If women were in charge would wars be less bloody ?
2006-08-20 11:48:33 · 6 answers · asked by rc 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Wars would be so much worse if women were in charge. They would never end, because nothing would ever be decisively resolved. Kind of like Korea, VietNam, and the Gulf Wars. Nobody ever wins, nobody ever really quits fighting, and far more people end up dying.
Hmm. All of those took place since Women started taking a greater role in government, didn't they?
2006-08-20 11:54:41 · answer #1 · answered by Yaakov 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Have you ever really made a woman angry,if you haven't you are in for a shock.women can be meaner than men when mad.As murders they are ruthless,and a lot more vicious than men,you only see the side of women that we let you see lol there's a whole other side.A woman president would be or could be just as stupid as men are in the case of war,they would give no quarter and show no mercy.But they also may be less likely to let a situation reach the stage of where war is necessary.Women have better conversational skills than men,so we would try that approach first ,if that didn't work we`d eat the enemies balls for breakfast,and smile.....
2006-08-20 19:02:44 · answer #2 · answered by Yakuza 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Serious response: If women were in charge, there would be about the same number of wars as there are now (the fundamental differences are still there).
Joking (and admittedly sexist) response: If women were in charge, there would be the same number of wars, but everyone could predict them by tracking cycles.
2006-08-20 18:55:01 · answer #3 · answered by Patrick 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Ask Margret Thatcher, arguably one of the last century's greatest female leaders. She invaded the Faulklands.
2006-08-20 18:55:50 · answer #4 · answered by hedddon 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. Remember the Amazons.
2006-08-20 18:55:03 · answer #5 · answered by regerugged 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
ha! i don't think so
2006-08-20 18:54:02 · answer #6 · answered by Mr.Death 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