NBVegita

No one is telling them they can't spend the rest of their lives together.

Syrus, I would love to see fresh blood in there. It would be just what the game needs. I just don't see it happening. In fact I would even think that someone already in the council would just add the !@#$%^&*le to their name.

and I was all ready to attack now I'm about to pack up and go to bed :/

I thought polix mentioned that a while ago...

aren't you an admin in the rpg?

I have a feeling this will end as all things like this do. Who ever the council likes the best, which will rule out the option of fresh blood, will get the position. It's just the way said things work.

I understand where you are coming from, but this isn't an everyday issue. It's not like trying to install cameras in a sweat shop to stop underage labor. This is concerning the possibility of nuclear weapons that break the international nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Nuclear technology should not be taken lightly. It's a big responsibility even on a peaceful level. And the IAEA isn't telling them they can't enrich uranium, though they did ask them to halt enrichment until their intent was proven, but that didn't happen. And the permanent members of the UN were for sanctions, minus China and Russia before, and now even they are leaning towards supporting sanctions. That should be a sign right there. I'm not saying Iran is going one way or another. All I'm saying is that on an issue of this magnitude, you can't be too careful.

The whole point is that the "certain aspects" of the nuclear program that cannot be determined could be, the advancement towards nuclear weapons, or the future advancement towards nuclear weapons. Very simply, the IAEA cannot prove what some aspects of their nuclear program might be advancing towards. Iran refuses to give the IAEA the access to complete this, although the IAEA is back by the United Nations. I'm sorry if this doesn't seem a bit like the kid who stole a cookie from the cookie jar and won't show his hands to prove himself guilty or innocent. And don't use the bull !@#$%^&* excuse that the US has the UN in its pocket. If the UN was out to appease the US and the US had the UN in their pocket, why did the UN completely object to the war in Iraq? Why didn't they just approve that? If the US has the UN in its pocket, then so does the UK. Iran is not above the UN or the IAEA. If I were Iran I would want to prove myself innocent. PROVE being the key word. But its better to try and become a zealot against the west, and get some bleeding heart librals to join your cause.

sever did you not read that post at all? Or did you just read what you wanted to read? Certain: 6. definite or particular, but not named or specified: A certain person phoned. He had a certain charm. The "certain aspects" is applied to the "scope and nature of its nuclear programme" not the "transparency measures". "which are essential for the clarification of certain aspects of the scope and nature of its nuclear programme." The whole sentence outlines that without the requested transparency measures, that the IAEA will not be able to determine the nature or character of the scope (purpose) of it's nuclear program. How, after all of those definitions do you not understand at least that much of the english language?

Its just part of the game.

When a military force hides behind women and children they are just as much at fault for the deaths of those women and children as the force that killed them.

http://www.speedtest.net/result/107587735.png And thats from 200 mi away

Sever I'm too tired tonight to go through that whole post, but maybe you and I have different ideas of what the English language means. "Iran has not agreed to any of the required transparency measures, which are essential for the clarification of certain aspects of the scope and nature of its nuclear programme." Not: 1. (used to express negation, denial, refusal, or prohibition): You must not do that. It's not far from here. Agreed: 2. to give consent; !@#$%^&*ent (often fol. by to): He agreed to accompany the amb!@#$%^&*ador. Do you agree to the conditions? Required: 1. to have need of; need: He requires medical care. 2. to call on authoritatively; order or enjoin to do something: to require an agent to account for money spent. 3. to ask for authoritatively or imperatively; demand. 4. to impose need or occasion for; make necessary or indispensable: The work required infinite patience. 5. to call for or exact as obligatory; ordain: The law requires annual income-tax returns. 6. to place under an obligation or necessity: The situation requires me to take immediate action. Transparent: 4. easily seen through, recognized, or detected: transparent excuses. 5. manifest; obvious: a story with a transparent plot. 6. open; frank; candid: the man's transparent earnestness. Essential: 1. absolutely necessary; indispensable: Discipline is essential in an army. 2. pertaining to or cons!@#$%^&*uting the essence of a thing. Clarification: 1. to make (an idea, statement, etc.) clear or intelligible; to free from ambiguity. 4. to become clear, pure, or intelligible: The political situation clarified. Aspect: 1. appearance to the eye or mind; look: the physical aspect of the country. 2. nature; quality; character: the superficial aspect of the situation. 3. a way in which a thing may be viewed or regarded; interpretation; view: both aspects of a decision. Scope: 1. extent or range of view, outlook, application, operation, effectiveness, etc.: an investigation of wide scope. 5. aim or purpose. Nature: 8. the particular combination of qualities belonging to a person, animal, thing, or class by birth, origin, or cons!@#$%^&*ution; native or inherent character: human nature. 10. character, kind, or sort: two books of the same nature. 11. characteristic disposition; temperament: a self-willed nature; an evil nature. Which coming from the most recent official published IAEA report concerning Iran and its Nuclear Program, it doesn't quite sound to me, unless I am just misinterpreting the English language as a whole, that Iran has given them the "proof" they need. Also a quote out of your article: "However," it added, "given Iran's past pattern of concealment, it will take some time before the agency is able to conclude that Iran's nuclear programme is exclusively for peaceful purposes." And Sever...lol did you happen to notice the date on that article? " Last Updated: Tuesday, 11 November, 2003, 10:48 GMT " "Iranian state radio described remarks by US Secretary of State Colin Powell as "extremely offensive"." That Colin Powell was still the Secretary of State should have been a good indication that your article is a bit out dated.

