Would a woman run the UN differently than a man?

COL Mikel J. Burroughs — Sun, 30 Aug 2015 14:59:58 -0400

Would a woman run the UN differently than a man?

by Leslie Quinton
Strategic Management and Communications

I'd like to get some nice professional feedback on this topic. Please read the article first before responding.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/would-woman-run-un-differently-than-man-leslie-quinton?trk=pulse-det-nav_art

Recently, the NY Times made the case that the next leader of the UN should be a woman.

It does not take in-depth knowledge of international diplomacy to know that all of the secretaries-general in the UN’s history, eight in total, have been men. This is arguably in part due to the system in place. Each has been selected in what the Times calls the “ back-room dealing dominated by the five world powers that hold permanent seats on the Security Council.” The Times posits that if a more transparent system were active, a woman could be more readily chosen, which would be symbolic globally given the responsibility for negotiation and diplomacy that the job entails.

The role of the Secretary-General was first envisioned by US President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the driving force behind the creation of the UN in 1945 as a successor to League of Nations, to act as a "world moderator", a vague and not easily understood definition provided by the UN Charter. This has meant over the years that the actual job description could be widely interpreted, including the degree to which the leader was able to speak out on political and socio-economic issues around the world. Part diplomat, par advocate, part Chief Executive Officer – a difficult position with a quixotic level of authority and questionable autonomy.

There are those who advocate that in general, women are less corrupt and more ethical, somehow less prone to influence-peddling and the like. Therefore, the thinking goes, women make better leaders because they are somehow more moral. While as a woman I would love to think that is true, as an amateur student of the human condition, I can’t help but feel that it is a little too facile a response. What if in fact women were not biologically more virtuous but instead, have traditionally not had access to the power structures that permit or encourage corrupt or otherwise unethical behavior?

According to a Reuters’ article published in 2012, it is less a question of women leaders being inherently more ethical and more about the kinds of contexts that allow women to rise to power. In other words, women tend to assume leadership roles in organizations or political systems that are already somehow more progressive, have transparent structures and clear accountabilities. According to the Reuters' piece, “women are more likely to rise to positions of power in open and democratic political systems, and such societies are generally more intolerant of wrongdoing, including the abuse of power and siphoning off of public money.”

So the circumstances in which women are likely to be leaders are themselves structured with strong cultures of trust, collaboration, shared beliefs and other values that are essentially a hostile environment for corruption.

Other studies, like one completed recently by the IRIS Center at the University of Maryland, confirm that where there are more women, there is less corruption. Women are in general less likely to accept bribes although the study also goes on to say that if they are in a corrupt society, they are even more disadvantaged than they would be otherwise – consider poor countries where public money goes towards bribing officials instead of paying for health care or education. And when there are more women in charge, no matter which country you’re in, there tends to be a trend for corruption to decrease.

It appears then that the presence of women in leadership positions makes a real and measurable difference on an organization’s or government’s accountability, partly because what are seen as "women's values", i.e. what women care about, and because of the systems they have access to. Research has examined the reasons why there is a notable decline in levels of corruption, particularly within elected bodies, when more women are at the table.

According to a recent World Bank's annual World Development Report, India has witnessed drastic changes since a 1993 law mandated that 30 percent of seats on village councils must be held for women. The Report credited this change for “increasing the provision of clean water, sanitation, schools and other public goods in the villages, and for lower levels of corruption”, all areas of focus where women leaders apparently saw the direct advantages as opposed to the old system which benefited those in power first. Furthermore, towns that were women-led were found to have significantly lower amounts of bribes paid. The theory was, according to the researchers, that when “men control all the levers of power, money is more likely to be invested in big-ticket construction projects such as road building where corruption is rife, rather than in schools or clinics.” So women’s "natural" choices also tend to be less corruptible.

Both Canada and the US are in pre-election periods, and the choices of representatives include a number woman candidates who are vastly outnumbered by their male counterparts. Fewer candidates means a smaller pool to choose from, which inevitably keeps the imbalance between the genders in place. This is a pity, because in the US especially, although the country is number six in women’s economic participation and opportunity according to the World Economic Forum’s 2013 Gender Gap Index of 136 countries, in the public sector it is far behind. The US currently ranks 60th in women’s political empowerment on the Gender Gap Index. Unfortunately, the world average is still low overall for the percentage of women in national parliaments at only 21 percent—slightly above the 18 percent in the U.S. House of Representatives.

