Having women leaders means an end to war

I beg to disagree with you my friend. As what the book said it is just a 'spark' and it's up to the leaders to give rationality to the situation by dowsing such heated reaction with reason,understanding and tolerance. Who could appease more an agree nation that a woman leader forceful enough to explain her stand on not going to war? Throughout history, have you heard that it's the people who really clamored for war that it's leaders had nothing to do but follow? Never! It's always the leaders who instigated war. History is not only theory, they are realities. Regardless of gender, war sensation could still prevail, but it's still the decision of the leader whether to go or not to go to war whose decision is greatly affected by its gender.

Of course she would immediately declare war. Falklan was being invaded. If you are the mother, would you just look on when somebody kidnapped or grabbed your child? of course not! She has to defend what is their territory. To quote Thatcher on war "I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left." Again it was on defense of what is theirs and they were not the aggressors.

That seems to be the "operative answer" for her lately, but even after Prs. Bush conceded that he was wrong, she continued to support the war in Iraq. Also, she did support attacks on Iraq while Prs. Clinton was in office. The fact is, there have been women who led nations into war throughout history.

You could be right or wrong. We believe what we want to believe and I respect that. Though it is true that there are women in history who leads their country to war, but we should not discount the fact that they did not start it or instigate the war. They are at war in defense of their country and of their belief which are being under attack.

Yes it is interesting indeed because I still believed that if Hilary is the President there would be no war on Iraq. She may have supporting the Iraq war but it was based on the 'False Information' she was give. She was also made to believe and assured that, 'they would first seek to resolve the issue of weapons of mass destruction peacefully through United Nations sponsored inspections'. She lamented that it turned out empty ones. If she is the President, she would have never taken short cuts as what the presend administration did and which I believe that many Americans are not happy to do. Hilary further said that she would never have supported the war based on what she knows now. Bottomline, she would have exhausted everything first which could have lessen the possibility of war and never taken any shortcuts.

Hello! Women wont be the aggressors in a war rather they would be involved in it to defend what is theirs. They won't be the first to instigate war.

Yes we never could know but as a woman, I could at least say that in any decision that we make, our nurturing side would always play a big role in influencing our decisions. If there are lives that may be lost, we would always think long and hard before we do someting drastic. In short, we won't be trigger happy.