>SNIP
>>>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)
>
>So suppose the parliament passes a law that the priests don't like. What happens? Who's in charge of saying whether a law "contradicts the established provisions of Islam" or not? Islam is just like any religion, a huge text subject to interpretation. The base conflict between the Sunni and the Shia comes from the different answers to the question "after Muhammed, who's in charge - elected officials or his descendants". So what if there are different interpretations of compliance of a law with the "established provisions of Islam"?

Similar to the US, if there is a question about the validity of a law it goes to the courts.

Article 90 - The Federal Supreme Court shall have jurisdiction over the following:
1st - Oversight of the constitutionality of laws and regulations in effect
2nd - Interpretation of the provisions of the constitution
3rd-6th deal with settling disputes

In reference to your earlier question about women voting this is also addressed in Article 20. "The citizens, men and women, have the right to participate in public affairs and to enjoy political rights including the right to vote, to elect and nominate."

>
>>>>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)
>>-Afganistan sponsored terrorists that attacked US forces multiple times
>
>Had the US forces not been outside the US territory, they wouldn't have been attacked in the first place. They weren't much of a deterrent, but rather an attractor.

I do not accept the pretense that US presence is the reason for terrorist attacks.

>
>As for Israel, it's almost a mystery why does it have such a special ally status. Specially when it's known that they did once attack US forces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_attack_on_USS_Liberty) but were somehow forgiven.


>
>>-Libya shot down a US airliner
>
>And sanctions worked after a number of years. Aren't they the good guys (with lots of oil) now?
>
>>-Syria and Iran are currently sending people across the borders into Iraq to attack American forces.
>
>So did the US send people into Nicaragua to topple a democratically elected government. Did Nicaragua ever attack US?
>
>And, besides, it didn't work. The Sandinista government went down by losing elections later.
>
>>-Palestine(OK not a country but they hope to be) has attacked US forces and a US ally(Israel)
>
>Beg to differ here. Palestinians are a nation living on land occupied by Israel, they are as much entitled to fight against occupation as any other occupied nation. Since they aren't a country yet, they can't have an army, but have the right to form militias.
>

The Israeli claim on the land dates back to the Roman empire which expelled them from what was then called Judea in 135. The Roman emperor Hadrian was also the one who changed the name to Syria Palaestina.

Besides, Palestinians aren't fighting against Jordan where a good portion of the British mandate of Palestine resides.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine

>>>>>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?
>
>OK, I read it - so what? What's the point of bringing him into this?

The point is that because he has not been caught or killed yet doesn't make him any less important. I sighted the Unabomber because of the similarities:
- Top of the most wanted list
- Lived in hiding in a remote area
It took 18 years to catch him, and he was already in the US.

>
>>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.
>
>Now Bolton is the hammer to fix everything. The man of proven diplomatic skills.
>

We shall see.

>>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.
>
>And not paying your dues makes your standing in that case much better, doesn't it? It makes you look impeccable, compared to others who do pay.

My option 2 was to leave the club. If the others want to continue to pay their dues that is their right.

>
>I've read observations, many times over the last 30 years, that the US considers option 2 whenever it can't get the UN to serve its agenda, and always pays its dues very late, causing disruption in the functioning of UN, then using that to show that the UN doesn't work.

I assume that you've also read that the US pays a significantly higher amount to keep the UN running. Why is this if all countries are supposed to be equal? At least the permanent members of the Security Council should all pay an equal share right?

>
>As with any other observation, the event observed looks different, depending on where you stand. The previous administration was the first to go into a military adventure despite not getting the UN SC approval. The current is doing more of the same, much more.

What?
Korea
Egypt blockading Israel
Vietnam
Russia into Afghanistan

>
>>"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.
>
>Ah, so he was a president of a sovereign country, and a good guy because he was useful? Now that's what I'd call showing respect to the very idea of sovereignity.

I did not call him good.
Kim Jong Il is the president of a soverign country. I would not classify him as a good guy either.

>
>> He was always a bad guy,
>
>...even when he was in the pay of the CIA, and somehow CIA didn't know it?
>
Yes even then, and yes the CIA knew it.

>>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.
>
>Nice. So the Iran-Iraq war was a hot piece of cold war, an US-USSR war by proxy? With the US selling weapons to one bad guy to help other bad guys to topple a democratically elected government, while helping the other bad guy fight the first bad guy?
>

Korea, Vietnam, Russia-Afghanistan, Iran-Iraq; they all had Cold War connections.

What democratically elected government? Both Iraq and Iran were taken over by revolution, Iraq in 1968 and Iran in 1979.

>I admire the respect shown to sovereignity and independence of all countries. Independence is a great thing, as proven by the history of the US.

Independence is a great thing. The US has fought against the forces of Totalitarianism, Naziism, Fascism and Communism in order to bring freedom to hundreds of millions of people around the world.