1/31    New Iran development, see bottom:
        - Iran breaks seals, announces resumption of enrichment research
                                             \_ You continue to fail to
                                                understand my point.  I did
                                                not say it was a "good" ruling.
        - West condemns Iran, support move to Security Council
        - Iran condemns West, threatens full-scale enrichment upon referral
        - Russia/China upset, but don't support move to Security Council
        - Russia highlights enrichment in Russia
        - ... Days tick away to IAEA board meeting ...
        - Iran says Russian enrichment plan "positive"
        Last Thu-Fri:
        - West (including U.S.) fully endorses Russian enrichment plan
        - Iran says of Russian plan "capacity of the program not sufficient ...
          can be revised to be more complete"
        - Iran allows IAEA visits to Lavizan military site
        Today:
        - China and Russia sign on to statement with EU3 + U.S. saying
          they support reporting Iran to UN Security Council in a IAEA vote
          Thursday.  Sec Council will consider issue in March after formal
          IAEA report is delivered.
        \_ Your timeline would be useful except you drop key points.  Like
           you say Iran allows IAEA visits to Lavizan, but you leave out
           the part that it was a limited visit and they weren't allowed to
           see everything they wanted to see which is why they got referred
           to the Security Council.  If you're going to bother, do it right.
           \_ OP might have an agenda.
              \_ op does not have an agenda.  BTW, Iran is not getting sent
                 to the Sec Council because of Lavisan restrictions, even
                 if they were in place, which is why I didn't mention them
                 and also the fact that Lavisan has been "cleaned" ahead of
                 time.  If you want to jump to conclusions at least get it
                 right. -op
           \_ Restrictions on Lavizan (which had already been "cleaned") is
              not why Iran is getting referred to the Sec Council.  If you
              say someone is wrong, please try to get it right. -op
              \_ op does not have an agenda. -op
              \_ Convenient that you forget to mention it.  If I'm wrong, go
                 ahead and prove it.  It's your timeline.  Post a real time
                 line with all the facts or dont bother.  Anything less and
                 you might as well just keep it to a few lines of whatever
                 your agenda is and save us the false appearance of historical
                 honesty spread across 20+ lines.
                 \_ Let's keep this discussion very focused.
                    You said restrictions on Lavizan is why Iran is getting
                    referred to the Sec Council.  Do you still stand by this?
                    \_ Stop being clever.  Post your link.  I said what I
                       said.  Either way, your 'timeline' stated that Iran
                       allowed the IAEA to 'visit' which is only technically
                       correct.  They were not allowed to look at everything
                       they needed to look at which is not in your timeline
                       which makes your version of history make the Iranians
                       look accomodating when they're not.  Focus, indeed.
                       \_ All you needed to say was, "Yes."
                          I mentioned that Russia and China were going to
                          support a move to the Sec Council, and I kind of
                          assumed the reader would realize, "Oh, if China and
                          Russia are on-board (even with the fact that China
                          gets 14% of its oil from Iran), maybe Lavizan was
                          just a dishonest attempt to divide the other side"?
                          You know, I think I just should have written, "Yes,
                          you're absolutely right that Lavizan was a diversion,
                          but the reason why the case is being moved to the UN
                          is because of the resumption of enrichment research.
                          I omitted the Lavizan detail because I kind of
                          assumed the reader would recognize and even post
                          about this."  I should have written that instead of
                          getting all pissed off about a random sodan
                          attacking me.
           \_ Restrictions on Lavizan is not why Iran is getting referred
              to the Sec Council.  If you want to make a statement, make
              sure it's correct. -op
                          \_ Ok then.  I just want to see history kept straight
                             if history is being posted.  IMO, Lavizan wasn't
                             an easily dismissed detail; I think it was quite
                             important.  I'm happy to leave it at that.
                                -- random sodan
                             \_ Not really dismissed, but I kind of assumed
                                the reader would realize it was a diversion --
                                that Iran would not be giving genuinely helpful
                                info re Lavisan access, given China/Russia's
                                support for move to the UN.  I kind of just got
                                pissed off when the post came with an attack
                                on me too.