So Tee.... (or other like minds)

[sirs]

If the UN is the end all, be all to everything well intentioned and good in this wold, where's the condemnation aimed at Iran for its continued defiance of the UN, and their demands that they stop their nuclear weapons ambitions? 

You seem to have plenty of condemnation to heep on America, for supposedly violating something of the UN.  Iran is flagrantly telling the UN to go pound sand.  So, what does the UN do now?  Stick their tongue out & stomp up and down?  Hold their breath?  Say "pretty please"?

[Michael Tee]

<<If the UN is the end all, be all to everything well intentioned and good in this wold, where's the condemnation aimed at Iran for its continued defiance of the UN, and their demands that they stop their nuclear weapons ambitions?  >>

Huh?   WHERE in any of my posts was it stated that the UN is "the end all and the be all" of anything?  As I tried to make clear repeatedly, the UN represents the very beginning of a concerted international effort to end the scourge of warfare - - a scourge which your government has been inflicting on the rest of the world since the mid-1960's, after being one of the principal founders of the institution.  The progress of the UN is necessarily slow and halting - - it's in its infancy.  After at least fvie thousand years of unrestrained warfare, an organization starts up in 1944, well within my own lifetime, to put a stop to all this shit and believe me, as I've said repeatedly, it has a long, long way to go.

I fail to understand how any of that translates into "the be-all and end-all to everything."  Most sane, normal and reasonably intelligent individuals reading what I posted about the UN will understand that I am saying that it has a tough row to hoe, it's struggling to build a novel concept, international law, in the face of entrenched philosophies of nationalism and sovereignty,  and needs all the help it can get - - and that we all have a stake in its eventual success.

<<Where's the condemnation aimed at Iran? >>

 Well, it would be kind of premature right now, because the UN is awaiting a second inspection report. 

I am sure that if the UN then decides to issue any condemnation of Iran, the Iranians will treat the UN condemnation with the same deference and respect shown by the Israelis to similar UN condemnations.  Proving that the UN needs some teeth to enforce its condemnation, but illustrating the difficulty of putting teeth into an organization that can bite your enemy today but your friend tomorrow.  There's a project for you to work on sirs - - how to empower the UN so that it can enforce its resolutions against everyone except America and Israel.  I bet THAT'S the kind of internationalism you could really get behind.

[Michael Tee]

<< . . . it's struggling to build a novel concept, international law . . . >>

Of course, international law is not a "novel concept."  That was sloppy.  What I meant was a novel concept of a global body of nations trying to establish and ultimately enforce international law and thereby end war through a kind of deliberative process.

[sirs]

A) I wasn't asking you when you thought the UN would condemn Iran
B) The "end all be all" was referencing specifically your desire for what you want the UN to be, not for what they are in their present form (because if you ask me what they currently are, they're simply a completely non-credible anti-American, anti-Israel elitist debating society)

Now, getting those components cleared up, where's YOUR condemnation aimed at Iran for telling the UN to go pound sand? given your insidious condemnations of America for supposedly violating some charter of the UN with our actions in Iraq

[Plane]

The progress of the UN is necessarily slow and halting - - it's in its infancy.  After at least fvie thousand years of unrestrained warfare, an organization starts up in 1944, well within my own lifetime, to put a stop to all this shit and believe me, as I've said repeatedly, it has a long, long way to go.

Why does the UN depend so much on the US?


If the rest of the world tinks it usefull really they could chip in on its finances enough to prevent the US from haveing controll.

[Michael Tee]

<<A) I wasn't asking you when you thought the UN would condemn Iran>>

Sure sounded like you were; in your exact words, <<If the UN is the end all, be all to everything well intentioned and good in this wold, where's the condemnation aimed at Iran . . . ? >>

This sounds like the latest example of the sirs shuffle - - say something outrageously stupid and out to lunch, get called on it, and then deny that you said or meant what you clearly did say and did mean.



<<B) The "end all be all" was referencing specifically your desire for what you want the UN to be, not for what they are in their present form >> 

Well, I am certainly glad that you cleared that up.  Your question - - which was, again, <<If the UN is the end all, be all to everything well intentioned and good in this wold, where's the condemnation aimed at Iran for its continued defiance of the UN, and their demands that they stop their nuclear weapons ambitions? >> - - apparently is aimed at the future UN, not the present UN. [Asking myself right now, why am I playing along with this outrageous bullshit, pretending now that sirs really was asking about the future UN, rather than simply idenifying his latest weaselling as just one more textbook example of the sirs shuffle?]

