATO said.

On 06/03/2014 21:59, John Williamson wrote:
the Potteries coal field area still
suffers from frequent small earthquakes caused by yet another tunnel
collapsing,

Surely the only cause of earthquakes in the UK is fracking?

--
mailto:news{at}admac(dot}myzen{dot}co{dot}uk

In message , alan
writes
On 06/03/2014 21:59, John Williamson wrote:
the Potteries coal field area still
suffers from frequent small earthquakes caused by yet another tunnel
collapsing,

Surely the only cause of earthquakes in the UK is fracking?

Not so. There are several fault lines in the UK and tremors occur from
time to time.
--
bert

"bert" ] wrote in message
...
In message , alan
writes
On 06/03/2014 21:59, John Williamson wrote:
the Potteries coal field area still
suffers from frequent small earthquakes caused by yet another tunnel
collapsing,

Surely the only cause of earthquakes in the UK is fracking?

Not so. There are several fault lines in the UK and tremors occur from
time to time.
--
bert


There was quite a big one very early in the morning a couple of years back,
and I felt it pass under the house as I was sitting here on UK DIY ... :-)

A very spooky feeling, I have to say, that stirred what could only be primal
fears in me. Immediate goose bumps all over, and an inexplicable feeling of
total dread. Very strange ...

Oddly, the sheep in the field at the back of the house, and an owl that
lives out there somewhere, knew it was coming, as they started kicking up a
fuss about 2 minutes before it passed.

Arfa

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
Arfa Daily wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Brian Gaff wrote

Yes and to be frank, If I were in Russia shoes at the moment with a
wobbly right wing load of oddballs in charge, and my fleet and lots of
Russians in that country, I'd probably do exactly what they did. its
all fine EU n and america wringing their hands, but they are not
sitting next door to them and do not have a fleet and ethnic russians
in that country do they .

As for the pipe line, the only reason I suspect Eu are involved in
Ukraine at all is the energy aspect. Its as transparent as a window.
You cannot be having vested interests and deny that others have them
also.

And it’s a bit rich the US and Britain howling about what
Russia is doing in the Crimea after what both did with Iraq.

They don't have much choice but to howl,

Sure, but they don’t have any real credibility post the invasion of Iraq.

Utterly irrelevant ...


given that they signed a treaty in 1994 that pledged them to protecting
Ukraine's borders in the event of a Russian invasion, which 2000 or more
troops crossing into the country, might be considered as being ??

Sure, but it was nothing like what they did to Iraq.


Utterly irrelevant ...

Arfa

Arfa Daily wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Arfa Daily wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Brian Gaff wrote

Yes and to be frank, If I were in Russia shoes at the moment with a
wobbly right wing load of oddballs in charge, and my fleet and lots of
Russians in that country, I'd probably do exactly what they did. its
all fine EU n and america wringing their hands, but they are not
sitting next door to them and do not have a fleet and ethnic russians
in that country do they .

As for the pipe line, the only reason I suspect Eu are involved in
Ukraine at all is the energy aspect. Its as transparent as a window.
You cannot be having vested interests and deny that others have them
also.

And it’s a bit rich the US and Britain howling about what
Russia is doing in the Crimea after what both did with Iraq.

They don't have much choice but to howl,

Sure, but they don’t have any real credibility post the invasion of Iraq.

Utterly irrelevant ...

Nope. While ever they don’t have any real credibility,
they can bay at the moon until the cows come home
and no one will take any notice at all.

given that they signed a treaty in 1994 that pledged them to protecting
Ukraine's borders in the event of a Russian invasion, which 2000 or more
troops crossing into the country, might be considered as being ??

Sure, but it was nothing like what they did to Iraq.

Utterly irrelevant ...

Nope. While ever they don’t have any real credibility,
they can bay at the moon until the cows come home
and no one will take any notice at all.

On 12/03/2014 21:29, alan wrote:
On 06/03/2014 21:59, John Williamson wrote:
the Potteries coal field area still
suffers from frequent small earthquakes caused by yet another tunnel
collapsing,

Surely the only cause of earthquakes in the UK is fracking?