So perhaps a female head of the UN would go a long way to right that balance, to bring a different vision of diplomacy, as well as help democracies around the world consider electing more women. Christine Lagarde, got any plans?

Response by 1stSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 30 at 2015 3:06 PM

1stSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 30 Aug 2015 15:06:30 -0400

I really doubt it. As they are nothing but politicians anyway. And since were supposed to be going to this genderless society, it should be even steven oh boy around.

Response by SGT John W Lugo made Aug 30 at 2015 3:20 PM

SGT John W Lugo — Sun, 30 Aug 2015 15:20:19 -0400

I think that if a woman has the training and education to constructively perform her duties, she should be able to perform effectively, and Professionally. As long as she isn't Hilary Clinton.

Response by SGT John W Lugo made Aug 30 at 2015 3:21 PM

SGT John W Lugo — Sun, 30 Aug 2015 15:21:33 -0400

I think that if a woman has the training and education to constructively perform her duties, she should be able to perform effectively, and Professionally. As long as she isn't Hilary Clinton.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 30 at 2015 3:25 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 30 Aug 2015 15:25:57 -0400

COL Mikel J. Burroughs, I'm far from being a professional anything, but I do have a reasonable smart brain. The only problem I can see with it is that some countries may not acknowledge a woman in charge. I'm for it as long as everyone in the UN agrees. It's one thing having a female POTUS, it's another have a woman in charge of the United Nations. Just my opinion. The UN is under a lot of scrutiny right now so it would take a special,woman to get the problems ironed out. (No Pun Intended)

Response by LTC John Shaw made Aug 30 at 2015 4:03 PM

LTC John Shaw — Sun, 30 Aug 2015 16:03:59 -0400

Gender of the leader has nothing to do with the UN or other institutions being poorly led.
A women will not run the UN differently, the UN is not structured to have power. The power it obtains is because of people making backroom deals and agreements.
The UN and other organizations must be held to standards of transparency. When all information is available to the public then FOIA requests will allow the 4th Estate of the Press to put pressure on political creatures. All institutions need checks on their power.
The NY Times article and this article are an attempt to persuade the audience and the greater public that women leaders are inherently more transparent and moral. Hilliary Clinton is why the author is running the article, even though she is not mentioned.
The NYT and Linkedin article cites a number of general statements with no footnotes of factual data to support the authors arguments. I find these to be shameless precursors for later articles on why Hilliary will be a superior candidate.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 30 at 2015 4:59 PM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 30 Aug 2015 16:59:26 -0400

To answer the question directly--a woman running the UN would make different decisions than a man. Her authority to execute her decisions will unlikely be diminished because of her gender. I do not believe she would have more or less success than a man dealing with oppressive regimes.
Even with a woman in charge oppressive regimes will continue to make the same choices they have always made when a man was in charge--continue doing what they are doing and potentially suffer sanctions, or follow the UN's guidance and continue to recieve funding.

Response by Cpl Jeff N. made Aug 30 at 2015 5:17 PM

Cpl Jeff N. — Sun, 30 Aug 2015 17:17:29 -0400

The UN is seriously lacking any leadership from us, the world or the current Secretary General. The point of this story is flawed though. It appears they believe women are less corruptible and have better values. How is that for sexist. If that story was written the other way around there would be hell to pay. Candidly we would be better off without the UN. Can anyone point to any really good thing they have brought the world in the last 25 years?

I have no issue with a woman running the UN. Today it is a shithole that gets little done that advances the cause of liberty or human dignity. It is a body of compromise that at the heart of those compromises is peoples freedom and in too many cases their lives.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Aug 30 at 2015 5:27 PM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Sun, 30 Aug 2015 17:27:34 -0400

There's a chicken, egg, chicken argument in the article.

The author is saying in not so many words that women rise to power in organizations with greater transparency, which results in them (women) being less corruptible, which results in the organization being more transparent.

She is using that as an argument to say we "need" (loosely) to have a woman as the head of the UN, because that will make (all) organizations view women as less corruptible with higher levels of power.

Unfortunately, she also cites that women have likely not experienced the corruption effect, because they have not been in these positions traditionally. This may have led to greater short term results, but it does not provide long term data to support her overall arguments of 1) women are less corruptible (which she cedes when she says it), and 2) this is the reason that women should be in the position of power "instead of" men.

