The former United States president Jimmy Carter says the US, which has taken the lead in urging such countries as Iraq and North Korea to destroy their weapons of mass destruction, should also disarm.
"One of the things that the United States Government has not done is to try to comply with and enforce international efforts targeted to prohibit the arsenals of biological weapons that we ourselves have," Mr Carter told CNN.
"The major powers need to set an example," Mr Carter said, as the US confronts Iraq over its possession of such banned weapons.
"Quite often the big countries that are responsible for the peace of the world set a very poor example for those who might hunger for the esteem or the power or the threats that they can develop from nuclear weapons themselves.
"I don't have any doubt that it's that kind of atmosphere that has led to the nuclearisation, you might say, of India and Pakistan."
"The US had given many countries cause for resentment and scorn", he said.
"There is a sense that the United States has become too arrogant, too dominant, too self-centred, proud of our wealth, believing that we deserve to be the richest and most powerful and influential nation in the world.
"I think they feel that we don't really care about them, which is quite often true."
Former President Jimmy Carter says U.S. must disarm first!
-
Akil Todd Harvey
- Posts: 790
- Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2001 6:01 am
- Location: Tallahassee, FL
- Contact:
Ya know,
When they say "tough Issues", they mean it.
I think most would agree that we want our country to have means of protecting itself from invaders, regardless of which country that is.
Similarly, we do not want those nations or groups that we deem to be a threat to us and our way of life to have significant capabilities to threaten us militarily.
How do we balance OUR need for security with the real needs of people from other nations. Or are their needs not important while our needs are?
Are we so arrogant as to believe that we are the only ones to be trusted with weapons of Mass destruction. I dont trust you, but you should trust me. Is that what we are saying to the rest of the world?
We didnt want every nation in the world to make nuclear weapons so we came up with the nuclear proliferation treaty in which we promised not to target non-nuclear nations in exchange for them neither attempting to get these weapons or to help others get them. But now that we have publicly make clear that some non-nuclear states are the targets of our nukes, that would seem to give states very little incentive to go along with the game that we started.
When they say "tough Issues", they mean it.
I think most would agree that we want our country to have means of protecting itself from invaders, regardless of which country that is.
Similarly, we do not want those nations or groups that we deem to be a threat to us and our way of life to have significant capabilities to threaten us militarily.
How do we balance OUR need for security with the real needs of people from other nations. Or are their needs not important while our needs are?
Are we so arrogant as to believe that we are the only ones to be trusted with weapons of Mass destruction. I dont trust you, but you should trust me. Is that what we are saying to the rest of the world?
We didnt want every nation in the world to make nuclear weapons so we came up with the nuclear proliferation treaty in which we promised not to target non-nuclear nations in exchange for them neither attempting to get these weapons or to help others get them. But now that we have publicly make clear that some non-nuclear states are the targets of our nukes, that would seem to give states very little incentive to go along with the game that we started.