Here is a list of earthquakes around Britain in the last 50 days

http://www.earthquakes.bgs.ac.uk/ear...uk_events.html

Despite the claims, fracking does not cause earthquakes. Injecting water
into faults has been trialled as a way of releasing major fault lines,
such as the San Andreas fault, in segments and with less damage than if
they let go naturally. Therefore, fracking may release one that was
going to happen anyway, but if it does, the magnitude is likely to be
lower than if the earthquake had gone in its own time.

Colin Bignell

In message , Nightjar
writes
On 12/03/2014 21:29, alan wrote:
On 06/03/2014 21:59, John Williamson wrote:
the Potteries coal field area still
suffers from frequent small earthquakes caused by yet another tunnel
collapsing,

Surely the only cause of earthquakes in the UK is fracking?

Here is a list of earthquakes around Britain in the last 50 days

http://www.earthquakes.bgs.ac.uk/ear...uk_events.html

Despite the claims, fracking does not cause earthquakes. Injecting
water into faults has been trialled as a way of releasing major fault
lines, such as the San Andreas fault, in segments and with less damage
than if they let go naturally. Therefore, fracking may release one that
was going to happen anyway, but if it does, the magnitude is likely to
be lower than if the earthquake had gone in its own time.

Colin Bignell
Anti frackers are like the climate change brigade - they're not
interested in facts.
--
bert

On 14/03/2014 09:52, bert wrote:

Anti frackers are like the climate change brigade - they're not
interested in facts.

They must be interested, they make up enough of them.

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Arfa Daily
wrote:

"bert" ] wrote in message
...
In message , alan
writes
On 06/03/2014 21:59, John Williamson wrote:
the Potteries coal field area still
suffers from frequent small earthquakes caused by yet another tunnel
collapsing,

Surely the only cause of earthquakes in the UK is fracking?

Not so. There are several fault lines in the UK and tremors occur from
time to time.

There was quite a big one very early in the morning a couple of years
back, and I felt it pass under the house as I was sitting here on UK DIY
... :-)

I was in the San Francisco earthquake of 1989 (a 7.1, about 40 miles
south of SF but that much closer to the epicentre). While I lived there
I also felt a couple of longer distance ones, one of which caused me to
get a man in to bolt my house to its foundations.

--

I felt a small one as well while I was on a training course in L.A. The
guys in the factory said that it was nothing, and that ones of that sort of
size could be felt on a weekly basis.

Arfa

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 12/03/2014 21:29, alan wrote:
On 06/03/2014 21:59, John Williamson wrote:
the Potteries coal field area still
suffers from frequent small earthquakes caused by yet another tunnel
collapsing,

Surely the only cause of earthquakes in the UK is fracking?

Here is a list of earthquakes around Britain in the last 50 days

http://www.earthquakes.bgs.ac.uk/ear...uk_events.html

Despite the claims, fracking does not cause earthquakes. Injecting water
into faults has been trialled as a way of releasing major fault lines,
such as the San Andreas fault, in segments and with less damage than if
they let go naturally. Therefore, fracking may release one that was going
to happen anyway, but if it does, the magnitude is likely to be lower than
if the earthquake had gone in its own time.

Colin Bignell


Time to move out of New Ollerton, methinks ... ! :-)

Arfa

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
Arfa Daily wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Arfa Daily wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Brian Gaff wrote

Yes and to be frank, If I were in Russia shoes at the moment with a
wobbly right wing load of oddballs in charge, and my fleet and lots
of Russians in that country, I'd probably do exactly what they did.
its all fine EU n and america wringing their hands, but they are not
sitting next door to them and do not have a fleet and ethnic russians
in that country do they .

As for the pipe line, the only reason I suspect Eu are involved in
Ukraine at all is the energy aspect. Its as transparent as a window.
You cannot be having vested interests and deny that others have them
also.

And it’s a bit rich the US and Britain howling about what
Russia is doing in the Crimea after what both did with Iraq.

They don't have much choice but to howl,

Sure, but they don’t have any real credibility post the invasion of
Iraq.

