For a group of people new to this whole democracy thing, these folks sure seem to learn quick:
Iraqi leaders submitted a draft constitution to the National Assembly just before their self-imposed midnight deadline on Monday, but disagreement with Sunni leaders and other, secular Iraqis left the document incomplete, with fundamental issues still in dispute.
In a legal sleight of hand, the Iraqis decided to give themselves three additional days to close the gaps, despite the requirement in the country’s interim constitution that the document be completed by a deadline, which already had been extended a week. That left some Iraqis on the 275-member National Assembly wondering whether they were still in charge, and some Sunni leaders asserting that the delay was illegal.
And while they may have technically succeeded in adhering to the deadline (the text of the draft can be found here), there are numerous problems still:
At the heart of the dispute was the decision to largely exclude the Sunni leaders from the talks on the constitution, after the failure to meet the first deadline last week. That meant that any agreements struck by the Shiite and Kurdish negotiators were not really complete.
When the Sunnis were finally brought into the negotiations on Monday afternoon, they promptly rejected several of the constitution’s most fundamental provisions.
“There are about 20 issues in there that are unresolved,” said Saleh Mutlak, one of the Sunni leaders.
Despite the confusion, some Iraqi leaders expressed confidence that they would be able to finish the constitution in the next three days. In addition to the unresolved questions on Shiite autonomy, they said the two main disputes were whether the constitution would contain language barring members of Saddam Hussein’s Baath Party from working in the government and how the president and prime minister would be selected.
I was under the impression that the real need for compromise was that in order for the Constitution to be ratified, it had to have approval by numerous different regions within Iraq. I don’t see how this version will meet that standard, as the Sunni bloc is vehemently opposed. Am I missing something, or is my understanding of the ratification process wrong?
yet another jeff
That’s my understanding as well. Not sure I like the idea of a day that starts with you and Juan Cole agreeing. Sunnis don’t show up to vote, get excluded from input into the constitution…yeah, that’s gonna work out well.
Of course, regarding the deadlines, what can we do to enforce that? Invade them and depose their leaders?
Surprisingly, the new draft of the Constitution allocates 550 million dinar to building a new bridge between two unpopulated islands in Alaska.
I’ve thought for a while now the best outcome would be the dissolution of the parliament and new elections. This would have several benefits including increased Sunni participation, greater legitimacy and reduced pressure for Islamic law.
Unfortunately, it’s always been the least likely outcome. Politicians never want to give up power.
I wouldn’t particularly mind seeing the the new constitution defeated in the referendum, either.
Of course, if they really wanted to compromise, they could just leave the contentious issues out of the constitution and kick them down to the next legislature. They don’t want to do that precisely because the people presently in power realize their influence will wane after the next elections.
If the referendum is defeated, I’m sure we’ll hear lots of hysterical rhetoric about how democracy in Iraq has failed, but of the course the reality will be that the democratic process has succeeded in doing what it was supposed to: reflecting the will of the people and requiring more compromises. As long as participation in that process continues, democracy is succeeding. When the major parties start using guns instead of words, that’s when democracy has failed.
it had to have approval by numerous different regions within Iraq. I don’t see how this version will meet that standard, as the Sunni bloc is vehemently opposed. Am I missing something, or is my understanding of the ratification process wrong?
Regarding your question, John: it’s a low standard. To be defeated, 2/3 of the people in 3 provinces must vote against it. It doesn’t take much to get 34% of people to vote for something.
I think it will probably pass. People tend to forget we rammed a Constitution right down the Japanese’s throats, literally at the barrel of a gun. At least Iraqis have some input into theirs.
It sounds as if 2 provinces will absolutely vote no. But, getting a third province will be tough. Sunnis will need help from other minority groups in those areas. Just my opinion, but the worst possible scenario is the constitution actually passing in all but 2 regions.
The sunnis already feel excluded. Their members of the drafting committee were left out in the last week, until the very end when they came in and publicly rejected the draft constitution. If this constitution passes, the sunnis may see it as proof that they have no place in the democracy, and no voice in the new Iraq. Those that aren’t already with the insurgency, will move in their direction
Yeah. There aren’t Sunni/Shiite/Kurdish militia and death-squads roaming the country or anything. No ethnic cleansing here!
Hey, those aren’t death squads!
According to Sen. George Allen (R-Va) on This Week Sunday, Iraqi militias are just like our local police and law enforcement.
Some of the folks over at Free Republic are none too happy about the Bush administration caving in and allowing Islam to be a primary source of law.
