[center]An Open Letter to Sean Hannity
by William R. Tonso[/center]
Wow. Great letter. That is all.
Good letter, except for the part about how Kerry would have been a worse president than Bush.
My 2 year old nephew could speak more eloquently to the people of the United States and “run” the country with more class than that douche bag.
I posted this letter because it is exactly the kind of letter I wish I could write to these so-called conservative pundits whom only support aggression and expansion and whom have no interest in the original Constitutional values of our country–unless it supports the commercial interest of big business.
Being a former Marine, my favorite part was the piece about General Smedley Butler whom many people do not know was an opponent of military interventionism. Many people mistake this policy for isolationism which it is not.
Lots of good points but he lost my respect for his opinions when when he questioned our involvement in WWII.
Thanks for posting it.
[quote]new2training wrote:
Lots of good points but he lost my respect for his opinions when when he questioned our involvement in WWII.[/quote]
Indeed, it’s hard to shake off all the propaganda of that war. I have no problem rejecting it considering the US didn’t enter until we got scared Russia was going to take over Eastern Europe–Japan was a whole different story.
Our involvement in Europe still didn’t prevent the loss of millions of lives and only added fuel to the expansion of the military industrial complex–that view can only be provided by hindsight.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Indeed, it’s hard to shake off all the propaganda of that war. I have no problem rejecting it considering the US didn’t enter until we got scared Russia was going to take over Eastern Europe–Japan was a whole different story.
Our involvement in Europe still didn’t prevent the loss of millions of lives and only added fuel to the expansion of the military industrial complex–that view can only be provided by hindsight.[/quote]
What do you think would have happened had we not become involved?
Serious question.
[quote]new2training wrote:
What do you think would have happened had we not become involved?
Serious question. [/quote]
Really hard for me to say, though I have done some serious speculating.
Worst case scenario, Germany would have expanded outward to the Russian frontier and taken France and Britain as well; best case scenario, Russia would have prevented it from the Eastern Front and might have taxed Germany too heavily, militarily–in effect saving France and Britain. I really doubt they would have been able to hold on to these places as long as Russia was in the picture.
Here’s an other scenario I envisioned:
Because Japan attacked us directly and we used nuclear weapons on them in response I really think we could have applied more “pressure” on Germany and need not have engaged them directly. We could have armed France and Britain and they could have done the job themselves–or could have threatened to. I think this would have also given Russia pause on their expansionist enterprise as well.
In short, WWII in Europe could have been a commercial enterprise and not a military one. My opinion is that our involvement in WWII only made the “Cold War” possible because we were in Russia’s “territory” and viewed European interests as our own.
Let the flaming begin…
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I posted this letter because it is exactly the kind of letter I wish I could write to these so-called conservative pundits whom only support aggression and expansion and whom have no interest in the original Constitutional values of our country–unless it supports the commercial interest of big business.
Being a former Marine, my favorite part was the piece about General Smedley Butler whom many people do not know was an opponent of military interventionism. Many people mistake this policy for isolationism which it is not.[/quote]
You were a marine?
[quote]pat36 wrote:
You were a marine?[/quote]
Yes. Why do you think I am so anti-war? I am, however, very much pro-defense. I think many people confuse the two positions.
I’m sorry… Have to say this but they would not have taken Britain!
Ok I’m done now 
[quote]1-packlondoner wrote:
I’m sorry… Have to say this but they would not have taken Britain!
Ok I’m done now :)[/quote]
The way Hitler fought that war, no they wouldn’t. He stopped bombing the command centers of the RAF and started on London, and that was his great mistake.
Although honestly, I think the Royal Navy would have destroyed any invasion force that the Germans sent across. Britain would forever have stood alone, but they would never have fallen.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
new2training wrote:
Lots of good points but he lost my respect for his opinions when when he questioned our involvement in WWII.
Indeed, it’s hard to shake off all the propaganda of that war. I have no problem rejecting it considering the US didn’t enter until we got scared Russia was going to take over Eastern Europe–Japan was a whole different story.
[/quote]
Huh? When we entered the war in Europe, Russia had narrowly avoided complete collapse and surrender a few months before, and the war on the Eastern Front was a very open question. What are you talking about?
[quote]1-packlondoner wrote:
I’m sorry… Have to say this but they would not have taken Britain!
Ok I’m done now :)[/quote]
Britan would have starved without American aid.
People think that Pearl Harbor was the beginning of American involvement but it wasn’t. America was involved long before. If it wasn’t Pearl Harbor that touched it off it would have been a U-Boat sinking an American cargo ship or a destroyer escort.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
new2training wrote:
Lots of good points but he lost my respect for his opinions when when he questioned our involvement in WWII.
