No.
It's a video game console.
How would I pity it? That's like pitying a rock for not being a diamond.
Very stupid. Nonsensical.

Reggie said that, not Iwata. Moreover, from your own google search:

http://n4g.com/news/1150824/wii-u-is-not-profitable-after-one-game-sale

P.S. Making a profit only after selling one game means that they'd be, you know, selling the system at a loss. How greedy of them(?).

Not one bit.The Wii U is really the 'real' successor to the GameCube, not the Wii.Given how unhappy they were with the GC, it´s particularly weird how quickly they went back to the design philosophy that created the little purple box in the first place.

That "1 game sold = profit" was debunked more than a year ago.

Also the WiiU received a $50 or so price cut. So it now takes more than 1 game to be profitable
(I know that manufacturing costs likely decreased but not by $50)

They've made that back with one sale.  And it's not all about losing money on hardware.  You're ignoring that at the time of release they saved around $200 by giving their customers a small upgrade that's closer to the last gen hardware than next gen. 

It was developed to entice gamers as a cheap next gen product instead of giving us something of next gen quality.  Before you come back with they tried something unique, the tablet like I said in another post you quoted is nothing more than the bottom screen of the DS.  Nintendo knows hardly anyone uses it for unique purposes.  Nintendo doesn't even use it for unique purposes.  They only released it because it was different and maybe they could lure in people to purchase it like they did the Wii.

Citation needed. Your earlier link contradicts this claim.

Perhaps not (though I'm glad to see you're conceding this point), but if your theory is that they deliberately introduced an 'underpowered' machine to line their own pockets, the fact that they're losing money on said machines rather puts the lie to that. Unless you're taking the even more absurd position that first-parties are somehow required to lose money on the system, and that Nintendo's sin was in not losing more money per system sold.

So you are saying that the only way Nintendo would not be greedy would be by losing far more money per system sold, in this case to the tune of some amount over $200. Which, assuming they get $12 in royalty for every $60 third-party title sold, would mean they potentially would need to sell over sixteen third-party games just to break even. Or maybe they're greedy because they don't want consumers to pay 66% more per console? That's an interesting point of view either way. Lucky that only Nintendo games sell on Nintendo systems, huh?

I honestly don't know what this means. 

I am going to summarize your position as I understand it. You must correct me where I'm wrong, because it has zero logical consistency, is not in accordance with common sense, and is defining words in ways which are not found in the dictionary meaning of said words. To wit:

"Nintendo is a greedy company. They deliberately chose to make a cheap and underpowered system in order to save themselves some money, and then tried to fool customers into buying said cheap and underpowered system so that they could make a larger profit. In order to trick people into buying this cheap and underpowered system to the masses, they included a very expensive peripheral with each system which gobbled up all the money they saved by making the system so crappy and then some, but that additional cost doesn't count because it's just a bigger DS screen that no one uses so for accounting purposes it means that Nintendo is actually making a profit of over a hundred bucks per Wii U.

"Furthermore, Nintendo is making a profit on the hardware because it only takes selling one game to make up for the loss on the hardware, according to the older and overridden entries in this google search *link*. But even if that's not true it doesn't matter; Nintendo's greed is shown in the fact that it  didn't make the system more powerful instead and then charged consumers at least an extra $200 per unit while presumably losing (More / Less/ Same : please circle one).

"In conclusion, for purposes of this thread at least I am publicly demanding that the Wii U be a clone competing systems because of reasons, but I am unable to properly express my outrage that it tried to do something different instead so I assert that by introducing a machine which is $100-$200 cheaper than the competition (now with at least one game bundled free for every system, so it's more like $160-$260 cheaper) while still losing money on every bit of hardware sold, Nintendo is being greedy. Alternatives that I considered but rejected include, but are not limited to, Selfish, Evil, Oppresive, Outrageous, Vainglorious, and Hungry."

The Wii U is a great console with great games, but Nintendo can only do so much. Sony and Microsoft have an obvious advantage over cutting edge technology, considering they both manufacture computers.

Do you pity the Xbox One aswell? Cause its pulling similar numbers.

I am sorry that th system isnt more sucessful, just like i was with the Saturn and the Dreamcast, but its not up to us to make a difference. Its the manufacturer that has that power. We can just enjoy the games. And if theres good games, theres nothing to pity but those that chose to deny themselves the goods.

I got Killzone with my PS4, big mistake. I thought I would try Knack, it's lame. I like Resogun quite a bit but I didn't spend all that money

for an indie shooter pew pew!

It's Tropical Freeze right now for me with Pikmin sessions to break it up a bit....

I don't pity a company that blew it this bad. The Wii was dominant, and will finish comfortably as the #2 best selling home console ever between PS2 and PS1...but the Wii U will be fortunate to hit Gamecube type sales by the look of it. I have no pity for a company that failed so hard to capitalize on past success.

The Wii's success was based on $249 price tag, the motion control fad/trend, and the media support it got. The Wii U fucked that all up by being more expensive, no new fad/trend to work with (a tablet controller isn't gonna cut it), and it has no good advertising or media support. It failed on all 3 fronts where the Wii dominated....at least in my opinion.