Potentially, we’re looking at the Islamic State of Iraq = Iran II – Electric Boogaloo = What the hell did we spend all of the blood and money for again?
TallDave will spin it for you. Don’t you know that Freedom’s on the March?
Wow, Doug, I read that whole Free Republic thread. You know the wind has switched direction when a thread like that can happen on FR. I’m flabbergasted.
And why the need to meet some arbitrary deadline? Will the coach turn back into a pumpkin or something?
There aren’t Sunni/Shiite/Kurdish militia and death-squads roaming the country or anything. No ethnic cleansing here!
The major parties are mostly committed to power-sharing. There are some rogue elements out there too, but that was true in our own democracy for quite some time. The KKK, for instance, was formed explicitly to assassinate Republicans after the Civil War.
No one is claiming Iraq is going to become Vermont overnight. But the major parties seem committed to democracy. Things aren’t perfect, but they’re moving in the right direction.
As for Iraq becoming Iran, that’s just silly. Iran doesn’t remotely respect the democratic process.
And why the need to meet some arbitrary deadline? Will the coach turn back into a pumpkin or something?
yeah, that’s kind of what I was thinking. Some sort of deadline seems like a good idea, if just to keep things moving along or whatever. But what’s the problem with them needing a few more days to iron some shit out? Everyone is acting like this is some huge failure, they’re writing a freaking constitution from scratch for God’s sake, if they need another week or so to get everything in order, so be it.
TallDave, you are off your head once again and denying reality as usual. Here, put on this jacket…straight.
Read some of what your hard-core, wingnut brethren are saying on Free Republic. I had no idea Bush’s support among them was so soft! I’m really amazed. And all your blathering nonesense doesn’t change a think. We all know you’re wrong (not to mention delusional), and you’re not man enough to admit it.
I’m sending that Free Republic link out. *Finally*, people are starting to wake the hell UP!
I do have to chuckle a bit when people complain Iraq is not yet the epitomy of a peaceful Jeffersonian democracy, while the mass graves from the regime we replaced are still being excavated.
Nate, your forte remains insult, your weakness an appreciation of reality.
Yes, the future mass graves will be much better than the old ones.
From an Iraqi:
The residents of Fallujah are asking the authorities to increase the number of voters’ registration offices in the city as the existing ones are not enough to finish the registration process of all eligible voters before the day of the referendum planned for October 15….
Well, the way things change in Iraq can be really surprising sometimes; just try to compare between Fallujah 12 months ago and today’s Fallujah!
Yep, things haven’t improved at all the last year, and more mass graves are right around the corner.
300 billion dollars and all I got was this lousy Islamic Theocracy and a civil war.
“But the major parties seem committed to democracy.”
That seems to me to be a bit optimistic. I think that the Shiites are about as committed to democracy as their leaders in Iran are. Of course, they just held democratic elections there recently. Once the U.S. is out, I wonder what their committment to democracy will be.
I think that the Kurds are committed to federalism/autonomy over their region and natural resources. If the Shiites infringe on that sovereignty democratically, my guess is that the Kurds’ committment to democracy will wane.
The President sadi yesterday in his address to the VFW that the terrorists are a threat to our freedom. How??? Can anyone give me a plausible…even possible threat to our freedom from terrorists? How can terrorists threaten our freedom of speech..or religion ..or choice…or the right to own guns? This is more cliched rhetoric that isn’t even based in reality. Terrorists can do NOTHING to our freedom…but OUR governmnet on the other hand…..
I’ve heard this theme repeatedly from the left. The terrorists aren’t that bad. Hate to break the news to you aaron, but if you’re dead, and make no mistake that’s what the terrorists want, then you’ll have no rights at all. Does this really need to be explained? You leftists really do seem to be a ‘Reality based’ community
It’s not that the terrorists aren’t that bad, it’s that they aren’t that powerful. They can kill individuals, but they can’t take away the freedoms of the Americans collectively.
For example, the terrorists aren’t powerful enough to take control of the U.S. government and impose their will the way a nation-state could potentially do.
The most likely way in which terrorists could cause an abridgement of American freedoms is by causing U.S. citizens and the U.S. government to react in a way that abridges our freedoms. But, without U.S. reaction, there is no abridgement of freedom. (Not to say that the reaction would have to be to take away freedoms. But that’s the only way they’re going away.)
An incredible assertion in light of the events on 9/11 in which only a handful of terrorists killed thousands of innocents. They’re trying to the do the same using bio weapons, nukes, and other methods.
