Yes there would, a nuclear holocaust would be because a leader of one country would have called another "fat"
There would be no missiles or guns, wars would be fought entirely through back-stabbing.
Yes, there would be wars, but the armies would only go on the offensive about every four weeks
Hi lezstar<br />
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.<br />
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
No more wars??? Hell, a woman will start a war over wanting the same pair of shoes or purse.
I doubt it. I think that wars would be a lot shorter though.
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?
No. Women are just as mercenary as men if not more so.<br />
"Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned."
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. <br />
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.
Nah, there wouldn't be wars.. There'd just be countries that wouldn't talk to each other.
maybe we should at the queen ... she has power, lots ... please dont be fooled ... <br />
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
I agree with Literaturegirl that there will always be wars no matter who is in power:<br />
“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.”** <br />
* 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<br />
** Ali Magoudi. “Rendez-vous: La psychanalyse de François Mitterrand.” Libella Maren Sell publisher. November 25, 2005.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The wars would not change just the reasons would. We would have to go to war because someone bought a better pair of shoes.
They're too politicians, We all know what politicians are capable of regardless of sex.
There would be war, but they would be extremely vicious and short. Men might be cruel, but we are truly cold.