But OK, sirs, let's play make-believe, since that's the only world you'll ever live in anyway:  since I now understand that  you are asking about the future UN, sirs, the UN as I want it to be, not the UN that presently exists, it will be easy to answer your question:  the future UN will condemn the future Iraq in the future, when the UN is finally what I hope it to be.   

[Xavier_Onassis]

I suggest that it would be appropriate that this "new UN" might get around to condemning Iran at about the time that the US either signs the Kyoto Accords and the International Law of the Sea and the ban on land mines, and agrees to accept the verdicts of the World Court in the Hague.

Israel DESERVES to be despised for practicing apartheid, by the way.

Is there one other country that detains people hours and hours on their way to work?

Is there one other country that has special highways for people based on their religion?

[sirs]

<<A) I wasn't asking you when you thought the UN would condemn Iran>>

Sure sounded like you were; This sounds like the latest example of the sirs shuffle - - say something outrageously stupid and out to lunch, get called on it, and then deny that you said or meant what you clearly did say and did mean.

I can't help it if you misunderstood my meaning.  I kinda thought the title of the thread would have been a clue.  Apparently even that was too over the top.

Your question - - which was, again, <<If the UN is the end all, be all to everything well intentioned and good in this wold, where's the condemnation aimed at Iran for its continued defiance of the UN, and their demands that they stop their nuclear weapons ambitions? >> - - apparently is aimed at the future UN, not the present UN.

No, it's been aimed at "Tee of other like minds".  Hey Tee, if you want to plead the 5th, go for it.  I realize how you can't condemn Iran, because they have the potential of hurting alot of Americans.  And of course, that's a good thing.  So just say so, and stop playing these juvenile games

[Asking myself right now, why am I playing along with this outrageous bullshit, pretending now that sirs really was asking about the future UN, rather than simply idenifying his latest weaselling as just one more textbook example of the sirs shuffle?]  But OK, sirs, let's play make-believe, since that's the only world you'll ever live in anyway:  since I now understand that  you are asking about the future UN,....

Oh forget it, since that's not what I was asking.  Apparently "where's YOUR condemnation aimed at Iran for telling the UN to go pound sand?" is just too complex a question for even Tee to address.  My guess however is that you knew that, but again, wanted to avoid answering a pathetically easy question, so had to try and make up some BS for cover.  To each, their own, I guess

[Michael Tee]

<<I can't help it if you misunderstood my meaning. >>

Sure you can.  Just say what you mean.

<< I kinda thought the title of the thread would have been a clue.>>

Oh yeah.  I can read minds.  Didn't even have to look at your post for the question, it was all there in that title.

<<Apparently even that was too over the top.>>

Apparently some people think they can weasel out of anything, even their own words in black and white. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<<No, it's [sirs' question has] been aimed at "Tee of other like minds". >>

We all know who the question was asked of, sirs.  Your title makes that perfectly plain.  Nobody could mistake that and nobody has. 

When I said that your question appeared [in the light of your "explanation" of what you "really" meant"] to be aimed at the future UN rather than at the present one, my use of the word "aimed" clearly and obviously meant "aimed" in the context of "referred to" rather than "aimed" in the context of "question directed to." 

Your attempt to deflect the issue from what you originally said regarding the UN ("Oh no, I did not mean the real-life UN as it is today, I meant the hoped-for UN as it appears in Tee's dreams") into an issue of who you were directing your question to, is just one more unfortunate example of the sirs shuffle, the evasion, the pure intellectual dishonesty fooling nobody but yourself, and probably not even fooling yourself.  First you say something, then (when the utter foolishness of what you said becomes obvious) you run from your own words, and - - when you aren't allowed to run from them - - then you try to turn the issue into a different one altogether - - in this case, an issue of who you directed your question to, when the title of the thread is so clear that there could be no possible doubt of it.

Don't you realize what a lying little weasel this makes you look like?  Do you really think that anyone in this group reading your words is so stupid as to be taken in by this kind of childish sophistry?  Give us a little bit of credit, sirs.  We're not all total idiots.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
<<Hey Tee, if you want to plead the 5th, go for it.  >>

Before I plead the Fifth, I have to refuse to answer a question. 

