When I discuss politics, of course I have an agenda just as most of us do, including you if your own articles are any indication. Politically, I used to be a strong conservative (I happily voted for both Reagan and Bush 41), but today's conspiracy-theory-addicted 'conservatives' seem to have forgotten the real meaning of conservatism.
Reagan once quipped that he didn't leave the Democratic party, but the Democratic party left him. Personally, I feel that I never really left the GOP, but the GOP left me. What bothers me most is the *entire* intel community pointed out time and again what Russia was doing...and every single time, Trump took the word of the ex-KGB Colonel in charge of the Kremlin over that of the tens of thousands of American citizens of our intel community...a great many of whom are veterans and military retirees.
Whom should a *real* conservative believe? A guy who *always* takes the word of an ex-KGB colonel...or the word of our whole doggone intel community? I remember the Cold War vividly...and nobody is going to get me to take the word of an ex-KGB colonel over that of my fellow military retirees who work in our intel community.
------------------------------------------------------------
That being said, when it comes to history, I do *not* have an agenda. We cannot properly understand our history, our culture, or the world around us unless we have a clear understanding of what the facts are, of what really happened.
If you check my replies to those who have proven to me (to my own satisfaction) that I am wrong, you'll see that I have a long-established habit of being sincerely and publicly grateful to those who prove me wrong. The way I see it, when someone proves me wrong, I owe it to them to publicly and sincerely thank him, for he has helped remove some of my own ignorance.
To your reply, were we 'ready' to invade northern France in 1943? If we had really wanted to do so, we could have. We would have had naval and air superiority, and the invasion didn't have to take place in Normandy, but could have been conducted anywhere along the northern coast of France. That does not mean we would have succeeded - it could have turned into a WWII equivalent of Gallipoli (which may have made Churchill a bit gun-shy, come to think of it) - but it was in my opinion a very viable option.
Lastly, given the constructive criticism given by others with different perspectives and experiences, yes, I could easily be wrong; allowing the Nazis and Soviets to bleed each other white may not have been the *primary* reason why we chose not to invade northern France in 1943, but I strongly suspect that it was certainly one of the factors considered in that decision.