They are nihilists who want to completely destroy the country and re-build it into an islamic theocracy
A very nice contradiction there, Darrell.
Nihilists believe in nothing. That is what the word means. Creating an Islamic theocracy is something, and therefore falls far short of the qualifications for constituting nihilism.
Next time you want to attempt to sound intelligent, check the dictionary to make sure your ‘big’ words mean what you think they mean.
Just to remind TallDave and anyone else who has forgotten, democracy does not equal freedom. Effective protections must be in place to shield the minority’s rights from the will of the majority, or else you just get an oppressive democracy a la Iran.
Either way, whether Iraq becomes an Islamic state or not, I guess you can say we’ve given the Iraqi people (or more likely, politicians and religious clerics) what they wanted, a country of their own. Of course, we might not like who that country chooses to befriend and support or what it does.
$300+ billion and 2k American lives to give Iraq an Islamic state because that’s what they wanted. Super.
Please explain to me exactly which terrorists on the planes during the 9/11 attacks were Iraqi? By the way, in case you haven’t been informed, Saddam had NO WMD. You did hear that, didn’t you? CNN recently presented a program about the failed intelligence, they called it “DEAD WRONG”. The title was based on the lie that Saddam Hussein had WMD, he did not. If you believe otherwise, you’re sadly misinformed.
[So nice to be back, didn’t want you folks to think I went away, I was merely starting my new job this week, have been working a lot of hours (about 60 including maintaining my route which I haven’t found a new carrier to replace me yet) so I was unable to spend any time here until now.]
Yes, the man who wrote this mocks leftists for their supposed inability to use reason.
When Bush rolls out his tried-and-true, made-for-a-six-year-old, rationale for the war — “they hate us for our freedom!” — I think Darrell’s the guy he has in mind.
Rom a right-wing website, you tool. That’s like other wingnuts offering me Iraqi improvement figures distributed from the DoD. Really? They say we’re doing well? Girels are going to school? You don’t say!
I *almost* want to hear TallDave’s and Darrell’s attacks and rationalizations when they discover that we’ve worked so hard only to create an Islamic state. I’m sure Bush will just declare “Mission Accomplished! We Won!” and start campaigning for 2006 GOP senators. What a weasel!
They didn’t adhere to the deadline. According to Article 61F of the interim constitution, the extension had to have been requested “no later than 1 August 2005,” and if they didn’t request an extension and didn’t complete a draft of the new constitution by August 15, they were supposed to disband the government and schedule new elections.
The three-day mini-extension was also illegal; under Article 61F, the “deadline may not be extended again.”
Violating the interim constitution doesn’t set a good precedent for the validity of the new constitution.
They’ve imported Republican calvinball rules. This entire “process” is solely to provide political cover for Operation Cut and Run next year. It has no grounding in reality and is not intended to have any long term benefit to Iraqis. There has to be a “constitution” to allow a “vote” to allow us to bail.
I don’t think we’re going to bail personally, I think we’re going to take a walk next door (Iran) and crash through that door as well. Although your timetable might be right. I’m thinking they’re telling our troops to ready themselves for four years because they expect our troops to be in Iran after we leave Iraq?
I am a bit concerned about the rights of religious minorities in Iraq if the constitution goes through with all this stuff about Islamic law being supreme. Certainly, the Iraqis have every right to do this — and, quite frankly, our nation’s legal system would benefit from doing a little the same thing with the Bible — but I have read that there are a number of Christians, Jews, etc. in Iraq. Will have to obey Islamic law too?
Hmmm, my reply wasn’t supposed to be blockquoted, sorry.
For some reason when I blockquote and reply, my reply is also being blockquoted (and I’m not blockquoting it)… any reason why this is happening today?
Of course they will. We just spent billions of dolars and approaching 2000 American lives to install an Islamic state where a secular one once existed. That’s what I call stabilizing the Middle East.
For some reason when I blockquote and reply, my reply is also being blockquoted (and I’m not blockquoting it)… any reason why this is happening today?
I’ve had this issue also (running Netscape).
Excerpts from draft Iraqi constitution:
That’s nice Darrell. What, pray tell, are the “basic rights and freedoms mentioned” in the document which can not be contradicated? That would seem to be the important bit.
