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

[Michael Tee]

sirs writes:  <<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.>>

Looks like we're being treated to a little more of the sirs shuffle.  Pretending now that he asked TWO questions when there's really only one, and ignoring that the answer to the one (or two, according to sirscount) has already been given.

Here was sirs' actual "second" question, which he has only just now re-worded: (and I am quoting verbatim)

<<So, what does the UN do now?  Stick their tongue out & stomp up and down?  Hold their breath?  Say "pretty please"?>>

Notice how the question "what does THE UN do now" had in sirs' attempted re-writing of the thread slickly become "where's YOUR condemnation?"

The original question, as asked in both its forms, was answered in my very first reply to sirs.  When the lying little sneak claims I never answered it, he's rebutted, changes the issue (or tries to,) and when pinned down, finally invents a new question (where's MY condemnation) and faults me for never answering it.

sirs, you and I will probably never agree on much, and that's OK.  Believe it or not, I actually enjoy debating with you.  You're a challenge and you keep my mind working in overdrive.  However:  you would be just as much of a challenge and would give me just as much of a workout if you merely stuck to your idiotic and insane views and did not force me to go off on sidetracks just to rebut lies and misrepresentations which essentially have nothing to do with the issues themselves.  Please help me out here, sirs, I have limited time and I'd like to keep it focused on the issues.

[sirs]

rant..sirs asked 2 qestions...blather...sirs is now trying to get me to answer 1 of them...rant

Apparently Tee's only able to answer 1 question at a time.  Well, there's always Public Education for learning those higher multi-tasking concepts.  And most entertainingly, he still managed to avoid answering the question he's condemning me for pseudo asking.  Neat trick, isn't it   

And what I've also noticed, is when a person begins to complain of someone doing X, usually they're the ones that were doing X.  In this case, going off on some sidetracks.  That would be Tee's effort, in apparently avoiding the original question posed (once the clarification was made in the subsequent response).

[Michael Tee]

<<Apparently Tee's only able to answer 1 question at a time.>>

That's because you only asked one question at a time. 

<<Well, there's always Public Education for learning those higher multi-tasking concepts.>>

Don't get me started on Public Education.  You are a prime example of the failure of the system.

<<he still managed to avoid answering the question he's condemning me for pseudo asking.>>

First things first.  I wanted to expose your lie that you had asked the question before and I'd failed to answer it.  And all the other lies, especially since they were ad hominem slanders.  Your last feeble attempt to escape from your own lies was a good question, though, and I will answer it - - after we first deal with the issues that were first raised, and the forest of lies that you generated once you realized how stupid your first question was.

<<Neat trick, isn't it?>>

Not as neat a trick as asking one question in two slightly different forms, getting a perfectly reasonable answer to it, pretending it was never answered, and then making up a totally different question and claiming you'd asked it in the first place and it had never been answered.  THAT'S a neat trick.

<<And what I've also noticed, is when a person begins to complain of someone doing X, usually they're the ones that were doing X.  In this case, going off on some sidetracks.  That would be Tee's effort, in apparently avoiding the original question posed (once the clarification was made in the subsequent response).>>

The sidetracks were introduced by you yourself, sirs.  Accusing me of failing to answer a question that I had already answered, accusing me of never condemning Iran - - if you don't like being sidetracked, stick to the issues.  You can't raise a bunch of issues that cast doubt on my integrity and then complain that I am sidetracking the discussion when I respond to your bullshit allegations.

[Michael Tee]

BTW, in answer to sirs' question - - the one he finally DID get around to posting - - where is MY condemnation of Iran?  It's nowhere.  I don't condemn Iran and I think the UN went overboard in requiring Iran to cease arming itself in the face of threats from Israel and the U.S.A. which are totally incompatible with any decent respect for its sovereignty.  I believe Iran has every right to arm itself as it sees fit and I don't condemn it. 

Respect for the UN is one thing, committing national suicide by obeying a UN resolution which fails to take into account the nuclear weapons of Iran's enemies while focusing only on the nuclearization of Iran would be sheer insanity.

This highlights one of the many problems of the UN as a credible and viable alternative to war.  It is subject to big-power blackmail, such that the U.S. and Israel get away with murder and the condemnation of the UN falls upon the relatively weaker, such as Iran.  But respect is earned by example and precedent not by flouting the rule of law.  Israel and the U.S.A. openly thumb their noses at the UN and now expect Iran to submit meekly to its dictates?   Never happen.  This is why the course of the U.S.A. in flouting international law is so disastrous.

I believe respect for the law must be shown first by the strong.  If they don't obey the law, why on earth should the weak?  Iran flouts the UN only because the UN cannot enforce its will on the U.S. and Israel or alternatively because Israel and the U.S. openly laugh at the UN.  NOt only that, but the U.S. currently lacks any moral authority in asking for the UN to compel Iranian compliance.  Were the U.S. in a position of moral authority, the degree of sanctions they could ask the UN to apply to Iran would be virtually unlimited.  In the current state of their moral failure, they can't legitimately ask for jack-shit.

[BT]

Were the U.S. in a position of moral authority, the degree of sanctions they could ask the UN to apply to Iran would be virtually unlimited.

If Iran is not in violation of any international law, according to your understanding of their rights to self-preservation, regardless of any proliferation treaties they may have signed, why would moral authority allow sanctions to be decreed? 

[sirs]

BTW, in answer to sirs' question - -

Yea, the one posed 8 Tee responses ago, in only the 4th posting, of this thread.