Conceptually, it could have been a very good article, but the author second guesses herself each step along the way. It's an interesting premise that not quite reaches fruition. Rather than saying "We should do this..." like a leader, the article says "Perhaps, this would be a good idea..."

Response by SSG Leo Bell made Aug 30 at 2015 5:46 PM

SSG Leo Bell — Sun, 30 Aug 2015 17:46:51 -0400

I think it would be a good idea, it can't hurt to try new things and it's time for a change. About women not falling to bribes and corruption, there human also. It would depend on their honesty with that.
I feel women make great leaders also.

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Aug 30 at 2015 5:59 PM

LTC Stephen F. — Sun, 30 Aug 2015 17:59:27 -0400

Sounds like a biased question COL Mikel J. Burroughs in these days of gender confusion - male, female, transgender prior to reassignment surgery or after such surgery etc.:-)
Each individual candidate brings unique qualifications and unwanted baggage along with them as they move along the corridors in their upward mobility.
The UN is the consummate bureaucracy with very little clout, dependance on contributions from various nations, and with their HQS located in a city which does not always welcome their presence or diplomatic immunity.
Whoever is selected for the top post faces a very stressful position for as long as they occupy it.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 30 at 2015 6:10 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 30 Aug 2015 18:10:05 -0400

The Secretary General of the UN should not be viewed as a position of power, the fact is that he or she is dependent on the member nations for support and must walk a fine line of trying not to offend any member nation when addressing issues that uphold the values and moral authority of the U.N. as the de facto spokes person for the U.N.. I don't know if gender is the issue so much as personality its the issue. I'm not sure about the "studies" listed in this article (I looked at them), in order to determine if women are in fact more moral and less likely to participate in corruption the study needs to have quanitative, identifiable fields, a structured format, non bias questions, observed behaviors... I can't find that in the information provided. I think each individual has to be evaluated individually, there are good and bad apples in both groups.

Response by SGM Steve Wettstein made Aug 30 at 2015 9:08 PM

SGM Steve Wettstein — Sun, 30 Aug 2015 21:08:32 -0400

COL Mikel J. Burroughs IMO it doesn't matter who is heading it. It is a dysfunctional organization.

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Aug 31 at 2015 12:45 AM

PO1 William "Chip" Nagel — Mon, 31 Aug 2015 00:45:17 -0400

An interesting Proposition. Guess we won't know until we try though.

Response by SPC Sheila Lewis made Aug 31 at 2015 1:45 PM

SPC Sheila Lewis — Mon, 31 Aug 2015 13:45:45 -0400

If that is the case, this Female should be retired, a Quartermaster background meaning hands-on experience, and has more humanitarian leanings than political ones.

Response by SMSgt David Zobel made Aug 31 at 2015 8:18 PM

SMSgt David Zobel — Mon, 31 Aug 2015 20:18:34 -0400

As long as the current selection process favors Russia, China, and the Third World, it would make no meaningful difference.

Response by COL Ted Mc made Sep 1 at 2015 1:05 PM

COL Ted Mc — Tue, 01 Sep 2015 13:05:59 -0400

COL Mikel J. Burroughs - Mikel; Which woman and which man?

To get to the point where you are even remotely being considered for the position you have had to have been playing it the sandbox for decades and that means achieving the same level of success under the same rules as everyone else who was playing in the sandbox.

To presume that the successful candidate would show a sudden predilection of actions contrary to those which had gained them success in the past is unrealistic. To base that presumption on the individual's arrangement of "X" and "Y" chromosomes is fast approaching silly.

A more realistic question would be "Could a woman become the Secretary General of the UN?" to which my answer would be "Which woman?".

Response by PFC Stephen Eric Serati made Sep 1 at 2015 2:56 PM

PFC Stephen Eric Serati — Tue, 01 Sep 2015 14:56:44 -0400

The UN could be run by a woman just as good as any man,the problem is the UN is itself is ran by P51.What I mean is you can have all the best intentions women or man but your hands are still tied.You still answer to the P5+1 and others.To me the World as a whole doesn't have either good representation or to little of it allowing certain areas to be under represented which allows for more rampant corruption and abuses of all kinds,and that's the way some like it.In my experience their is a difference between women,and male leadership,but not to the extent that the mission would fail,it would be done a little differently.To sum it up there needs to be more representation of more countries,ethnic,and gender,with a more transparent election.To fight the problems of backroom dealings,you have bringem to the frontroom where the whole family sees.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Sep 2 at 2015 1:24 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Wed, 02 Sep 2015 13:24:39 -0400

No as they have impossible tasks. They are a governing body without a military.

