OO Military Vehicles

In message , BH Williams writes

Found BW Models in Aberdeenshire who do wheeled military vehicles and Fire engines also Cromwell models in Glasgow who can be visited at:

do tracked vehicle

From the films I saw it was mainly due to the daft buggers shooting at each other rather than actually trying to help themselves in a more constructive way. "Survivors" have been shooting at rescue helicopters and sniping at hospital staff ... to the extent that some emergency wards had to be closed or admissions had to be curtailed. Violence so bad that what was it, 1,500 police officers previously assigned to rescue work had to be assigned to security.

British tourists under armed guards to stop the poor black Americans attacking them (to much), rape and murder in that superbowl thing commonplace.

I couldn't agree more that the rescue efforts have been appalling but that certainly doesn't excuse the kind of behaviour we've witnessed recently, not by a long shot.

Following that tidal wave thingy the other year in the Pacific/Indian Ocean there were millions upon millions of people effected, entire towns and villages destroyed, people everywhere with no food or shelter and yet they didn't feel the need to try to kill and rob their rescuers. I found it quite touching that the people of Sir Lanka immediately offered $25,000 to the US for the relief of New Orleans, baring in mind that figuratively they don't have two pennies to rub together.

"Periander" wrote

The whole scenario should never have occurred, and might not have, had Bush not chosen to spend money (that had been identified for repairing the New Orleans levies) on killing people in Iraq.

Even despite that, the supply of aid for those rescued from the floods was non-existing for several days and in itself was a major and additional contributor to the catastrophe, resulting in many deaths.

I can understand looting for food and water under those circumstances, but accept that the alleged incidents of rape and pillage was totally unacceptable. These isolated cases, however, should not be used to camouflage what has been a severe blot on USA history.

I see Michael Brown, the head of FEMA has become the first political casualty of this monstrous event, but I always understood that the buck stopped at the top!

John.

I wouldn't disagree with any of that except where you went on to suggest the incidents I highlighted were isolated, every news item I have seen or heard suggests quite the contrary, I have quite a few friends in the US to boot, in most of the southern States ... they all report the same thing.

Yes, the flood defences could and should have been strengthened, yes the rescue/aid operation could have started far earlier and been far more effective, however to claim that it was some kind of race thing and then use that to justify the most outrageous behaviour is laughable.

Thanks for the link, Ian. After seeing the article on Lulworth Camp in this month's BRM, I thought that a short rake of Warwells and tanks would look good on my 1956 period layout. The Airfix Centurion tank is available, which would match the timeframe. However, what I think would be really good is a number of Comet tanks, stripped of their guns and other equipment, on their way to the scrapyard. That would give endless scope for weathering fun! I wonder if I can lay my hands on some of the old Matchbox kits...

Exactly what is the relevance? Did the serfs in 1917 have a clear image of what the future held for them when they stopped supporting the Tsar in _his_ war against the Germans? I am reasonably sure they didn't. Unfortunately, when there is an unjust form of government, whether it be a feudal monarchy, feudal warlords or tyranical dictatorship (add your own favourite to the list) the leaders who arise are rarely those best suited to running a peaceful nation.

So where are your comparitive figures for those who died up to 1917?

Well, your ability to see into the future certainly has the advantage over my simple reasoning ability - I assume you do have perfect future vision and are not just utilizing hindsight with regard to information provided by biased historians?

Regards, Greg.P.

In that case, Ivor, we've both been lucky!

Regards, Greg.P.

The question that springs to mind here - how did the Swedes ever find out that the Germans wanted to buy moose shit??? I never once thought to ask any of my German aquainances if they wanted to buy a jar of moose shit! Of course, I do tend to lack imagination.

Regards, Greg.P.

Aww, now you're going to spoil their arguments and prejudices by introducing facts! I was hoping they would killfile me, which of course is the best method of avoiding contrary viewpoints.

Regards, Greg.P.

"John Turner"

Unless you're Michael Brown of FEMA, and before the Lt. William Calley.

-- Cheers Roger T.

Home of the Great Eastern Railway

The Tsars caused the deaths of millions of Russian serfs - the survivors caused the deaths of a dozen or so Romanoffs. Yeah, I'm full of sympathy for the Tsar's children After WWI Britain, the US, Canada, Australia and assorted other countries sent "expeditionary" military forces into Russia in attempts to rescue and restore the monarchy. Had any of the Romanoff children still been alive those military invasions may well have been greatly enlarged and the feudal monarchy restored. It wasn't the fault of the children to be born into that situation, any more than it was the fault of the children born into serfdom to be starved towards death every year, but they all bore the consequences of the Tsar's despotic actions.

Regards, Greg.P.