Indeed, it’s hard to shake off all the propaganda of that war. I have no problem rejecting it considering the US didn’t enter until we got scared Russia was going to take over Eastern Europe–Japan was a whole different story.
Huh? When we entered the war in Europe, Russia had narrowly avoided complete collapse and surrender a few months before, and the war on the Eastern Front was a very open question. What are you talking about?[/quote]
It is a very popular stance to minimize America’s role in WW2.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I posted this letter because it is exactly the kind of letter I wish I could write to these so-called conservative pundits whom only support aggression and expansion and whom have no interest in the original Constitutional values of our country–unless it supports the commercial interest of big business.
Being a former Marine, my favorite part was the piece about General Smedley Butler whom many people do not know was an opponent of military interventionism. Many people mistake this policy for isolationism which it is not.[/quote]
Lifty, those aren’t conservative pundits. They’re called Warhawks. Their ranks are very small compared to real conservatives. Let me point the major tenets of this crew:
- strong defense
- small federal gov’t.
- strong states’ rights
- free enterprise - as this is the land of “opportunity”
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
new2training wrote:
Lots of good points but he lost my respect for his opinions when when he questioned our involvement in WWII.
Indeed, it’s hard to shake off all the propaganda of that war. I have no problem rejecting it considering the US didn’t enter until we got scared Russia was going to take over Eastern Europe–Japan was a whole different story.
Our involvement in Europe still didn’t prevent the loss of millions of lives and only added fuel to the expansion of the military industrial complex–that view can only be provided by hindsight.[/quote]
Being that FDR was really a socialist at heart, he wasn’t worried one bit. In fact, there was more antagonism between FDR and Churchill than FDR and Stalin. It was Churchill that feared USSR. FDR was indifferent. He actually said that “I can take care of Stalin” to Churchill (thank you, PBS documentary).
As to our involvement still not preventing millions of deaths… Yeah, tell that to all the jews that didn’t get killed. All of them, all across Europe. That statement was very ill conceived.
[quote]kroby wrote:
As to our involvement still not preventing millions of deaths… Yeah, tell that to all the jews that didn’t get killed. All of them, all across Europe. That statement was very ill conceived.[/quote]
I am not just talking about Jews. Why is everyone so concerned about the Jews?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
new2training wrote:
What do you think would have happened had we not become involved?
Serious question.
Really hard for me to say, though I have done some serious speculating.
Worst case scenario, Germany would have expanded outward to the Russian frontier and taken France and Britain as well; best case scenario, Russia would have prevented it from the Eastern Front and might have taxed Germany too heavily, militarily–in effect saving France and Britain. I really doubt they would have been able to hold on to these places as long as Russia was in the picture.[/quote]
Wrong. Gestapo tactics were all they needed to hold power. And they already occupied France, Poland, etc… Germany’s downfall was:
- Hitler was frakkin’ CRAZY
- Winter wartime in Russia.
[quote]Here’s an other scenario I envisioned:
Because Japan attacked us directly and we used nuclear weapons on them in response I really think we could have applied more “pressure” on Germany and need not have engaged them directly. We could have armed France [/quote]
This is completely delusional!
And what? Only expanded through half of Europe, instead of all Europe??? FDR gave Europe away, because he believed in socialism. Stalin was laughing at how easy he made FDR such a FOOL!
[quote]In short, WWII in Europe could have been a commercial enterprise and not a military one. My opinion is that our involvement in WWII only made the “Cold War” possible because we were in Russia’s “territory” and viewed European interests as our own.
Let the flaming begin…[/quote]
A commercial enterprise? What in the happy valleys of Hell are you talking about? Our involvement made Europe less likely to become USSR in totality, except for the UK. Are you saying that Europe is Russia’s territory? I keep reading that statement and can’t believe it. Russia should dictate to France, Spain, Italy, etc.?
Do you even believe in Liberty?
What I’ve read between the lines here is apology, hand wringing and make believe fantasies on a topic with more verbage dedicated to it than any other in History. You fail to grasp consequences to your “happy happy joy joy” worst and best case scenarios.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
1-packlondoner wrote:
I’m sorry… Have to say this but they would not have taken Britain!
Ok I’m done now
Britan would have starved without American aid.
People think that Pearl Harbor was the beginning of American involvement but it wasn’t. America was involved long before. If it wasn’t Pearl Harbor that touched it off it would have been a U-Boat sinking an American cargo ship or a destroyer escort.[/quote]
There was quite a long time that USA was offering supplies to BOTH Germany and UK. We were playing both sides, and making a fiscal killing.