Thanks, Darrel. I can see now that won’t be a problem. It sounds like they’re doing a great job on this thing. I wonder if in 200 years they’ll look back on this in Iraq the same way we look back on our Founding Fathers. Our Founding Fathers had a lot rougher — Philadelphia of that era was far more dangerous than Baghdad is now — but I really do admire the courage of those participating in the drafting of this Iraqi constitution.
How intelligent of you not to click my link or John Cole’s link above and read for yourself. Here are a few of the rights mentioned in the article:
Note that “the people”, not the Koran or Allah, are the source of authority.
DougJ says: Thanks, Darrel. I can see now that won’t be a problem.
Ahh DougJ, you’re so easily pacified. Did you read that all the way, including the non-highlighted parts?
” No law can be passed that contradicts the fixed principles of Islam’s rulings.”
Even with our own Democracy, members of the right and left argue all the time about whether our founding fathers were Christian or not (I shared an exchange with you on this very subject last week), or whether dissent was allowed, whether they wanted a Christian state or if separation of church and state truly existed in their minds… Many people have different ideas of what is covered and what is not (hence the reason for Judges). Just because the part Darrell highlighted says that no law respecting Democracy can be overturned, that doesn’t mean someone won’t try. You are too easily impressed.
DougJ said: Philadelphia of that era was far more dangerous than Baghdad is now
This statement was hilarious last week, and it still hasn’t lost it’s laugh factor. Classic DougJ. You’ve GOTTA be kidding.
That seems pretty basic to me. Iraq — for better or for worse — is an Islamic country. We don’t have a clause like that in our constitution but in effect that is how our society works. With a few glaring exceptions (Roe v. Wade, gay marriage in MA, the forced teaching evolution) we have very few laws that contradict Christian rulings.
I hate to disappoint you, Rome, but I have been hearing that a lot, that Revolutionary War era Philadelphia was more dangerous than contemporary Baghdad. I don’t know the numbers and can’t find them on the web right now, but I’ve been hearing it on Rush all week and I heard it on Hannity and Colmes as well. Colmes didn’t dispute it or anything. I think it’s an accepted fact.
DougJ said: That seems pretty basic to me. Iraq—for better or for worse—is an Islamic country. We don’t have a clause like that in our constitution but in effect that is how our society works. With a few glaring exceptions (Roe v. Wade, gay marriage in MA, the forced teaching evolution) we have very few laws that contradict Christian rulings.
What you fail to realize is that there are different forms of each (Islamic and Christian rule). Sharia rule is one form (a brutal form) of Islamic rule. Who decides whether Sharia law is what sets precedent? It is like having Jehovah’s Witnesses dictate to the Catholic Church, or vice versa, only this isn’t just about religious belief, this also involves national law.
Actually, we have many laws that contradict biblical principal. Mortgage interest would be considered usury under biblical law (for one example); but nobody has ever outlawed that!
DougJ said: but I’ve been hearing it on Rush all week and I heard it on Hannity and Colmes as well
And therein lies the problem. Find proof from a credible source, before you go spouting such things. Just because they say it doesn’t make it so. Rush has told MANY lies, and I understand H&C have too (I’ve never experienced H&C, but I wrote a term paper about Rush’s lies when I was in college and got an A+ exposing his Feminazi crap).
DougJ said: I think it’s an accepted fact
I think it’s not, and you would be a laughing stock if you spouted that in generic public circles (ie: non-Rush or H&C listeners). Check online and see what credible sources you come up with for that.
Philly 1787 Vs Iraq 2005
Philly 1787 Vs Iraq 2005
Not all leftists, but most, are extraordinarily ignorant about history. I am continually amazed. Those who signed our Declaration of Independence knew that by signing it, that would be considered treason by the British.. they knew the Brits would come looking to kill them in battle or hang them for treason.. Five of the signers were later captured by the Brits, tortured and killed. Nine died in the war. Twelve lost their homes. Two lost their sons in war.
But Doug has just “GOTTA” be kidding right? Because the Philadelphia area during the revolutionary war was soo safe and secure, especially Valley Forge. EVERYBODY (on the left) knows that, right?
Hey DougJ, I dispute it, here’s a credible source:
Slate MSN: Philadelphia 1787 vs. Baghdad 2005, Bush’s Lousy Analogy
Yes Darrell, sane people tend to shy away from revisionist history in favor of what actually happened. I’m not sure what ‘History’ books you get yer learnin’ from, but you must have skipped a few chapters if you think comparing the late 18th-century Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia to Baghdad’s Green Zone is a plausible notion.