But surely that means the buck *has* stopped at the top, if by "top", you mean the President. The buck is *on his desk* and can go no further. That is what the expression means! That means he has to make the difficult decisions. Which he has done. By firing Michael Brown.

(N.B. I'm inferring all the actualities from your post, John, as I don't read the papers or watch the news. I know nothing of any person named Katrina. If a hurricane should land in my back garden, I won't need the media to tell me about it. If it should land elsewhere, I've got more pressing concerns at the moment).

Cheers, Steve

Hey Roger. You're back in mono again!

Greg Procter wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@ihug.co.nz:

Greg Procter wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@ihug.co.nz:

Well forgive me if I misunderstood you but I took your posts to mean that it doesn't matter how many people are murdered by a political regime - in this case the Soviets as long as it is claimed that they were replacing another tyrannical regime. Which incidentally isn't entirely true as Russia was already moving towards democracy at the time of the revolution and the Bolsheviks actually gained power by murdering and displacing the Mensheviks

- the folks who actually overthrew the Romanovs. That's another problem with quoting historical events, you've got to know your facts before you can try to interpret them.

So what can we say about your heroes, the Bolsheviks? Well as it turns out that they gained power by being the most bloodthirsty bastards to be found on the planet (at the time), does that mean that might makes right? It would appear so.

Did anyone ask the feudal serfs if they wanted democracy? The last true feudal subjects in Europe (in the Channel Islands) are fighting tooth and nail in the courts to preserve their way of life. Did anyone actually *ask* the typical Russian peasant if he wanted the country to be overthrown in his name? Well again no ?

Immaterial, if you argue that it's right for "x" to kill millions then you must also accept that it was right for "y" the people who they displaced to do so also. After all, "y" emerged because of the prevailing economic and social conditions that made the regime of "y" desirable or even necessary. If it was not right for "y" to have behaved as it did it is difficult to then argue that "x" is exempt from the same censure.

Meant to read, "... one isN'T a particularly good answer"

No I scored pretty highly at logic, I'm also a pretty good historian in my own right - well so I'm told and who am I to argue. On a slightly more serious note, if you know what happened in the past and know why it happened it does give you a reasonably good insight as to what will happen in the future.

Well, either you read badly or I express myself badly!

I was commenting on the Russian feudal monarchy and it's overthrow. As you point out, that was carried out by the Mensheviks, so the Bolsheviks are irrelevant. I don't know what you see as "moving towards democracy", but the serfs were still dying of starvation, except in the case of those forced to go and die defending the Monarcy from the Germans.

I never mentioned the Bolsheviks, other than to point out that the sorely abused Russian population didn't know what the future held for themselves.

Basically you seem to be arguing that the enslaved Russian populace should have retained their feudal monarchy because you consider the future (in 1917) Bolsheviks to be even worse. There's just one flaw to that argument!

I very much doubt it. Given the state of the Russian education system in 1917 it's unlikely that the general population knew the difference between tryany, democracy and a plastic duck.

AFAIK the Russian serfdom was quite unused to being asked anything. OTOH, quite a few of them learned that guns were good for asking for political change.

Let's rewind a little - I gave my opinion that the murder of half a dozen children was an irrelevance when considering the ongoing deaths of millions due to the actions of the parents of the half dozen. You on the other hand are saying the ongoing deaths of millions was an irrelevance when compared to the murder of a half dozen children of the Monarchy. If you think about it you will see that I'm _against_ the killing of millions while you are apparently _in favour_ of such actions.

Where do you imagine that I argued in favour of the Bolsheviks, Stalin et al?

It makes no difference - you're arguing all by yourself about your own construct.

So far, it would appear that you're not qualified to argue either for or against yourself!

Certainly, but as I previously pointed out, the general populace of Russia in

1917 was not well educated in the fields of history, insight or political systems.

Regards, Greg.P.

Sometimes.

-- Cheers Roger T.

Home of the Great Eastern Railway

Sometimes.

-- Cheers Roger T.

Home of the Great Eastern Railway

"Chris Wilson" wrote

Yes it's absolutely disgusting, but I've only heard reports of a couple of such incidents, which in the overall picture suggests they are isolated incidents. Of course if a dozen (or even hundreds of people report the same couple of events then it sounds worse than it maybe is. How many such incidents are you suggesting occurred?

I'm sorry, but I wasn't attempting to justify any behaviour except perhaps to suggest that it is understandable that people who are dying of thirst or starvation might resort to theft. I certainly wouldn't lie down and die.

John.

"Steve W" wrote

Is that really taking a difficult decision or is it just finding a scapegoat?

If this catastrophe had happened in the UK and managed with similar levels of incompetence the media would rightly be crying out for Tony Blair's head.

John.