Where I and Dan part ways is in the notion that the UN is “dominated” by them. I think that’s too strong a statement. Though the recent endorsement of Iran’s human rights’ record by the relevant UN committee does advance Dan’s case a bit…

Not even that, technically; I merely pointed out that a specific attack on it made no sense.

Brett then:

I’m finding it hard to figure out how anybody could dispute this statement, given the human rights records of some UN members, such as China.

That was you defending Dan’s statement, Brett. Suck it up and own your shit for a change.

Pathetic.

Not even that, technically; I merely pointed out that a specific attack on it made no sense.

I mean, if somebody says that “X” is as strong as a gorilla, do you really think it a sensible objection that “X” doesn’t live on bananas?

“try very hard to talk as if the US Republicans don’t exist”

…and yet, at the same time, try very hard to suggest that the Right Thing for UN member states to do is to agree with everything the Republicans say, to “side with” them.

Referring to the Republicans without actually referring to them—truly a stroke of doublethink genius. Now I wonder, do they have some sort of Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler Training School over there?

“because you continue to crank out imbecilities like ‘the UN (with the exception of the Security Council, thanks to the American, British and French vetoes) is controlled by…’ as if the Security Council could simply be waved away”

Dan Simon’s airtight logic just reached a new high.

“I haven’t even discussed Republicans or the Bush administration”

Yeah, what you did was to try very hard to talk as if the US Republicans don’t exist. But they do, and you know that. And you also know that they suck, and many of the ‘comparisons’ between the UN and the KKK can be fruitfully applied to the Republican party, and you don’t want to confront this inconvenient fact—and that’s why you have to squirm and waffle.

Oh, bullshit. Snuh (#30) correctly pointed out above that “the security council is undeniably the most important and powerful UN organ.” Not only did you not bother to respond to that spittle-flecked bit of factual information, you ignored it—because you continue to crank out imbecilities like “the UN (with the exception of the Security Council, thanks to the American, British and French vetoes) is controlled by…” as if the Security Council could simply be waved away. Hell, snuh made any number of good points in that comment—you answered none of them, preferring instead to piss and moan about how unfairly you’re being treated.

The only thing more asinine than the analogy has been your “defense” of it.

What exactly governments are rife with corruption, repression, racism, and other ills? Why do you believe they’re rife with all these terrible things any more than the governments you like? See, it’s not necessarily obvious to everybody, you need to work harder to convince people.

See, if, for example, I call you “near as bad as the KKK”, you’re not required “to refute my point”, you can simply dismiss it, because, you see, it’s not really a point, it’s an insult.

As I have repeatedly explained, I’m not even an American, let alone a Republican. I haven’t even discussed Republicans or the Bush administration here, let alone defended them (beyond pointing out that they’re nowhere near as bad as the KKK—hardly a ringing endorsement, however debatable folks here might think this obvious observation to be). I simply pointed out that the UN (with the exception of the Security Council, thanks to the American, British and French vetoes) is controlled by governments rife with corruption, repression, racism, and many other ills, and that Levin’s comparison of the UN’s moral level with that of the KKK is therefore not unreasonable.

Rather than even attempt to refute my point, Bi and others have chosen simply to dismiss me as a Republican and launch into spittle-soaked tirades about the Bush administration. I’ll take such ad hominem irrelevancies as evidence that my point stands unrefuted.

So, this Ahmadinejad character: worse than Hitler, or worse than Pol Pot, or worse than Hitler and Pol Pot combined?

This statement sounds like a borderline case of antisemitism.

1. Venality is the quality of being for sale, especially when one should act justly instead. This is usually classed as a vice, not a virtue.
   en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venality

Sounds more like the Bush Administration, rather than either the U.N. or the KKK.

Uncle Kvetch, we can see now that Dan Simon’s “logic” is indeed airtight…

“many democratic countries are happy to side with the undemocratic blocs on any number of issues.”

Oh, so Dan Simon thinks it’s not about siding with principles or facts, it’s about siding with people. The question isn’t “are you for or against democracy?” or “are you for or against habeas corpus?”, but “are you for or against the Bush administration?” Makes perfect sense now, doesn’t it?