No, I’m saying that the type of dangers that existed in Philadelphia during the time of our founding of this nation is not on par with the dangers of Baghdad today, I realize assassinations existed, but they were not on a large scale. At the time of the founding of this country, we had a war that was fought on the battlefields (such as Chadd’s Ford, near where I was born and raised). Most of the killing occurred in a highly controlled atmosphere (women and children were not caught in crossfire very often… don’t tell me different, I grew up in the first state, where George Washington crossed a river, I saw the historic places, heard the stories, learned the history… innocents were not killed on on a mass scale the way they are with car bombs and IEDs and such. What you are describing is an entirely different atmosphere.
Read the link I placed above.
Thank you for pointing out how different our History is from Iraq. Their Declaration of Independence was made by the United States for them, and at present they are working on a Constitution, which we were working on 11 years after our Declaration of Independence, in 1787.
Please regale us with more enchantingly ill-begotten historical analysis.
Only assassinations? How ’bout full scale war with the British army?
Well John, I suppose it depends whether you’re referring to the founding of our country (1776) during wartime, Articles of confederaton (1781 binding) during wartime, or the ratification of our Constitution in 1788 and beyond, depending on the state
Did I not say war was fought on battlefields?
I guess we didn’t have to go too far for Darrell’s Fictional History!
As a point of fact, the American Revolutionary War ‘formally’ ended in Trenton New Jersey on April 14, 1783 and the last of the British troops left New York on November 23, 1783. The Constitutional Convention held in Philadelphia began on May 25, 1787. So, your statement is not only false, but also off by three and a half years.
And regarding your insinuation that the Constitutional Convention was somehow ‘dangerous’, you couldn’t be even further from reality as an excerpt from Encarta shows:
Sounds like Iraq to me.
Philadelphia was captured by the British. The entire city and surrounding area was a battlefield at that time
Uh, no Darrell, it depends entirely on what you were referring to when you stated:
And then followed it up with:
That clearly you had no idea what era you were referring to, as my previous posts indicate.
Show me your proof that innocents were being killed on a mass scale during that time. You can’t, because it didn’t happen. The British fought soldiers, on battlefields, and assassinated men who were suspect of being members of the revolutionary army, BUT, they did not go around torching the city, killing non-military personnel. They did not go around bombing citizens. It was an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT atmosphere.
Name one “fictional” claim i’ve made
Which statement was “false” you dumbass? Show me where I “insinuated” the constitutional convention was dangerous? Oh that’s right, you simply pulled that out of your ass. The Articles of confederation were during the time of our revolutionary war.
Thank you for springing my neatly laid trap.
If you aren’t talking about Philadelphia 1787, then your analogy of present day Iraq to American History is complete bullshit.
You and DougJ have been desperately trying to relate Iraq to a chapter of American History that does not exist, because at present Iraq is working on their Constitution, which compared to our same chapter in history…well, there is no comparison.
Therefore when you defend the statement:
The only period of Philadelphian history that compares is 1787. And when you try to dismiss the people who accurately see throught this specious nonsense with:
You firmly prove the only dumbass in the room is you.
Soldiers’ deaths against an invading British army don’t count? And are you seriously claiming that the Brits didn’t go around torching homes during the Revolutionary war?
Are you seriously trying to compare the circumstances of a Philadelphia besieged by a British army with a Baghdad besieged by it’s own people and occupied by a foreign army?
I wasn’t arguing with DougJ dumbass, I was arguing with ‘Rome again’ who wrote:
So you’re point is ..?? Oh that’s right, you never had a f*cking point
You know what Darrell? You have a disadvantage here, I grew up around the battlefield for the battle at Brandywine (Chadd’s Ford). I know that battlefields existed. While troops were retreating and chasing each other for miles, they did not occupy entire cities the size of Philadelphia and stay there harrassing the citizenry for weeks or months at a time (as our troops have occupied the streets of Baghdad in Iraq). The reason they had battlefields was to keep the fighting away from the citizenry. There would be no reason for battlefields otherwise. Battles were not fought on Market Street in Philadelphia, or Walnut street either, they were fought at Chadd’s Ford, and Trenton, and Valley Forge… etc.
You are not playing with some midwestern hick who never saw a battlefield before. I grew up in the heart of that area. George Washington once slept in a home that was a mile from where I lived, I had a friend that I went to school with who lived in that house, and YES, he really DID sleep there. It’s on the national history registry. Revolutionary forces also crossed a bridge called Cooches Bridge which was in my hometown (Newark, Delaware). I grew up with the history of that place, you can’t revise it. I know better.
