I have cut this down a bit.

>>Article 2.
>>1st - Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation:
>>(a) No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established
>>(b) No law that contradicts the principles of democracy may be established
>>(c) No law that contradicts the rights and basic freedoms stipulated in this constitution may be established
>
>>This does not establish an Islamic state as has been suggested. The very first article of the constitution lays out the democratic base for the country. In addition, all 3 pieces of Article 2.1 must be adhered to. An Islamic state would only follow 2.1.a.
>
>And the enforcement of 2.1.b is whose responsibility?

The enforcement of all provisions of the Constitution is the responsibility of the state.

>And how does a state with an official religion differ from a theocracy, specially with the stipulations of 2.1.b?

Israel has an official religion and they are a democracy not a theocracy.

>What if the body in charge of its enforcement finds that certain features of a democracy clash with "the established provisions of Islam", like women voting or free press?

Then they would have to change the Constitution or be in conflict with 2.1.b and 2.1.c. (I'm not suggesting this cannot happen, just that if we take the Constitution at its word, this would not be allowed)

>>SNIP
>
>>A strong military presence in the middle east. This is a deterrent.
>
>And I'm using a powerful anti-elephant powder around the house. Proof that it works: no elephants at all.
>
>Deterrent against what? Which mid-Eastern country ever tried to wage a war against the US?

-Iraq sponsored terrorists that attacked US forces and a US ally(Israel)
-Elements in Saudi Arabia sponsored terrorists that attacked US forces multiple times
-Iran sponsors terrorists that attacked US forces and a US ally(Israel)
-Libya shot down a US airliner
-Palestine(OK not a country but they hope to be) has attacked US forces and a US ally(Israel)
-Syria and Iran are currently sending people across the borders into Iraq to attack American forces.
-Afganistan sponsored terrorists that attacked US forces multiple times

>
>>>This so smacks of Stalin's style, man... I've heard it in communist times so many times. "We can't allow this, what will our enemies say?" - and so you actually obey your enemies' whims. It's also a nice trick to use against your opponents at home; almost any suggestion they may make can be countered with "if we did that, then < insert villain d'jour here > will say < insert anything here >".
>>
>>Staying and finishing the job will speak for itself. Cutting and running will as well.
>
>So you really DO respect the enemy's opinion...
>
I want the enemy to respect America's resolve, in hopes that it will give them pause in contemplating future attacks.

>>>Why not have the attitude, "we don't care what OBL may say"? Why make him important when he's not? If he were important, I guess he'd be caught by now.
>>
>>I believe he should've been caught by now as well, but I can see the other side. Have you heard of the Unabomber?
>
>Bits and pieces many times, but never the full story. What's the other side here?
>
Basically he eluded athorities for 18 years, living in a remote area of America while being on top of the FBI's most wanted list.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unabomber

>>You missed the argument. Major news outlet reporters aren't covering the 95% of the country where no violence is occurring. There are a few, but you have to look for them because their stories are about rebuilding and generally good news. In the US "if it bleeds it leads" is the press' motto.
>
>Not always. For one, http://www.libertysecurity.org/article943.html mentions a few things you don't often hear in press here. And Nat Hentoff is not much of a leftie in my eyes. And he's had a much more recent thing last week about the visit of the European investigation commission coming here to get all the possible info on CIA's secret prisons in Eastern Europe, and somehow it was not only stonewalled by GOP, it was also nowhere in the media.
>
>It bleeds, but probably the wrong blood type, so it didn't happen.
>

As I understand it this is an ongoing investigation. In fact I believe Congress is getting ready to hold hearings.

You're right about the European investigation commission, I haven't read a thing about it.

>> Also, the UN is a broken organization.
>
>I'd say "be a part of the solution", then. Get active inside and help fix it. Unless you want to prove what many other countries think, that the UN was good for the US as long as it could dictate there, and that the US somehow has absolutely no will to be equal among equals.

The US is trying to fix it. Bolton was selected specifically for that reason. The problem is that the system itself may be too far gone. It may be time for something new. The League of Nations didn't work either.


>> The US is doing a major review of it's reforms. The next couple of weeks will be interesting because it appears the UNs "reforms" have been nearly non-existent. The question will become what will the US Congress due with its funding.
>
>What can it do but fulfill its obligations? I mean, once you sign the charter, once you're a member, you pay your dues, right? Would you complain loudly against your golf club's policy when you know they could publish your non-payment record?
>

Lets follow the analogy. If I'm paying my dues on schedule but other members are bribing the head pro for exclusive benefits (priority tee times, exclusive equipment, etc) then the system is corrupt. My choices are to expose and hope to correct the problem or leave the club. The US is currently involved in option 1, but I believe option 2 is becoming more viable.

>>>You mean the guys US financed to get the Russians out of there? Just like Saddam once was a creature of CIA, and became the bad guy only when he became disobedient?
>>
>>He became a bad guy when he attacked the US.
>
>Now that's interesting. When did he do so? Was Albuquerque hit?

This was my oops. I thought you wrote OBL.

"became the bad guy only when he became disobedient"
This is a simplified view of the situation. Taken in the context of the cold war strategies, Saddam overplayed his usefullness. He was always a bad guy, its just that he was the US's bad guy fighting against Russia's bad guy (Iran) during the cold war. Basically the US backed both sides against the middle in that conflict (Iran/Contra). After Saddam put down the uprisings in his own country following the Iran-Iraq war he set his sights on smaller game (Kuwait). He invaded and the US responded.

>
>>btw have you read about the uprisings in Iran this week?
>
>I couldn't find anything fresher than March. But that would be good news. Any links?
5/24 - http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleView/Default.asp?NewsCode=43165&NewsKind=Current%20Affairs
5/26 - http://www.ncr-iran.org/content/view/1553/69/
5/27 - http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=7376