sarahS4621 wrote:John wrote:The story goes that when the Muslims were approaching the center of
Constantinople in 1453 for the final conquest of the Byzantine Empire,
the people of the Senate were having a lengthy political debate about
whether angels were male or female. They were still arguing when the
Ottomans reached them and killed them.
Today we're seeing the same thing. To argue about climate change at
a time when we're close to a worldwide financial crash and a world
war is just one of the many insanities in today's world.
Next month there's going to be a climate change conference in
Copenhage that will continue the farce.
John
I love you use of the Muslim senate to get your point across. I agree, we are going to be still talking about climate change long after there is anything to talk about. The only way that we can change is by action, not by discussing the actions. If we were to truly want to tackle this, or any problem, we would stop talking and follow the lead of those who take action.
Sarah:
A comment regarding regarding your statement
"The only way that we can change is by action, not by discussing the actions. If we were to truly want to tackle this, or any problem, we would stop talking and follow the lead of those who take action."
A very important thing to learn is to know WHEN to act AND when NOT to act, also - what are these actions based upon - objective information or blind hope, etc.
The down fall of Napoleon -- from
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/napoleon- ... st-boredom Boredom doesn’t get its fair share of the press as a dangerous human characteristic, and I know of no better example of this than Napoleon – Bonaparte, not Dynamite – to highlight this failing. Two hundred years ago to the day, the self-crowned French emperor was sitting in the little town of Vitebsk, in what is now Belarus. He had just pushed the Russian Army out of the town and decided to camp there for the winter and continue his invasion of Russia in the spring. But after just a few days in this sleepy hamlet, he grew bored. One of his aides, Philippe-Paul de Segur, later wrote that Napoleon’s fateful decision to immediately advance onto Moscow came from this logic:
“How can I bear the boredom of seven months of winter in this place? Am I to be reduced to defending myself – I who have always attacked? Such a role is unworthy of me… I am not used to playing it… It is not in keeping with my genius.”
The rest, as they say, is history. Advance he did, with his army of 600,000 men under arms, reaching Moscow on September 14, 1812. The Russians never gave him the decisive battle he desired, preferring to burn their capital to the ground and move further east. Winter, famine and disease did the rest, and the Grand Armee left Russian later that year with less than 120,000 soldiers. It was the greatest military defeat until the German Army replicated the effort in World War II, to similarly disastrous effect.
Gerald