Your problem here, sirs, is that I have not refused to answer any question.  You asked where was the UN's condemnation of Iran.  I answered in these exact words, sirs:  "Well, it would be kind of premature right now, because the UN is awaiting a second inspection report."

So your intimation that I am "pleading the Fifth" is just more misrepresentation of the truth, more of your bullshit.  More of the twisted right-wing fantasies that you spin, never even coming close to reality.

<<I realize how you can't condemn Iran, because they have the potential of hurting alot of Americans.  >>

More lies, more bullshit.  I have condemned Iran many times in my posts, for publicly hanging two teenaged homosexuals who had sex with each other, for torturing Canadian journalist Zahra Kazemi to death, for the torture, rape and murder of Bahai women and men in jail, for Holocaust denial.   I can and do condemn Iran for a great many things and I've done it often in this group.  You are more than a liar, you are a lying, slanderous bullshit artist specializing in personal ad hominem attacks when you can't put together a single intelligent argument.  You make up stuff whenever it comes into your head and if you get called on your bullshit, you scurry away from it like a rat caught in a flashlight beam.

<<And of course, that's [hurting a lot of Americans] a good thing.  So just say so, and stop playing these juvenile games.>>

I've said it, and I'll say it again - - Americans aren't perfect and they're not always in the right.  If a lot of Americans get hurt invading someone else's country without justification, that IS a good thing and I've never been afraid to say so.  If a lot of Americans get hurt going to work in the World Trade Center, that is a very, very BAD thing and I've said that too.  Unlike you, sirs, I say what I mean, and I don't have to backtrack and twist like a pretzel to get out of something I said two or three posts back.   I don't play juvenile games; that's your specialty.

[sirs]

yada...rant...blather....rant

Notice folks throuout that entire diatribe, not once did he address the original question, even after it was reposted and made bold, that even knute could have fi....oops, bad example.  In any case, apparently Tee's off on another one of his irrational rants.  If anyone else wishes to address the query, specifically those of the Tee-like mindset, by all means, give it a go, and explain the why/why not

[Michael Tee]

<<Notice folks throuout that entire diatribe, not once did he address the original question . . . >>

Original question:

<<If the UN is the end all, be all to everything well intentioned and good in this wold, where's the condemnation aimed at Iran for its continued defiance of the UN, and their demands that they stop their nuclear weapons ambitions?  >>

My answer: (at 1:09:25)

<<Well, it would be kind of premature right now, because the UN is awaiting a second inspection report. >>

Is it legitmate to ask what this guy is smoking?

Notice folks that other than the above ringing example of matchless stupidity, the poster had no response to the rest of my post in which he was royally blasted for lying and blatantly misrepresenting not only what I said but what he himself had been saying in this very thread.   How surreal is that?

[sirs]

Notice also folks, how after Tee's initial confusion was dealt with, and the question "where's YOUR condemnation aimed at Iran for telling the UN to go pound sand?" couldn't be made clearer, Tee has yet to answer it, and keeps pretending it's all about the UN, it's future, it's past, and whatever else hogwash.  Apparently the more simple the question, the too complex it is to answer.   

[larry]

"where's YOUR condemnation aimed at Iran for telling the UN to go pound sand?"

Some people have enough sense to not jump on that white house bandwagon. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

[The_Professor]

The progress of the UN is necessarily slow and halting - - it's in its infancy.  After at least five thousand years of unrestrained warfare, an organization starts up in 1944, well within my own lifetime, to put a stop to all this shit and believe me, as I've said repeatedly, it has a long, long way to go.

Why does the UN depend so much on the US?


If the rest of the world thinks it usefull really they could chip in on its finances enough to prevent the US from having controll.

Excellent question, Plane. I see the LEFT side of the isle has yet to respond. Tell you what: let's postulate that everyone pay their share. Equality is espoused quite frequently. Where is the equality here?

[sirs]

"where's YOUR condemnation aimed at Iran for telling the UN to go pound sand?"

Some people have enough sense to not jump on that white house bandwagon. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

To be perfectly honest Larry, I don't have any idea what the White House has to do with my question.  Want to take another stab?