Respect for the UN is one thing, committing national suicide by obeying a UN resolution which fails to take into account the nuclear weapons of Iran's enemies while focusing only on the nuclearization of Iran would be sheer insanity.

Now, was that so hard?  So, to summize, minus all the excracurricular sideshow, Tee was trying to impliment, it's OK for Iran to tell the UN to pound sand, but not for the U.S.  Got it.  Nice double standard, you've got going there

[Plane]

Respect for the UN is one thing, committing national suicide by obeying a UN resolution which fails to take into account the nuclear weapons of Iran's enemies while focusing only on the nuclearization of Iran would be sheer insanity.

   Has Iran got an enemy that is likely to pop a nuclear bomb on their territory without provacation of the same coin?

[sirs]

Respect for the UN is one thing, committing national suicide by obeying a UN resolution which fails to take into account the nuclear weapons of Iran's enemies while focusing only on the nuclearization of Iran would be sheer insanity.

Has Iran got an enemy that is likely to pop a nuclear bomb on their territory without provacation of the same coin?

I remember this merry-go-round tactic earlier by folks not too pleasant towards Israel.  It went something like, Iran needs a nuclear weapon to deter Israel's potential for striking them to prevent Iran from using it as a 1st strike weapon upon Israel. 

Outside of Israel, who else would want to, much less capable of hitting Iran with a nuke?

[_JS]

India and Pakistan both have nuclear weapons.

[sirs]

India and Pakistan both have nuclear weapons.

And.............?  Please educate me Js.  Are either openly hostile towards Iran?  Do they have unresolved issues with Iran?  Are you implying they'd want to hit Iran with a nuke?

[Michael Tee]

<<If Iran is not in violation of any international law . . . >>

That's maybe overstating it.  They may be in breach of a non-proliferation treaty they are bound by and they may or may not be in breach of international law merely by non-compliance with a Security Council resolution, but I'm not qualified to provide an opinion on the latter possibility.  You'd have to be a lawyer specializing in international law to determine an issue like that and it would probably have to end up in the World Court for a final determination.

<< . . .  according to your understanding of their rights to self-preservation, regardless of any proliferation treaties they may have signed . . . >>

Well, again, I'm not sure where a right of self-preservation comes in here when there's no immediate threat and I also wouldn't know legally whether they didn't sign away any right of self-preservation when they signed the treaty.

<< why would moral authority allow sanctions to be decreed?  ..

Other nations, if pressed by the U.S. and Israel, might be willing to impose sanctions on Iran if the U.S. and Israel had themselves scrupulously obeyed the U.N.'s resolutions; but might be unwilling where Israel flouted them and the U.S. supported Israel regardless.  There seems to be a certain discretionary factor at play here - - it is not EVERY violator of a UN resolution that gets hit with sanctions.  Some get away with thumbing their nose at the UN, others don't.  But attitudes change over time, and people who originally put up with shit can develop a kind of hardening attitude where they won't put up with it any more.  So some folks who once thought it was OK to let some countries (Israel, the U.S.A.) off the hook for defying the U.N., finally decide, Fuck this!  I'll be God-damned if I'll vote to sanction Iran after Israel and the U.S. get away with murder.

If every violator got sanctioned, then there would be moral authority to sanction Iran, maybe even for less flagrant and more excusable violations than those of Israel and the U.S.A.  But if some violators go unpunished, there is NO moral authority to exercise sanctions on others.

[BT]

So UN sanctions are really the results of a popularity contest?

It is not the offense that is paramount in the sanctioning process, it is the reputation of the aggrieved parties.

Isn't that akin to the nuts and sluts defense?

[Michael Tee]

<<So UN sanctions are really the results of a popularity contest?>>

All political acts reflect popularity of the persons affected in one way or another, whether we're talking about a lynching, an election or a UN deliberation.  I wouldn't call it a "popularity contest" because a popularity contest evaluates one factor (popularity) whereas popularity is only one factor in a Security Council resolution and in most political decisions as well.

<<It is not the offense that is paramount in the sanctioning process, it is the reputation of the aggrieved parties. >>

No, I'd say in theory there is probably some offence so heinous that even the most popular member state could not get away with it, but obviously the offense is not paramount in the sanctioning process.  Otherwise Israel, with a horrendous record of denying civil rights to 3 million West Bank Arabs for 39 years with no end in sight, killing thousands of them, including hundreds of children, would be severely sanctioned, and Iran, for conducting research which so far has harmed not one hair of one human head, would be getting off with light slaps on the wrist.

<<Isn't that akin to the nuts and sluts defense? >>

Sorry, but I'm not familiar with that one.

[BT]

So if Switzerland or Sweden brought concerns about Iran to the UN for sanctions,, it would have a better chance of being implemented?

The nuts and sluts defense is usually used in rape cases, where the victim is accused of either lying to seek attention or had a long history of promiscuity and likely deserved what she got.

The Clinton Affair when tried in the press was rift with this tactic.

[Michael Tee]

<<So if Switzerland or Sweden brought concerns about Iran to the UN for sanctions,, it would have a better chance of being implemented?>>

I think the optics would be better than if the U.S.A. brought the matter up - - theoretically - - but in the real world, who would believe that eithre Sweden or Switzerland gave a shit one way or another?  This woud be seen as an American initiative no matter WHO brought it up.

But even with a morally "clean" sponsor, the resolution would still run into a moral brick wall:  "We're gonna sanction Iran for a little harmless nuclear experimentation, and Israel, with a 39-year illegal military occupation, is gonna walk?"