Jump to content
Paulding.com
Sign in to follow this  
juleebella

My goodness! Talk about heroes and Patriots!

Recommended Posts

Been watching and listening to the coverage of the 75th Anniversary of D-Day ceremony, plus the commentary about the individuals and the education we should learn from the "invasion". Absolutely touching.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to show your children/grandchildren a definition of a what a man is suppose to be show them this article. In fact show them the first twenty minutes of Saving Private Ryan and teach them about WW2. I tear up when I think about that day and wonder if I would have had the guts to hit that beach. I cannot express in words the pride I take in being an American. Although I had nothing to do with that moment in history my chest swells when I see these Patriots/Heroes given their dues. My great uncle was killed by a land mine in Germany during the march to Berlin. He was my mothers favorite uncle and at 87 yo she still grieves for him and puts flowers on his grave. I will not get political but only say these men are a huge reason I turn into a-hole Stonewall when the damn liberal French criticize anything about America. It is cliché but very possible that they would be speaking Dutch if not for The Yanks. God Bless these American heroes and the ones who did not make it back from Europe or the Pacific. By the way these 90+ yo paratroopers are and have always been bad asses I wish I could by them all a drink and talk to them for a few minutes. God Bless the U.S.A.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Been watching and listening to the coverage of the 75th Anniversary of D-Day ceremony, plus the commentary about the individuals and the education we should learn from the "invasion". Absolutely touching.

My Dad was in the Navy ..now I know why he never liked to talk about the war...heartbreaking so many stories and so many lost..but my heartfelt thanks to each one of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the key takeaways from history is the relation between the French and American people.

 

Without the French, we would probably not won the Revolutionary war. It was only when the Brits lost their largest army at Yorktown, possible because of the French Fleet, that this war was won.

 

Europe's history in the 19th and 20th centuries involved major rivalries between the French and the British and the Germans and the French through the end of WWII ... which literally ended in the total destruction of the continent. Recognizing that costs of war, coupled with alien narratives including a recent history of totalitarianism, led some very wise men in Washington to engineer the globalist world tied together with strong international trade.

 

That vision and narrative is far from perfect - but it demonstrably superior to the nationalism demonstrated in the earlier 20th and 19th centuries.

 

Unfortunately, we're in a time when white nationalism; a racially and religiously driven variant of nationalistic visions, is showing strength as the changes being wrought are simply earth shattering.

 

The pressures on society are coming from numerous directions. The immigration issue is apparently being peaked by climate change in Central America which is making sustenance farming impossible in some of the regions. While strains of drought resistant seeds and other aid could help mitigate some of these pressures to migrate, the current administration chooses to cut off aid - exacerbating the pressure on those folks to get on the move.

 

The realization that the climate change we are experiencing now is from us - and I do mean the US as we were the major source of the carbon dioxide followed by Europe; but major populations in Asia and Africa were not significant contributors because of the more historically-low carbon history of agricultural societies dependent on animal and human labor for its muscle.

 

These are, in economics, called externalized costs that accrue to society because of the 'human activity' - in this case the extraction and consumption of fossil fuels for transportation, for electric energy generation and for heat, Bottom line, when folks wake up and realize that this whole nationalist effort is engineered by the fossil fuel interests in the world (US, Saudi Arabia, Russia whose conflict is with the other fossil fuel dominated countries Venezuela and Iran) but that all of these countries have an interest in keeping the world addicted to fossil fuels regardless of societal costs.

 

The inevitable result will be the forced migration of hundreds of millions of people due to sea level rise as well as spreading deserts and wacky weather that is as likely to blow you away with a tornado in New Jersey as once was the case in the center of tornado alley in Oklahoma.

 

The fossil fuel industry is well situated strategically. They quite possibly own the white house, US Senate and SCOTUS and domestically, their plan is even more simple - use that power to destroy the alliances that, prior to Nov. 2016 - possibly capable of reigning in this industry but with treaties and alliances broken AND NEW ALLIANCES with Russia and Saudi Arabia and its oil producing allies protecting the industry, the belief is that the earth will survive and so will a billion people if we're lucky (Georgia Guidestones only predict an earthly carrying capacity of a half-billion people.)

 

One can expect the scientific revolution to continue with added speed as AI coupled with big data, make for a highly-controlled future society. This is what is considered the likely path and given where we are and the fact we didn't address this issue in the 1980's, the question is what is the sustainable carrying capacity of the earth in terms of the population and at what levels of advancement?

 

The other side of the coin is our current trajectory in terms of population; which has the world's population leveling off at about 10-10.5 billion based on current births and deaths and associated trends and then slowly decreasing to a stable population that may just be living longer.

 

But ... and it is a big but ... with the changes in climate worldwide, I'm sure that many see a more Malthusian future with the big killing being the inevitable featured event.

 

Some in the climate change field believe that it is already too late to keep climate stable over the next millennium elevating the certainty of the big killing.

 

It is in that context that I see our choice.

 

Donald Trump, first of all, is driven to event where he can be center stage. The only vision and strategy is to break the international order and weaken the United States as the USA is the only country that could take on the fossil fuel industry. After all that industry is, in effect, the Russian state, property of Vlad Putin and MBS holds a similar hold over the kingdom of Saudi Arabia. These 'strong men' are the state and, by that act, became criminal enterprises out to duck their responsibility for the massive disruptions that are coming as a result of climate change. Donald Trump, who was already a criminal, feels right at home with these boys.

 

But beyond wrecking the international order, all Donald has to do ... is nothing ... which is good for the fossil fuel industry as all they really want is the status quo where the fossil fuel industry maintains and grows its markets, protected (even subsidized) by the government it owns, The industry will never even be asked to contribute to mitigate the externalized costs under the present scenario.

 

In essence, the fossil fuel industry has maneuvered the world into a circumstance that will have as its result the loss of value of lands turned to desert, of cities sunk by the rising ocean and millions, if not billions of lives.

 

In trying to grasp the ethics of this circumstance, which seems likely to play out with a vengeance either way, you end up asking a question like what is the moral difference between choreographing a catastrophe that kills five million people instead of 50 million.

 

Regardless of the level of morality between those two choices, possibly the more salient observation is to ask is there a political difference between the alternate disasters?

 

Said differently, what good is it to be a do-gooder if the best do-gooder's can do is preside over a catastrophe where millions perish. What we face is a no-win situation ... Wait, as long as the fossil fuel industry is running things and avoiding responsibility, they're the winner, but at what cost?

 

pubby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.