>>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."
>
>It will be really interesting to see how this pans out. Presently, they have more pressing matters to attend to, than the clashes between shari'a and democracy. Another matter will be the judiciary itself - how much of a say will the clergy have in nominating and appointing judges. Could be anything from independent judiciary to independent shari'a courts.
>
According to Article 89.2nd a 2/3 majority of the Council of Representatives is required to pass the laws regarding the selection process for the judiciary. It will be interesting to see what religious overtones are agreed upon.

>>>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.
>
>You don't really have to accept or refuse it. It's in the eyes of the attackers. Since you so want to keep in mind what OBL said, remember the mantra about "foreign troops on holy land"? Or, on the secular side, that many nations feel that any foreign soldier on their land is not welcome.
>
How does that explain the attack of the Golden dome, or that wedding in Jordan or the recent attacks on the Saudi oil fields (the US pulled out of Saudi Arabia). History shows many other attacks by terrorist organizations against many targets, not just the US. Just this past weekend a group was busted who were going after Canadian targets.

>>>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.
>
>I somehow did expect you'll skip this one.
>
I didn't feel I had anything to say. It appears that officially the issue is closed. Unofficially, I'm sure some deal was worked out. Was the US an official ally before 1968?

>>>>-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.
>
>So does the Serbian claim to the lands of Kosovo and Metohia go about 11 centuries back. If the decisions of Roman officials had any merits, then would you please move all of the non-native Americans back to the continents where they ancestors came from, and reverse all the mass movements that happened in Europe since then? Get Australia and New Zealand back to their native peoples? Get Africa back to Africans? Get the whole Mediterranean basin to Roman Empire?
>
>If you endorse one claim, you can't just flat out refuse the others.
>
I do not endorse one claim, I simply pointed it out. I believe in Israel's right to exist. The lines were drawn years ago and have already been fought over. I believe that the Palestinians have been misled for decades by despots who are involved in a religious war to run the Jews to the sea. I believe the Israelis have every right to defend themselves against extinction. I hope that someday the Palestinians will elect leaders who are genuinly interested in a peaceful solution.

>>Besides, Palestinians aren't fighting against Jordan where a good portion of the British mandate of Palestine resides.
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine
>
>Could it be because they aren't second-class citizens in Jordan?
>
They don't have their own land or country, which is what their leaders claim to want. Most of what they claim as their land is in Jordan. Where is the consistency?

>>>>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.
>
>So you're all for dismantling the club altogether?
>
Frankly, I don't know. I like the idea of an organization where the countries of the world can air their grievances. However, the UN may be hopelessly corrupt. Genocides in Rwanda and Sudan with zero response, Peacekeepers abusing children, Oil-for-food There are instutional problems that may not be easily overcome.

>>>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?
>
>Equal percentage of their BNP, yes.
>
BNP?

>>>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
>
>You're putting the US into nice company.
>
Nope, the US is trying to liberate, the others were on conquests. I do not subscribe to the moral equivelence.

>>>> 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.
>
>And you approve the way CIA does business?
>
Sometimes.

>>>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.
>
>Which then does make them wars-by-proxy.
>
Not sure what you're saying here. All were wars.

>>What democratically elected government? Both Iraq and Iran were taken over by revolution, Iraq in 1968 and Iran in 1979.
>
>The former by a CIA's guy, the other against an US-propped king.
>
Saddam pulled his revolution well before US involvement. Nevertheless, these were not "democratically elected governments" as you implied.

>The government I had in mind was in Nicaragua.
>
Nicaragua was taken over by revolution in 1979 as well.

>>>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.
>
>I lived in a communist country. Can you describe how unfree was I?

Compared to what? Virginia Beach? :)