If women ruled the world would there be no more wars?
Related Questions to If women ruled the world would there be no more wars?
Answers to questions are provided for entertainment purposes only.
You should never use answers to questions provided here to replace professional advice, such as from a doctor or lawyer.
This page is for providing answers to the question "If women ruled the world would there be no more wars?"
24 Answers to "If women ruled the world would there be no more wars?"
Posted by nobuddiesbiznessbuttmine Oct 30th, 2010 at 10:26PM
Yes there would, a nuclear holocaust would be because a leader of one country would have called another "fat"
Like (9)
Posted by MechanicalBull Apr 29th, 2010 at 12:30PM
There would be no missiles or guns, wars would be fought entirely through back-stabbing.
Like (4)
Posted by ChipmunkErnie May 23rd, 2010 at 8:14PM
Yes, there would be wars, but the armies would only go on the offensive about every four weeks
Like (3)
Posted by koyptakh May 23rd, 2010 at 8:13PM
Hi lezstar
I think if women ruled the world there would be no more wars. I just do despite the evidence of warlike women. I think it is worth giving it a go anyway. I am certain that as long as men rule the world there will be more wars until we go to far and break it.
:)
Like (2)
Posted by Paschar Apr 29th, 2010 at 11:26AM
at a joke site I found this: A man is the King of his castle ,The Master of all He surveys , all titles , all knowing , All wisdom , ( As long as the queen says so ) now in answer to this Q: just look at what started the Trojan wars. there will always be wars and rumors of wars ( we all know where this quote is ) Paschar
Like (2)
Posted by tonyt53 Apr 29th, 2010 at 11:26AM
No more wars??? Hell, a woman will start a war over wanting the same pair of shoes or purse.
Like (2)
Posted by rjcrjc Apr 29th, 2010 at 11:26AM
no, I doubt it
Like (2)
Posted by SummerWind18 Apr 29th, 2010 at 11:25AM
I doubt it. I think that wars would be a lot shorter though.
Like (2)
Posted by Stretch1969 Apr 29th, 2010 at 11:25AM
There would be more gossip and the phone lines would be all tied up. All stores would be empty along with mens wallets. Men couldn*t watch NASCAR or any sports. There would be Soap Operas on every channel 24/7/365. Rock n roll stations would be taken off and replaced with Country music. And there would be more bald men. Do we want to live like that?
Like (2)
Posted by puck61 Apr 29th, 2010 at 11:25AM
No. Women are just as mercenary as men if not more so.
"Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned."
Like (2)
Posted by solowing Apr 29th, 2010 at 11:10AM
No. Throughout history, women leaders have been every bit as likely, if not more so, to take their nations to war. Just for a start, the names Margaret Thatcher, Indira Ghandi, Catherine the Great, and ________(insert English queen here) should ring a bell.
Truly, the only exceptionally anti-war woman in power I can think of was Jeanette Rankin, who voted against the US declaration of war against Japan after Pearl Harbor.
Like (2)
Posted by TrafalgarLaw Sep 15th, 2012 at 3:15PM
Nah, there wouldn't be wars.. There'd just be countries that wouldn't talk to each other.
Like (1)
Posted by burwi333 Oct 30th, 2010 at 10:23PM
maybe we should at the queen ... she has power, lots ... please dont be fooled ...
but other then than her, we would not have 'brutal' wars nor for money and they would NOT be a 'status que' event or acceptance ... maybe
Like (1)
Posted by 2Buddies Oct 30th, 2010 at 10:11PM
I agree with Literaturegirl that there will always be wars no matter who is in power:
“Margaret Thatcher forced François Mitterrand to give her the codes to disable Argentina's deadly French-made missiles during the Falklands war by threatening to launch a nuclear warhead against Buenos Aires…” said Jon Henly of The Guardian online news agency.* Specifically, Mitterrand said of Thatcher that “with her four nuclear submarines on mission in the southern Atlantic, she threatens to launch the atomic weapon against Argentina — unless I supply her with the secret codes that render deaf and blind the missiles we have sold to the Argentinians.”**
* Jon Henley. Thatcher threatened to nuke Argentina. The Guardian. November 22, 2005. Can be found at - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/nov/22/books.france
** Ali Magoudi. “Rendez-vous: La psychanalyse de François Mitterrand.” Libella Maren Sell publisher. November 25, 2005.
Like (1)
Posted by alteredego May 23rd, 2010 at 8:10PM
If I ruled I would never allow anyone to send my son into a needless war, especially over a reason a shallow as ego. I personally think that we should go back to the days when only two people had to fight for the honor of their countries and whoever won that battle, won....whatever. Wars are absurd displays of ego. The only reason anyone should kill another is to protect oneself or one's family. That I would do.
Like (1)
Posted by LitzLuck May 1st, 2010 at 1:07PM
Not a chance, in fact women act quicker and more vicious so i'd be scared, not that men do much better. We would need complete balance from both genders for peace anyway.
Like (1)
Posted by conceptualclarity Apr 30th, 2010 at 5:52PM
If you studied world history you'd know there have been a lot of women monarchs, and the fighting and killing did not stop when they ruled.
Like (1)
Posted by pukirahe Apr 30th, 2010 at 8:57AM
More peace, because they are more clever, more patient and more compassionate than men. See how the conditions are in the Philippines, Germany now, and England, Israel, India previously.
Like (1)
Posted by AriesRSA Apr 30th, 2010 at 7:39AM
The wars would not change just the reasons would. We would have to go to war because someone bought a better pair of shoes.
Like (1)
Posted by neeran Apr 30th, 2010 at 7:10AM
They're too politicians, We all know what politicians are capable of regardless of sex.
Like (1)
1-20 of 24 Answers
Prev12Next ►