Response by PFC Daniel Starrett made May 1 at 2016 5:49 PM

PFC Daniel Starrett — Sun, 01 May 2016 17:49:44 -0400

Let's ask a different, yet relative question instead...
Would ANYONE, taking over the position run the Office differently than the last? 99% of the time, I would say yes, because, very simply put, they are a different person with different views. Those views have nothing to do with whether they are a man or a woman, because EVERYONE has different views that are based on personal experience; and as everyone already knows, nobody has the same experiences as the next. Even two people that are sharing a hole int he ground because they came under attack, experience it differently, and thus their own opinions are different.

Response by PO1 Kerry French made May 2 at 2016 1:12 PM

PO1 Kerry French — Mon, 02 May 2016 13:12:22 -0400

I would!! Because I would dissolve Agenda 21 an give control back, then I would get UNESCO out of our education and then I would disband the OIC and tell them to pound sand on their shariah resolution 16-18. Then I would send everyone home to their countries, melt down their hideous twisted barrel gun sculpture piece of crap and melt it down and make something useful of it and then lease the offices out and use that money to pay back our treasury for all the years we paid into that hideous entity!!!

Response by MSG Pedro Valentin made May 2 at 2016 2:15 PM

MSG Pedro Valentin — Mon, 02 May 2016 14:15:03 -0400

A woman's view may be different than a man's. The view or perspective of men that are from different geographical locatons will decide differently on the same topic. Hopefully, anyone in an elected or non elected position uses a fair and equitable process to determine course of action. In short my response is a woman will do just as well or poorly as a man.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made May 2 at 2016 5:52 PM

CPT Jack Durish — Mon, 02 May 2016 17:52:18 -0400

Here we go again. Before the idiots jump all over me allow me to say this as simply and understandably as possible. Gender should neither qualify nor disqualify a person to serve in any role except as mother or father. Those roles are inextricably tied to gender.

BTW, for those who would argue that "women are less corrupt and more ethical, somehow less prone to influence-peddling and the like", please allow me to introduce you to Hillary Clinton.

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made May 3 at 2016 12:32 AM

Capt Seid Waddell — Tue, 03 May 2016 00:32:52 -0400

I think gender would not be as important as ideology.

Response by SFC David McMahon made May 3 at 2016 4:27 AM

SFC David McMahon — Tue, 03 May 2016 04:27:39 -0400

If we are being honest, there is some significant differences between how men and women lead. I wouldn't necessarily say it has to be a woman (to be better) but studies show when a board is equally comprised (at least 40%) of women, there are better results.

In fact, if memory serves me correctly, the only bank not to go bankrupt in Denmark (during the financial crisis) was run by women.

But after 22 years of service, I honestly don't see gender, race or religion. Maybe that's naive of me to think (or even say) but I use terms like "can meet standard" or "needs improvement".

Response by SFC Alfredo Garcia made May 3 at 2016 2:45 PM

SFC Alfredo Garcia — Tue, 03 May 2016 14:45:24 -0400

I would not think so. I think that if obtained that level of responsibility with the only differentiator being a woman, I think it is because of social guilt. I believe we are past that. If she (or he) got to that position that person EARNED it and not because of their gender. It is because of their accomplishments and their potential. So NO, I don't see a difference.

Response by SGT Roberto Mendoza-Diaz made May 3 at 2016 3:03 PM

SGT Roberto Mendoza-Diaz — Tue, 03 May 2016 15:03:17 -0400

Qualifications, Qualifications, Qualifications... Doesn't matter the gender.

Response by SFC Wade W. made May 3 at 2016 8:24 PM

SFC Wade W. — Tue, 03 May 2016 20:24:22 -0400

For the most part the sex of the Sec Gen would not matter. For some of the nation's in the UN it would be a huge problem.
The UN has no power other than that recognized by it's member nations. So the Sec Gen does not need to be a strong personality, they do need to be a good arbitor. I have met plenty of women who are good at that but the same can be said for men.