Utterly irrelevant ...

Nope. While ever they don’t have any real credibility,
they can bay at the moon until the cows come home
and no one will take any notice at all.

given that they signed a treaty in 1994 that pledged them to protecting
Ukraine's borders in the event of a Russian invasion, which 2000 or
more troops crossing into the country, might be considered as being ??

Sure, but it was nothing like what they did to Iraq.

Utterly irrelevant ...

Nope. While ever they don’t have any real credibility,
they can bay at the moon until the cows come home
and no one will take any notice at all.


Who said anything about anyone taking any notice ? And the situation in
Iraq, past or present, has no bearing on my reply to the original comment
which was that it was a bit rich the two of them howling etc. You would
have a point if they had not been signed up to that treaty in 1994. Yes, it
might be a bit hypocritical, but the fact remains that since they *are*
signed up to that treaty - which pre-dates any action in Iraq by many years,
and was probably 'forgotten' when the Iraq decision was made to 'go in' -
they have little option *but* to object, albeit with probably a degree of
embarrassment over what they have been involved in on the world stage since
signing up to the treaty.

It's just politics. Things change. That which seemed like a good idea back
when, perhaps doesn't now. Times change. People change. World **** happens
....

Arfa

Arfa Daily wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Arfa Daily wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Arfa Daily wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Brian Gaff wrote

Yes and to be frank, If I were in Russia shoes at the moment with a
wobbly right wing load of oddballs in charge, and my fleet and lots
of Russians in that country, I'd probably do exactly what they did.
its all fine EU n and america wringing their hands, but they are not
sitting next door to them and do not have a fleet and ethnic
russians in that country do they .

As for the pipe line, the only reason I suspect Eu are involved in
Ukraine at all is the energy aspect. Its as transparent as a window.
You cannot be having vested interests and deny that others have them
also.

And it’s a bit rich the US and Britain howling about what
Russia is doing in the Crimea after what both did with Iraq.

They don't have much choice but to howl,

Sure, but they don’t have any real credibility post the invasion of
Iraq.

Utterly irrelevant ...

Nope. While ever they don’t have any real credibility,
they can bay at the moon until the cows come home
and no one will take any notice at all.

given that they signed a treaty in 1994 that pledged them to
protecting Ukraine's borders in the event of a Russian invasion, which
2000 or more troops crossing into the country, might be considered as
being ??

Sure, but it was nothing like what they did to Iraq.

Utterly irrelevant ...

Nope. While ever they don’t have any real credibility,
they can bay at the moon until the cows come home
and no one will take any notice at all.

Who said anything about anyone taking any notice ?

There is no point in howling if no one takes any notice of the howling.

And the situation in Iraq, past or present, has no bearing on my reply to
the original comment which was that it was a bit rich the two of them
howling etc.

Wrong when it means no one cares if they howl or not because of that.

You would have a point if they had not been signed up to that treaty in
1994.

I still do even if they had not.

Yes, it might be a bit hypocritical,

Completely hypocritical in fact.

but the fact remains that since they *are* signed up to that treaty

And won't do any more than howl, you watch.

- which pre-dates any action in Iraq by many years,

Bull****. The Gulf War was in 1990.

and was probably 'forgotten' when the Iraq decision was made to 'go in'

Even sillier. It was Iraq's flouting of what had been agreed at the end
of the Gulf War that was a large part of the justification for the invasion.

they have little option *but* to object, albeit with probably a degree of
embarrassment over what they have been involved in on the world stage
since signing up to the treaty.

It wasn’t just since signing up to the treaty.

It's just politics. Things change. That which seemed like a good idea back
when, perhaps doesn't now. Times change. People change. World **** happens

And neither has any credibility at all given what they both did with Iraq.

In message , Rod Speed
writes
Arfa Daily wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Arfa Daily wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Arfa Daily wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Brian Gaff wrote

Yes and to be frank, If I were in Russia shoes at the moment
with a wobbly right wing load of oddballs in charge, and my
fleet and lots of Russians in that country, I'd probably do
exactly what they did. its all fine EU n and america wringing
their hands, but they are not sitting next door to them and do
not have a fleet and ethnic russians in that country do they .

