>>did i say i believed what buchannan wrote? im just trying
>to
>>clarify what HE said. not what I said.
>
>you said "well it was FDR and Churchill that signed those
>smaller nations over to stalin proclaiming they were free", so
>you obviously agree with what Buchanan wrote. Only problem is,
>they did not lose their freedom because FDR and Churchill
>signed them over to Stalin, Stalin already had them firmly in
>his grip. Which is why Buchanan's and your arguments are total
>bullshit.

how does this show that I agree with buchannan? simply repeating something he wrote is hardly agreeing.

>
>>the title of his article is 'was world war 2 worth it.' ww2
>>didnt become ww2 until the US got involved...
>
>First that's a stupid definition. Second, do you recall how
>the US got involved in WWII? A little incident called Pearl
>Harbor, you might want to look it up.

and how does this change the fact that it wasnt ww2 until the US got involved?
>
>------------------------------------------------------------
>Now you know - and knowing is half the battle!