Response by SPC Mariely Sheridan made May 7 at 2016 3:49 PM

SPC Mariely Sheridan — Sat, 07 May 2016 15:49:50 -0400

I would have to agree, gender of leadership has nothing to do with the UN. If a women were to be placed in that position. Some one who took the time to learn about the issues in our world and countries. Some who actually may do some serious good. It may just be the change of roles we as a nation need. Women are now giving the chance to fight on combat lines, to ranger school and who knows what else after that. If we can break that habit of thinking, that women belong in their homes, to leading a multi billion business or maybe even one day become president. I think it will not only show this new generation of women that anything is possible. But also give a different view of how our nations should view women. I'm sure if a women was to be placed in the UN, the back room deals and god knows what else would continue to happen. But its a matter of those actually putting a stop to all this behind the door deals and abusing their power for their own agenda. We need to really focus on these said issues. As long as that continues, things will never change. It has to start somewhere. When is now a matter of the question.

Response by LCpl Cody Collins made May 10 at 2016 10:51 AM

LCpl Cody Collins — Tue, 10 May 2016 10:51:17 -0400

Probably, but there are to many wannabe dictators on the world scene that wouldn't show one ounce of respect or fear towards her.
I hate to say it, but Ronald Reagan and Bush Jr. Proved a valid point. When pushed, they shoved back. Bush Jr. Had Dr. Condoleezza Rice on his team, next to Margaret Thatcher she was the toughest Female to date.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 11 at 2017 12:31 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 11 Apr 2017 12:31:21 -0400

We need to defund the United Nations and kick them out of the United States they have gotten out of control and all they want to do is condemn Isreal and remove them from their lands.

Response by Cpl Mark A. Morris made Oct 21 at 2020 8:05 AM

Cpl Mark A. Morris — Wed, 21 Oct 2020 08:05:32 -0400

"The US currently ranks 60th in women’s political empowerment on the Gender Gap Index. Unfortunately, the world average is still low overall for the percentage of women in national parliaments at only 21 percent—slightly above the 18 percent in the U.S. House of Representatives."
The US had done more for women than any other country in history. Any women that wants to run for office can.
What is the Gender Gap Index? It is from the World Economic Forum. I care about women. But, the World Economic Forum desires western civilization to have open borders and more Marxism. They are nothing more than another UN globalists wet dream that views the American voters that do not share their views as unwashed, or Deplorable.
It is time to defund the UN with American tax payer monies. I need that money. Not open borders and large central government climate change Marxists.
Have a good day Sir.

Response by Lt Col Scott Shuttleworth made Oct 21 at 2020 12:52 PM

Lt Col Scott Shuttleworth — Wed, 21 Oct 2020 12:52:21 -0400

Let me pontificate (Dang it already used my $10 word for the day). I firmly believe that women are capable of doing the job that is not the question. Women are more attention to detail, usually have more compassion and empathy, and well just look at things more deeply than men. Women want to know how to build a watch, how long it takes to build a watch, who is doing the building, and when will it be done. Men just want to know what time it is. I just believe that women will have a harder time dealing with some countries that still view them as second and third class citizens…they can overcome that but it will be a harder hill to climb.

Response by SGT James Murphy made Oct 21 at 2020 1:44 PM

SGT James Murphy — Wed, 21 Oct 2020 13:44:33 -0400

No a Woman would NOT run the UN Differently or even Better.

Response by SFC Terry Wilcox made Oct 22 at 2020 7:12 AM

SFC Terry Wilcox — Thu, 22 Oct 2020 07:12:53 -0400

To Put a Woman in charge of the UN - just to have a woman in charge - is not the right answer. A woman in charge of the UN may well be a good thing - But not just to see how a woman would run things.

Response by SFC Terry Wilcox made Oct 22 at 2020 7:19 AM

SFC Terry Wilcox — Thu, 22 Oct 2020 07:19:20 -0400

A Presidential Solution;
To Africa's EXTREME Poverty:

This Idea from a show on: The Discovery Channel, 7-22-10; “Sahara Desert, Oldest Desert in the World”. The following would help the peoples of Africa, and the President of the USA... especially... if HE/SHE made it happen, and made sure that, not only the rich, made the bulk of the wealth.