As for the pipe line, the only reason I suspect Eu are involved
in Ukraine at all is the energy aspect. Its as transparent as a
window. You cannot be having vested interests and deny that
others have them also.

And its a bit rich the US and Britain howling about what
Russia is doing in the Crimea after what both did with Iraq.

They don't have much choice but to howl,

Sure, but they dont have any real credibility post the invasion
of Iraq.

Utterly irrelevant ...

Nope. While ever they dont have any real credibility,
they can bay at the moon until the cows come home
and no one will take any notice at all.

given that they signed a treaty in 1994 that pledged them to
protecting Ukraine's borders in the event of a Russian invasion,
which 2000 or more troops crossing into the country, might be
considered as being ??

Sure, but it was nothing like what they did to Iraq.

Utterly irrelevant ...

Nope. While ever they dont have any real credibility,
they can bay at the moon until the cows come home
and no one will take any notice at all.

Who said anything about anyone taking any notice ?

There is no point in howling if no one takes any notice of the howling.

And the situation in Iraq, past or present, has no bearing on my
reply to the original comment which was that it was a bit rich the
two of them howling etc.

Wrong when it means no one cares if they howl or not because of that.

You would have a point if they had not been signed up to that treaty
in 1994.

I still do even if they had not.

Yes, it might be a bit hypocritical,

Completely hypocritical in fact.

but the fact remains that since they *are* signed up to that treaty

And won't do any more than howl, you watch.

- which pre-dates any action in Iraq by many years,

Bull****. The Gulf War was in 1990.

and was probably 'forgotten' when the Iraq decision was made to 'go in'

Even sillier. It was Iraq's flouting of what had been agreed at the end
of the Gulf War that was a large part of the justification for the invasion.

they have little option *but* to object, albeit with probably a
degree of embarrassment over what they have been involved in on the
world stage since signing up to the treaty.

It wasnt just since signing up to the treaty.

It's just politics. Things change. That which seemed like a good idea
back when, perhaps doesn't now. Times change. People change. World
**** happens

And neither has any credibility at all given what they both did with
Iraq.
Whatever "they" did they did not annexe territory which is contrary to
international law.
--
bert

"bert" ] wrote in message
...
In message , Rod Speed
writes
Arfa Daily wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Arfa Daily wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Arfa Daily wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Brian Gaff wrote

Yes and to be frank, If I were in Russia shoes at the moment with
a wobbly right wing load of oddballs in charge, and my fleet and
lots of Russians in that country, I'd probably do exactly what
they did. its all fine EU n and america wringing their hands, but
they are not sitting next door to them and do not have a fleet
and ethnic russians in that country do they .

As for the pipe line, the only reason I suspect Eu are involved in
Ukraine at all is the energy aspect. Its as transparent as a
window. You cannot be having vested interests and deny that
others have them also.

And its a bit rich the US and Britain howling about what
Russia is doing in the Crimea after what both did with Iraq.

They don't have much choice but to howl,

Sure, but they dont have any real credibility post the invasion of
Iraq.

Utterly irrelevant ...

Nope. While ever they dont have any real credibility,
they can bay at the moon until the cows come home
and no one will take any notice at all.

given that they signed a treaty in 1994 that pledged them to
protecting Ukraine's borders in the event of a Russian invasion,
which 2000 or more troops crossing into the country, might be
considered as being ??

Sure, but it was nothing like what they did to Iraq.

Utterly irrelevant ...

Nope. While ever they dont have any real credibility,
they can bay at the moon until the cows come home
and no one will take any notice at all.

Who said anything about anyone taking any notice ?

There is no point in howling if no one takes any notice of the howling.

And the situation in Iraq, past or present, has no bearing on my reply
to the original comment which was that it was a bit rich the two of
them howling etc.

Wrong when it means no one cares if they howl or not because of that.

You would have a point if they had not been signed up to that treaty in
1994.

I still do even if they had not.

