| Submit your comments on this article |
| International-UN-NGOs |
| 44 Percent of Americans sour on U.N. |
| 2004-04-28 |
| Quagmire for Kofi? Just 38 percent of likely voters have a favorable opinion of the U.N., while 44 percent have an unfavorable view, according to a poll conducted by Rasmussen Reports. Feelings about the U.N. are considerably more negative from a year ago. Leading up to the Iraq war, 48 percent of Americans had a favorable opinion of the body, with just 31 percent holding an unfavorable view. Those describing themselves as liberal voters had the highest opinion of the U.N., with 60 percent giving the agency thumbs-up. Just 20 percent of conservatives had a positive view, while nearly two-thirds, 62 percent, frowned on the global body. Two-thirds of those who say they’ll vote for President Bush in November have a negative impression of the U.N., whereas 59 percent of Kerry supporters view it positively. If the Oil-for-Stuff controversy goes badly, the UN may have approval ratings that will improve the esteem of former-Gov Davis. |
| Posted by:Super Hose |
| #19 The perfect place for the United Nations is in Pyongyang. The meltdown as Kofi and Kim try to out-do one another in stupid pranks would see the end of both within a year. Besides, then the staff wouldn't be tempted to steal the silverware - you don't need much to eat grass. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2004-04-28 6:11:38 PM |
| #18 It would have been bad for those folks in the direct path of the wings JFM... but the gossamer texture of the building would have saved most. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-04-28 5:36:07 PM |
| #17 "Which is why he ignored the terrorist threat for eight years." Robert Crawford, do you place evil intent on a blind man for not seeing the big picture? I don't argue that he ignored the threat, but so did the Republican dominated Congress during that time, Congress is empowered by the Constitution to declare war and they chose not to despite the fact that Bin Laden officially declared war on the US. Were they blind? Evil? or simply lazy? I don't consider being blind as going against US interests, it's just a lack of vision. |
| Posted by: ruprecht 2004-04-28 5:11:19 PM |
| #16 There are times I think it is a real pity no plane headed for the UN building in 9/11. Then I remind of the cooks and secretaries. Bummer. |
| Posted by: JFM 2004-04-28 5:10:28 PM |
| #15 We came up with the League of Nations and the UN. We can take what we've learned and try again You've got to have a major broadcast TV contract or else you are an answer in Trivia Pursuit. |
| Posted by: A Davis 2004-04-28 3:50:54 PM |
| #14 A year ago many of us knew the UN was not only worthless but was actually a serious danger to the US. Until this mob of thugocracies was discredited, the US had to constantly fight the world-wide myth that it was the arbiter of the moral high ground and international legitimacy. And we had to pay 25%+ of the tab for the privilege. Pfeh. Without some pivotal event, reform was impossible -- and withdrawal was the equivalent of international "shunning"... Thanks to the stupidity, arrogance, and greed of Bevan Sevon, Kofi & Kojo, and Saddam the job of displaying the dirty laundry and flaws of the UN is being done - in spades. And we can thank Claudia Rosset (formerly of the WSJ) in particular for her hard work to expose the UNSCAM scandal. In addition to her breakout revelations of how it worked and getting the WSJ to champion it as an "above the fold" mainstream story, she's a non-idiotarian who has a special place in her heart for that moron in NorK. Here's a link to some of her other excellent work. Now we have the opportunity of exposing the UN's structural flaws which have been deftly manipulated by both friend and foe alike to the detriment of both the UN and, in particular, the US. We came up with the League of Nations and the UN. We can take what we've learned and try again. There does need to be a viable alternative to the UN before it can be killed. Surely we can design one that actually makes sense and works fairly. It certainly shouldn't include the Bad Guys, this time. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-04-28 3:45:05 PM |
| #13 Although he may disagree with our President he wouldn't go against serious US interests. Which is why he ignored the terrorist threat for eight years. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2004-04-28 1:15:57 PM |
| #12 CrazyFool, what do you have against the people of Iraq and/or Rwanda to inflict the UN upon them? |
| Posted by: ruprecht 2004-04-28 1:13:26 PM |
| #11 No, move the UN HQ to Iraq or Rwanda (sp?) and place it right in the center of the largest mass-grave. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2004-04-28 12:32:23 PM |
| #10 RC - Any would do, but one speaking French would get express service. |
| Posted by: Laurence of the Rats 2004-04-28 11:14:15 AM |
| #9 US should work with France to move the UN headquarters to Europe. France is far more infatuated with the UN and might consider it a bump in prestige to be able to hob-nob with the dictators of the world. US should create a Democratic Caucus in the UN to ensure the things that are important to us and our allies go through the United Nations rather than letting the dictatorships dominate the UN agenda. US should work to get Bill Clinton as Secretary General. The US has never had a Secretary General because of ancient Cold War agreements that should be changed. Although he may disagree with our President he wouldn't go against serious US interests. The UN would vote him in because it would then appear to them that the UN is above the US. |
| Posted by: ruprecht 2004-04-28 10:12:57 AM |
| #8 Mr. Annan, tear down this building! |
| Posted by: Cthulhu Akbar 2004-04-28 10:11:36 AM |
| #7 RC: No, no. We are a civilized people. The sledgehammers and blowtorches would be for opening the files and safes of the bureaucracy before we let them take it out of the country. Never know what skeletons might be hidden in there with the dusty flight recorders. |
| Posted by: Mitch H. 2004-04-28 9:25:19 AM |
| #6 Badnov...good point, but I'd be willing to bet it's the full 44% who would gladly comply that request. |
| Posted by: B 2004-04-28 9:22:05 AM |
| #5 My help on that project would involve a blowtorch and a sledge hammer. Any particular UN bureaucrat you would use those on? |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2004-04-28 9:13:46 AM |
| #4 badanov - My help on that project would involve a blowtorch and a sledge hammer. |
| Posted by: Laurence of the Rats 2004-04-28 8:41:02 AM |
| #3 And in other news: Ten percent of likely voters are willing to drive all the way to New York to help move the UN's stuff onto a boat bound for anywhere but North America. |
| Posted by: badanov 2004-04-28 7:35:09 AM |
| #2 The views of the other 20 percent hinge on the recommendations of Oprah, Simon Cowl, Paula Abdul and/or Jerry Springer. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2004-04-28 5:02:39 AM |
| #1 heh! And so far, the UNSCAM has only been reported in the blogs. Just 60 percent of the LLL's gave it a thumbs up - and probably over 50 percent of that 60 percent - have no idea who Kofi is. 38 percent favorable 44 percent unfavorable...where does the other 20 stand?? That's a pretty big number for "no opinion". |
| Posted by: B 2004-04-28 4:59:00 AM |