I like Jimmy Carter a lot as a person, but not at all as a President. He seems like a good guy, he is a good diplomat, and he knows people well. The economy was poor when he was a President and he failed to get the hostages from Iran several times until he got them released at the last minute. He could have accomplished a lot for the world as a Secretary-General of the UN.
2007-07-08 11:56:39 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
He's anti Israel, and a political idiot.
He would fit in just right at the UN. (Useless Nations.)
2007-07-08 12:01:35 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Personally, I have always thought Jimmy Carter would have been a better missionary. I am not a fan of Jimmy Carters nor am I a fan of the United Nations so I really have no opinion there. I am not slighting him when I suggest missionary work, I really do think he would have good at it.
2007-07-08 19:04:04 · answer #2 · answered by rosi l 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Your understanding of history is faulty. Mr. Carter was a dud. He would have been worse than Kofi Annan. He did not get hostages released. The Iranians released them after Ronald Reagan got elected. Suffice it to say they were afraid of Mr. Reagan and thumbed their noses at Mr. Carter. Carter's idiotic policies caused a recession and sky high inflation.
2007-07-08 19:02:31 · answer #3 · answered by regerugged 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The Secretary-General of the UN only has as much power as the USA lets him have.
2007-07-08 19:21:24 · answer #4 · answered by BOOM 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He'd fit right in with the anti semites and anti US crowd at the UN. He may mean well (questionable) but he clearly doesnt understand good from bad.
2007-07-08 19:02:05 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
You have to be voted in by your peers. In the UN
2007-07-08 19:01:00 · answer #6 · answered by PATRICIA MS 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
At least that would have made the U.N. useful for something.
2007-07-08 19:01:40 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