Yes, it might be a bit hypocritical,

Completely hypocritical in fact.

but the fact remains that since they *are* signed up to that treaty

And won't do any more than howl, you watch.

- which pre-dates any action in Iraq by many years,

Bull****. The Gulf War was in 1990.

and was probably 'forgotten' when the Iraq decision was made to 'go in'

Even sillier. It was Iraq's flouting of what had been agreed at the end
of the Gulf War that was a large part of the justification for the
invasion.

they have little option *but* to object, albeit with probably a degree
of embarrassment over what they have been involved in on the world
stage since signing up to the treaty.

It wasnt just since signing up to the treaty.

It's just politics. Things change. That which seemed like a good idea
back when, perhaps doesn't now. Times change. People change. World ****
happens

And neither has any credibility at all given what they both did with Iraq.

Whatever "they" did they did not annexe territory which is contrary to
international law.

So is invading someone else's country.

On 14/03/2014 10:54, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Nightjar
wrote:

On 12/03/2014 21:29, alan wrote:
On 06/03/2014 21:59, John Williamson wrote:
the Potteries coal field area still
suffers from frequent small earthquakes caused by yet another tunnel
collapsing,

Surely the only cause of earthquakes in the UK is fracking?

Here is a list of earthquakes around Britain in the last 50 days

http://www.earthquakes.bgs.ac.uk/ear...uk_events.html

Despite the claims, fracking does not cause earthquakes. Injecting
water into faults has been trialled as a way of releasing major fault
lines, such as the San Andreas fault, in segments and with less damage
than if they let go naturally.

But did it succeed? It's more than 20 years since I stopped living in
that neck of the woods, but I didn't really hear that reported -
although that's likely to have been more due to the crappy nature of US
news media than anything else.


The experiments were, apparently, quite promising. However, nobody had
the courage deliberately to induce earthquakes in a country where they
would probably be sued for any damage that resulted.

Colin Bignell

In message , Rod Speed
writes


"bert" ] wrote in message
...
In message , Rod Speed
writes
Arfa Daily wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Arfa Daily wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Arfa Daily wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Brian Gaff wrote

Yes and to be frank, If I were in Russia shoes at the moment
with a wobbly right wing load of oddballs in charge, and my
fleet and lots of Russians in that country, I'd probably do
exactly what they did. its all fine EU n and america
wringing their hands, but they are not sitting next door to
them and do not have a fleet and ethnic russians in that country do they .

As for the pipe line, the only reason I suspect Eu are
involved in Ukraine at all is the energy aspect. Its as
transparent as a window. You cannot be having vested
interests and deny that others have them also.

And its a bit rich the US and Britain howling about what
Russia is doing in the Crimea after what both did with Iraq.

They don't have much choice but to howl,

Sure, but they dont have any real credibility post the
invasion of Iraq.

Utterly irrelevant ...

Nope. While ever they dont have any real credibility,
they can bay at the moon until the cows come home
and no one will take any notice at all.

given that they signed a treaty in 1994 that pledged them to
protecting Ukraine's borders in the event of a Russian invasion,
which 2000 or more troops crossing into the country, might be


Sure, but it was nothing like what they did to Iraq.

Utterly irrelevant ...

Nope. While ever they dont have any real credibility,
they can bay at the moon until the cows come home
and no one will take any notice at all.

Who said anything about anyone taking any notice ?

There is no point in howling if no one takes any notice of the howling.

And the situation in Iraq, past or present, has no bearing on my
reply to the original comment which was that it was a bit rich the
two of them howling etc.

Wrong when it means no one cares if they howl or not because of that.

You would have a point if they had not been signed up to that
treaty in 1994.

I still do even if they had not.

Yes, it might be a bit hypocritical,

Completely hypocritical in fact.

but the fact remains that since they *are* signed up to that treaty

And won't do any more than howl, you watch.

- which pre-dates any action in Iraq by many years,

Bull****. The Gulf War was in 1990.

and was probably 'forgotten' when the Iraq decision was made to 'go in'

Even sillier. It was Iraq's flouting of what had been agreed at the end
of the Gulf War that was a large part of the justification for the
invasion.

they have little option *but* to object, albeit with probably a
degree of embarrassment over what they have been involved in on
the world stage since signing up to the treaty.