But of course, if Rush spouts it, it MUST be true… NOT!
Oh I see, in leftist kook-world, invading British armies killing Americans are no different than the US army liberating and protecting Iraqis.
Keep posting John, because I want everyone to get an up close look at how whacked you leftists truly are..
Darrell, I never used the word Houses. I used the term “torching the city”. What I am saying is that the battles were not fought in the streets of Philadelphia the way you are describing it. The battles were fought on BATTLEFIELDS.
Rome Again, those were DANGEROUS times. You ridiculed the notion of those being dangerous times. You were wrong
I guess your point is that it would be a good thing for a revolutionary to kill a British soldier while it is not a good thing for an Iraqi to kill an American troop? Why? It’s the same damned thing, we went over to their country and are controlling their territory. Don’t tell me you wouldn’t kick someone’s ass if they came over here to your country and started dictating your lifestyle.
The two are VERY different, actually… innocent citizens were not being killed on a massive scale in “New England”.
“Why wouldn’t it be ok for Iraqis to kill American troops?”
Keep ’em coming kooks. I want everybody to see exactly how whacked you people are
Darrell, have you ever watched the myriad of revolutionary re-enactments? Have you ever seen the way they marched during battle? The soldiers did not lose control and storm into chaos as soon as they saw the enemy. They marched, in line, in formations, and they fought civilly even.
What we have happening in Baghdad today is not even the same thing at all. Enemies hide around corners, hoping that if they throw some device that it will kill our soldiers, and children or innocent civilians be damned.
Darrell, get rid of the pseudo-patriotic bullshit. What’s fair for the goose is fair for the gander. You are being disengenuous if you cannot acknowledge that they are defending their own territory as you would your own. That’s wrong, and if you truly believe what I’m saying is unpatriotic or treasonous, then all I can say is if there is a God, he may well strike you dead for your ethnocentristic bullshit.
There’s a difference between us Darrell, I don’t rally for my white race, I rally for humanity.
I’m laughing so hard I can’t even type!
You really outdid yourself here and here.
I’m just going to back away slowly while enjoying the show from a safe distance.
Sorry, I didn’t mean that exactly that way, but it is sort of the same thing. My concern is more for humanity than it is for divisions of race, or national origin, or educational level or anything else. The whole of humanity is what I wish to protect. If a nation (such as this one) creates what I consider a threat to that human condition (survival of humanity) and I do feel that that threat exists, I will not be so concerned about the nation that I’m concerned is hurting humanity as I am about humanity itself. I’m also an agnostic, I’m not sure if I believe in God; but I personally feel that if a God exists, he would want me to care about humanity before I cared about nationalism.
How exactly do you view that statement? Are you nationalistic before you are human, or no?
Well, I can’t wait around all night for an answer. I have to deliver papers in four hours, so I’m going to bed. I’ll check back tomorrow and see if you answered.
I’ve got an idea. Let’s get a dictator to rule these Iraqis with an iron hand.
DougJ, you’re so pathetically mindless and transparent you don’t even have the common sense to understand what a stupid think that is to type. You’re confirming every “right-wing talking points spewing mindless puppet” jab that’s ever been made at you. You’re not even embarassed that you have no desire to think for yourself. What a sad state of affairs when you’re the kind of person supporting this war.
*Please* don’t feed the trolls. It only makes John Cole smile.
You know, that might not be such a bad idea in the short term. I think that an essentially capitalist society, but with firm control at the top, in the style of what China has right now, might be one of our best options in Iraq for the immediate future. It’s important that it be constitutional, though, with a fixed term of 4 or 5 years.
Why doesn’t John Cole simply rename this blog Darrell and DougJ’s Balloon Juice?
I mean, does Cole contribute anything significant anymore? It appears he has lost control of the classroom.
Well Andrei, why don’t you start your own blog? You can be the supply teacher.
And ppGaz can be the cranky old school janitor. Or village idiot.
gNate can be the “passionate” music teacher!!
With a little luck, you may get about 99% of the commenters here going to your smashing new website (maybe for good).
I’m sure Cole won’t miss them.
Well, it wouldn’t necessarily be *Balloon* Juice…
Are you still here, little man? I thought and hoped you’d buzzed off to smellier pastures. Once you actually say something of substance, we’ll take you semi-seriously. Until then, we’ll just tweak your red nose, you clown. More than you deserve.
They may be new to participatory government, but they’ve got a long long history of politics.