2006-10-27 20:52:11 · 21 answers · asked by JIVE TURKEY 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I think that there would be far fewer conflicts
Amternal instinct would make them attempt to solve a problem before resorting to force!
2006-10-27 22:29:07 · answer #1 · answered by Anarchy99 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, because there is always war.
And war every once in a while is necessary, so we can fight for our freedom, or protect our allies.
But, I think that people should give women a chance in higher politics. Maybe Hilary Clinton isn't the best choice but, I feel that women should be equal, and I believe that they would do well as a President or other higher political member.
People also believe that because of "PMS" our ability to make war changes. We can't just attack someone when we want to.
2006-10-27 20:56:12 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Don't be ridiculous. But it would be nice for a change if we could have a president , even a woman, that would do something half way decent for this country and the people who live in it. You know, like an Abraham Lincoln person who was decent and cared about issues to further this country in all ways. Now don't get me wrong, our political views and issues have changed dramatically since Lincoln, but I hope you get the point I'm trying to make here. I'm taking his attitude and honesty and sincerity as as a president. Refreshing thats what it would be.......
2006-10-27 21:07:57 · answer #3 · answered by silhouette 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hilary Clinton, case in point, is a girl with loads of stories. even nevertheless and for my area, politics does no longer tournament her as a customary lady president of the USA. for beneficial, she is far less possibly to have interaction his usa in a conflict. See to illustrate the German chancellor Angela Merkel. As a girl flesh presser from a midsection perfect celebration, Merkel has been in comparison by way of many interior the English besides because of the fact the German press to former British best Minister Margaret Thatcher. some have stated her as "Iron lady" (she belongs to the Christian Democratic Union). i think of that Mr. Giuliani (Mayor 9/11) has a huge gamble at winning the presidential election. yet politics concerns are extra complicated and leaders tend to be manipulated. Why? because of the fact i think of that worldwide neo-liberal capitalism is ruled by way of the worldwide keeping companies. in addition to, there is those days a 'Modus Vivendi'. This consensus facilitates of an settlement between adversarial States interior the international in the G8 (or the G8 is pushed by way of a 'Modus Vivendi'). the group of 8 or G8 is the worldwide communicate board for the governments of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the united kingdom and the USA. understand that the G8 leads (controls) the globalization of capital and difficult artwork markets, which has placed workers into worldwide opposition against one yet another with none scruples approximately hard artwork circumstances, wages and human dignity. To end, i can not see Hilary Clinton as a representative in the G8 too.
2016-12-08 22:55:10 · answer #4 · answered by parenti 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hmmm.... nah. I don't think we can ever eliminate the possibility of war. Though, the world definitely would be happier and more intelligent if the presidents were all females instead of just Michelle Bachelet alone. Then again, any world with Bushitler would automatically be a happier one...
2006-10-27 20:57:33 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, women are capable of engaging in wars.
What do you want a female President to do, just give up when confronted with an attack and hand over the country to the attackers? I would hope she would go to war to protect the citizens.
2006-10-27 21:00:49 · answer #6 · answered by sister_godzilla 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes indeed, everything would be less aggressive, less chaotic, and the self destruction of mankind will come at a later time. Oh, to the message above mine, there would be no attackers in the first place if all leaders are women!
2006-10-27 21:01:45 · answer #7 · answered by ancient112 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There would be so many more wars...you know how all women speak behind other womens back and can never get away. Women are "brain ninjas", or better yet "mental terrorists" (quotes from Dane Cook) and that is just not a good combo...
2006-10-27 20:58:20 · answer #8 · answered by wcbaseball4 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There would be at least three times more wars.
Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. Can you imagine the aftermath of 9/11 if woman perz had been in office.
2006-10-27 20:54:40 · answer #9 · answered by Wiseguy 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Think Maggy Thatcher
2006-10-27 20:53:56 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