It wasnt just since signing up to the treaty.

It's just politics. Things change. That which seemed like a good
idea back when, perhaps doesn't now. Times change. People change.
World **** happens

And neither has any credibility at all given what they both did with Iraq.

Whatever "they" did they did not annexe territory which is contrary
to international law.

So is invading someone else's country.
Not necessarily
--
bert

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 12/03/2014 21:29, alan wrote:
On 06/03/2014 21:59, John Williamson wrote:
the Potteries coal field area still
suffers from frequent small earthquakes caused by yet another tunnel
collapsing,

Surely the only cause of earthquakes in the UK is fracking?

Here is a list of earthquakes around Britain in the last 50 days

http://www.earthquakes.bgs.ac.uk/ear...uk_events.html

Despite the claims, fracking does not cause earthquakes. Injecting water
into faults has been trialled as a way of releasing major fault lines,
such as the San Andreas fault, in segments and with less damage than if
they let go naturally. Therefore, fracking may release one that was going
to happen anyway, but if it does, the magnitude is likely to be lower than
if the earthquake had gone in its own time.

Colin Bignell

There would be no point in injecting the water if it did not cause an
earthquake.
One that was pre-ordained to happen of course. (Perhaps)

"Arfa Daily" wrote in message
...


"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 12/03/2014 21:29, alan wrote:
On 06/03/2014 21:59, John Williamson wrote:
the Potteries coal field area still
suffers from frequent small earthquakes caused by yet another tunnel
collapsing,

Surely the only cause of earthquakes in the UK is fracking?

Here is a list of earthquakes around Britain in the last 50 days

http://www.earthquakes.bgs.ac.uk/ear...uk_events.html

Despite the claims, fracking does not cause earthquakes. Injecting water
into faults has been trialled as a way of releasing major fault lines,
such as the San Andreas fault, in segments and with less damage than if
they let go naturally. Therefore, fracking may release one that was going
to happen anyway, but if it does, the magnitude is likely to be lower
than if the earthquake had gone in its own time.

Colin Bignell


Time to move out of New Ollerton, methinks ... ! :-)

A succession of small earthquakes is good.
Saving them all up for one biggie is bad.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"bert" ] wrote in message
...
In message , Rod Speed
writes
Arfa Daily wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Arfa Daily wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Arfa Daily wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Brian Gaff wrote

You would have a point if they had not been signed up to that treaty in
1994.

I still do even if they had not.

Yes, it might be a bit hypocritical,

Completely hypocritical in fact.

but the fact remains that since they *are* signed up to that treaty

And won't do any more than howl, you watch.

- which pre-dates any action in Iraq by many years,

Bull****. The Gulf War was in 1990.

and was probably 'forgotten' when the Iraq decision was made to 'go in'

Even sillier. It was Iraq's flouting of what had been agreed at the end
of the Gulf War that was a large part of the justification for the
invasion.

they have little option *but* to object, albeit with probably a degree
of embarrassment over what they have been involved in on the world
stage since signing up to the treaty.

It wasn't just since signing up to the treaty.

It's just politics. Things change. That which seemed like a good idea
back when, perhaps doesn't now. Times change. People change. World
**** happens

And neither has any credibility at all given what they both did with
Iraq.

Whatever "they" did they did not annexe territory which is contrary to
international law.

So is invading someone else's country.

Regime change is illegal.
Bliar, Bush and their cronies are war criminals.

"Arfa Daily" wrote in message
...


"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 12/03/2014 21:29, alan wrote:
On 06/03/2014 21:59, John Williamson wrote:
the Potteries coal field area still
suffers from frequent small earthquakes caused by yet another tunnel
collapsing,

Surely the only cause of earthquakes in the UK is fracking?

Here is a list of earthquakes around Britain in the last 50 days

http://www.earthquakes.bgs.ac.uk/ear...uk_events.html

Despite the claims, fracking does not cause earthquakes. Injecting water
into faults has been trialled as a way of releasing major fault lines,
such as the San Andreas fault, in segments and with less damage than if
they let go naturally. Therefore, fracking may release one that was going
to happen anyway, but if it does, the magnitude is likely to be lower
than if the earthquake had gone in its own time.