he was referring to the low level people

Lol yeah really didn't do much, but I just sabbed you to make up for it And for any of you who try to attack, I will sab the weapons he gives you, be warned.

lol with one day left til the reset I'm not really worried about it. Specially being there isn't a thing sama can do to me As to the gods, I'll let you know tomorrow

Yeah I sabbed like 5k worth of weapons from him the other day, and he can just buy them back.

Sever I don't understand how you are convinced when the IAEA is not convinced. If a new report came out tomorrow, from the IAEA, and it directly proved that Iran was going for peaceful nuclear gains then I would drop my point right there. But in the last report from the IAEA Iran is eluding giving information about its explosive missile reentry program, highly enriched uranium that they have found in tubes, and for such a smart country they seem to have no do!@#$%^&*entation about the traces of contaminated plutonium, which is commonly used in the advancement of nuclear weapons, and when asked bout it they said they don't have any information on it. And to quote again: "Iran has not agreed to any of the required transparency measures, which are essential for the clarification of certain aspects of the scope and nature of its nuclear programme." I could really care less about the politics involved, I want there to be concrete proof that they are not going for high level enrichment. Which if innocent they could easily provide. But instead they are "refusing to give into the demands of the west" and how they are proclaiming that they will advance towards getting nuclear weapons if the West keeps asking for proof. So let me get this straight...there is an international mandate that a country enriching uranium has to prove the IAEA, by IAEA standards, that it is not for the advancement of weapons. The IAEA is not given enough information to prove Iran's intentions. Iran then turns around and says if you keep trying to make us prove our intentions we'll start making weapons. So we either have to assume that this country, who has been an "enemy" to the west and is actively funding the war in Iraq, that is also politically dodging an international mandate, which also threatened to try its hardest to make nuclear weapons if we try to force them into making their intentions transparent, is telling the complete truth about their nuclear program? I'm just not that naive. I'm sorry if asking for proof, which any single country developing nuclear advancements would have to provide, is asking too much for Iran.

I don't believe in organized religion, and I'm still yet to lose a debate against a religious person. And for saying that the way to god is through Jesus you first should learn, outside of the church and the bible, what Jesus was actually teaching, compare that to what the church teaches, and then you might start to get disgusted with your organized religion. In fact some main idea Jesus spread were against organized worship, he believed the true way to god was through yourself. A man should pray in a closed room in the privacy of his own home, his prayers should be between himself and God. Also he taught against using repe!@#$%^&*ive prayer, as if you recite the same prayer over and over it loses its meaning. Each prayer should come from the individual, and from his heart. That one is for all of you who recite the same things over and over in mass Faith cannot be proven, that is why it is faith. Some people belive in their God, other believe in their God. Neither is wrong. Neither is right. And the only things they have proven about the bible is that some of the places, and some of the people actually existed. You cannot prove the events true or false. I mean historians and religious advocates can't even get the location that jesus gave his sermon on the mount correct.

I sabbed ail and lost like 2 spies...

So does that mean I miss out on troops?

lol I would sab you but you don't have anything to sab lol

4, and I'm still waiting for my troops!

says I don't have access to the rpg.

No, Iran is strategically not disclosing enough information to the IAEA, as outlined in my previous posts and in the most recent report, to clear themselves 100%, and now that they've delayed long enough to get "sanctioned" they can "justify" going for nuclear weapons. In an article I read on bbc I believe, they out right stated that if the U.N. tries to sanction them they will do their !@#$%^&*dest to get nuclear weapons and use them. No one ever said Iran was not smart.