I agree.
Love and blessings Don
2007-05-28 01:37:47
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Deb,
The idea sounds great - "talk more and fight less."
But there are times where talk is merely a cover while somebody continues to kill in the background (Croatia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Sudan, Ivory Coast, Somalia, to name a few recent ones. Germany and Austria in the 1930's. Armenia during WW1. Manchuria and Shanghai, also in the 1930's.
People were being killed daily as diplomats talked.
Sometimes the time for talk ends and the decisions are forced on the other party, preferably in his own back yard. It's not pretty but may be the most merciful way to end the horror.
2007-05-28 07:32:17
·
answer #2
·
answered by Richard of Fort Bend 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
Funny thing was yesterday we were talking and this women I worked with just get her Opticians license and was talking about her landlord who's a woman and some guy said "A woman!"
She then reacted. Yea women get to own house. Women got freeds a few years back and they can own houses and even get licenses!
If women were running the war we would have won it two years ago and every Iraqi male would have an aprong and toilet brush and the place would be immculant OR ELSE the firing squad!
2007-05-28 01:47:49
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
I saw that question and, I must say, I'm not sure which I found more amusing:
The questioner, who seems to have posted the question for the sole purpose of riling women into posting snippy retorts, or...
The respondents, who actually fell for the ploy.
Given this, those who responded in such a manner may have gone some way into actually proving the questioner's point.
To answer your question:
I would have to say "no".
The pattern of human (societal) conflict:
When one society crosses the path of another society, and their goals do not 'mesh', then they will clash. The end result of this conflict, almost without exception, is the subjugation or demise of the culture which proved to be the LESSER DYNAMIC of the cultures involved; a sort of 'societal' survival-of-the-fittest, if you will.
I understand that the ugliness of war tends to make one wish for a more palatable way to solve the problems which lead to such conflict, - but I do not believe that human societies will ever get to a point where all of their disagreements will be handled through diplomatic means and...
...like it or not, - that is just simply the 'nature' of mankind.
2007-05-28 02:44:31
·
answer #4
·
answered by Saint Christopher Walken 7
·
2⤊
1⤋
Not true, it would not matter if all our leaders were women, wars would still occur, with the same detrimental effects, as a matter of fact, it is people who has been in war that understand it's horrors best and will strive for peace with greater sincerity, and if our leaders were all women, still our warriors would be mostly men.
women simply connect more, they need to talk, and with the increased volume of talk, some is bound to be less intelligent.
2007-05-28 01:44:13
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
Women are the first educators of the child and don't want their twenty or so years of love and hard work going down the drain just to see their sons and daughters used as cannon fodder in the case of euphemistic "communication breakdowns." When women are running neck and neck with men in positions of leadership in the fields of government, business, banking, health care, engineering, science, etc., not only will the world be in better shape, war will end, and the process of peace waging can really begin. Men who support women to achieve these positions of power and influence will help speed up the process.
2007-05-28 01:53:03
·
answer #6
·
answered by jaicee 6
·
1⤊
2⤋
I believe both men and women talk nonsense equally. It's an equal opportunity activity for both.
Men talk nonsense gruffly and with fervor. Women do it in an irritating and scratchy way. *shrug* I'm just making this up, of course, but it sounds good.
2007-05-28 05:52:19
·
answer #7
·
answered by Sick Puppy 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
You might enjoy Jill Tannen's "You Just Don't Understand," which is a look at the different ways that men and women use language.
2007-05-28 02:10:03
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Perhaps if the women knows about the subject they are talking about. For example this is the R& S section, how does this fit in here?
2007-05-28 02:02:55
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
Women are more intelligent than men and less hormone driven. If you speak intelligently to someone who is ignorant they won't understand and accuse you of talking dribble. Men evolved to be the hunters and women the creators of civilization by the rearing of the young.
2007-05-28 01:45:30
·
answer #10
·
answered by purplepeace59 5
·
1⤊
2⤋
Good point Debra, I agree with you 100 per cent, and maybe more
2007-05-28 01:39:16
·
answer #11
·
answered by devora k 7
·
1⤊
0⤋