Colin Bignell


Time to move out of New Ollerton, methinks ... ! :-)

It's an ex-coal mining area.
It will be mines collapsing/settlement.

On 17/03/2014 08:24, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 12/03/2014 21:29, alan wrote:
On 06/03/2014 21:59, John Williamson wrote:
the Potteries coal field area still
suffers from frequent small earthquakes caused by yet another tunnel
collapsing,

Surely the only cause of earthquakes in the UK is fracking?

Here is a list of earthquakes around Britain in the last 50 days

http://www.earthquakes.bgs.ac.uk/ear...uk_events.html

Despite the claims, fracking does not cause earthquakes. Injecting water
into faults has been trialled as a way of releasing major fault lines,
such as the San Andreas fault, in segments and with less damage than if
they let go naturally. Therefore, fracking may release one that was going
to happen anyway, but if it does, the magnitude is likely to be lower than
if the earthquake had gone in its own time.


There would be no point in injecting the water if it did not cause an
earthquake.
One that was pre-ordained to happen of course. (Perhaps)

More rubbish Harry. The water is injected to fracture the shale. That is
not the same as causing an earthquake.

Colin Bignell

"Nightjar" wrote in message
news
On 17/03/2014 08:24, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 12/03/2014 21:29, alan wrote:
On 06/03/2014 21:59, John Williamson wrote:
the Potteries coal field area still
suffers from frequent small earthquakes caused by yet another tunnel
collapsing,

Surely the only cause of earthquakes in the UK is fracking?

Here is a list of earthquakes around Britain in the last 50 days

http://www.earthquakes.bgs.ac.uk/ear...uk_events.html

Despite the claims, fracking does not cause earthquakes. Injecting water
into faults has been trialled as a way of releasing major fault lines,
such as the San Andreas fault, in segments and with less damage than if
they let go naturally. Therefore, fracking may release one that was
going
to happen anyway, but if it does, the magnitude is likely to be lower
than
if the earthquake had gone in its own time.


There would be no point in injecting the water if it did not cause an
earthquake.
One that was pre-ordained to happen of course. (Perhaps)

More rubbish Harry. The water is injected to fracture the shale. That is
not the same as causing an earthquake.

I was talking about earthquake mitigation by having several small ones
instead of one biggie.
We have already had small earthquakes caused in the UK by fracking.

On 17/03/2014 19:16, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
news
On 17/03/2014 08:24, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 12/03/2014 21:29, alan wrote:
On 06/03/2014 21:59, John Williamson wrote:
the Potteries coal field area still
suffers from frequent small earthquakes caused by yet another tunnel
collapsing,

Surely the only cause of earthquakes in the UK is fracking?

Here is a list of earthquakes around Britain in the last 50 days

http://www.earthquakes.bgs.ac.uk/ear...uk_events.html

Despite the claims, fracking does not cause earthquakes. Injecting water
into faults has been trialled as a way of releasing major fault lines,
such as the San Andreas fault, in segments and with less damage than if
they let go naturally. Therefore, fracking may release one that was
going
to happen anyway, but if it does, the magnitude is likely to be lower
than
if the earthquake had gone in its own time.


There would be no point in injecting the water if it did not cause an
earthquake.
One that was pre-ordained to happen of course. (Perhaps)

More rubbish Harry. The water is injected to fracture the shale. That is
not the same as causing an earthquake.

I was talking about earthquake mitigation by having several small ones
instead of one biggie.
We have already had small earthquakes caused in the UK by fracking.


Fracking does not *cause* earthquakes. It may, however, release one that
was going to happen anyway.

Colin Bignell

On 17/03/2014 08:29, harryagain wrote:
Regime change is illegal.

Of course it's not.

Conniving and causing, precipitating or forcing regime change might be,
depending on circumstance. Voluntary, peacefully agreed regime change is
perfectly legal.

--
Rod