One more from the Washington Post

Current Events » in reply to Comments on elections in Iraq

Tom Brosz — 1/15/2005 4:45:02 AM (archived)

Here.

Rantingprofs comments on the Washington Post article here.

The whole thread (13 posts)

Comments on elections in Iraq - Tom Brosz - 1/15/2005 2:12:13 AM
- And how are these different that those in Eastern Europe after WWII - under the Soviets? (n/t) - Bowser - 1/15/2005 6:10:39 AM
  - Ask people who were there, read some history, and apologize for acting a fool. (n/t) - ebnelson - 1/16/2005 4:42:01 PM
  - Simple: More than ONE party is on the ballot. There is choice. Do you understand what that means? (n/t) - David F Mayer - 1/16/2005 9:54:37 AM
  - Sorry, Bowser. Gotten tired of trying to explain astronomy to a fish. - Tom Brosz - 1/15/2005 6:34:56 PM
    - Motives, principles and methods, eh? In other words, none. (n/t) - Bowser - 1/15/2005 11:52:30 PM
      - Yeah, Bowser. Soviet Union = America. Right. (n/t) - Tom Brosz - 1/16/2005 12:04:13 AM
        
        Occupied country voting only on choices approved by occupier. - Bowser - 1/16/2005 1:50:23 AM
        
        Hundreds of parties are more choice than ONE. The ONE party that the Far Left supported throughout the Cold War. (n/t) - David F Mayer - 1/16/2005 9:55:50 AM
        
        He's immune to facts, numbers, and simple reason. Forget it. (n/t) - Tom Brosz - 1/16/2005 10:01:39 PM
        
        See. You just can't do it. Because. There is no difference, and you know that. - Bowser - 1/17/2005 12:09:11 AM
        
        Think. ONLY on choices approved by an occupying military power. And - - - - Bowser - 1/16/2005 5:30:45 PM
- One more from the Washington Post - Tom Brosz - 1/15/2005 4:45:02 AM

Recent posts

On this day in Current Events

The whole thread (13 posts)