Talk:EU diplomat proposes deal with Iran to drop NPT Article IV.1

uh, isnt this title dangerously close to call Iran a donkey and can be missunderstod? international 16:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

i agree. See also operant conditioning. This "carrots and sticks" language is treating the Iranian nation-state as a salivating dog - not as a government representing cognitive people with a culture, moral system, ethics etc.

How about "EU diplomat proposes deal with Iran to drop NPT Article IV.1" ?

After all, the whole point (western powers/mainstream media) is to get "the donkey/the salivating dog" to agree to drop its rights under Article IV of the NPT without risking any pressure for EU-3+US to implement Article VI of the NPT.

Boud 20:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

IV -> IV.1 Boud 22:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Ealturner 23:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC) This new one hardly trips off the tongue! I accept the criticism using "carrot and stick" terminology could presuppose Iran is in the wrong. Therefore headline needs changing. Thanks for picking this up.

If it's possible to have a catchier title though that would be better for style reasons.

don't understand bias claim
19:46, 8 June 2006 Ealturner (removed bias - comparisons to india, pakistan, israel irrelevant and not appropriate)

i don't understand why you claim that this context information is irrelevant and not appropriate. The whole point of the conflict is whether or not uranium enrichment can be realistically confined to peaceful purposes without going into nuclear weapons. The international law regarding this question is the NPT. The countries closest to Iran who have not signed the NPT and who have about a hundred or so nuclear weapons each are india, pakistan and israel.

And the fact that a state which is not party to the NPT is nevertheless a member of the IAEA which is inspecting Iran, is clearly relevant. There is a conflict of interest there.

So i don't understand your claim of irrelevance and for the moment am restoring it. Boud 20:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It's relevant. But it's not relevant to THIS article. This article is about EU's offer to Iran to stop a program they say is for peaceful purpose. What are you mentioning other state's nuclearity when even Iran says their program is for peaceful purpose? You're biased not once but twice! ;) Removing info... Ealturner 02:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)