CIA Report:
In 1957 the American Central Intelligence Agency proposed to then President Dwight Eisenhower that peace in the Middle East could be achieved by flooding the Qattara Depression. The resulting lagoon, according to the CIA, would have four benefits: (1) it would be "spectacular and peaceful," (and I dare say profitable) (2) it would "materially alter the climate in adjacent areas," (providing untold wealth and help, without draining America’s dwindling prosperity, 2010) (3) it would "provide work during construction and living areas after completion for the Palestinian Arabs," and (4) the project would get then Egyptian president Gamel Abdel Nasser's "mind on other matters" because, "he needed some way to get off the Soviet Hook." The project was never undertaken.[1] (most of this report is over 4 years old, and dates back to over 98 years ago, time to take real action!)

Hydroelectric possibilities:
Plans to use the Qattara Depression for the generation of electricity date back to 1912 and a Berlin geographer, Professor Penk.[2] The subject was discussed in more detail by Dr. John Ball in 1927.[3]. Present day scientists still explore the viability of such a project, as a key to resolving economic, population, and ecological stresses in the area.[4] (see my notes later in this article)
The Qattara Depression is composed of sand dunes and salt lakes in a teardrop-shaped formation with the point of the drop facing east and the broad deep area at the south west end. The large size of the Qattara Depression and the fact that it falls to a depth of 132 m below mean sea level has led to several proposals to create a massive hydroelectric project in northern Egypt rivaling the Aswan High Dam. The proposals all call for a large channel or tunnel being excavated from the Qattara due north about 80 km to the Mediterranean Sea or to the near-by Nile River. Water would flow from the channel into a series of hydro-electric penstocks which would release the water at 90 m below sea level. Because the Qattara is in a very hot dry region with very little cloud cover the water released at the 90 m level would spread out from the release point across the basin until evaporating from solar influx. Because the depression is so deep and broad, a great deal of water would need to be let in, to maintain the artificial salt sea at the 90 m level and as the water evaporates, more sea water would be sent through the pen-stocks to generate more electricity.

Add to the above information, the following input:

A pipeline or channel from the ocean (dangerously increasing in volume, instead of from rivers, decreasing in volume) as noted in the Hydro Electric section above; sent to a level lesser in elevation (90m below sea level) would provide gravity and force for the generation of necessary electricity, as it flows freely, to otherwise useless lands, to power civilized populous. Because, as scientists have found out and noted, the ancient tropics of the area (caused by a wobble in earth's orbit), will not return for another nine thousand years.
To create fresh waters, via the input of screened oceanic waters into the Qattara Depression (screened, because no oceanic life would survive the initial input into desert sands), then, simply allow the waters to be filtered via natural process; passing down through sand and silt, into fresh water underground lakes/aquifers (again, being drained for farming and human life support). Providing replenishment of those precious farm waters, and life support for the world's poorest... millions of Africans.

The new Liquid GOLD!
Given the world's current financial situation... This would ease the GENERAL African Poverty... by the ability to grow grand acreages of crops, not only for human food consumption, but destined also for Bio-Fuel, from farm lands, not currently useable. Feed the nation and fuel the world, with renewable fuel sources!

Using some of that Hydro-electric power, with electrolysis, taking non-consumable, oceanic salt water (currently in extreme excess), creating commercially useable gasses... Hydrogen, Chlorine and Oxygen... more profit... from nothing - Something!
Sand to Dollars...
• Commercially useable gasses from imported ocean waters, via electrically charged ferrite rods,
• Freshwaters for farming and human consumption via natural filtration into underground lakes, a great inland lake from excessive oceanic waters, not shorting, taking away from... anything.
• Recreational sales anyone?
• Expansive lakeside resorts?
• Poverty diminished, where it has historically ruled supreme.
• From an unusable, inland, desolate desert depression, supporting much of nothing, to a Great Commercially Viable Lake, that adds humidity to surrounding Areas... and
• RAIN... more fresh, consumable, and farming waters.
• WEALTH... where much of nothing, can currently exist.

ALL CREATED VIA A SINGLE PIPELINE/CHANNEL, FROM THE OCEAN, TO THIS DEPRESSION!
Simple and profitable - WEALTH & FAME - to whoever wants to be the first to claim!

Research via the internet, and written by:

Sergeant First Class
Terry Wilcox
US Army, Retired

[login to see]

Response by MSG Felipe De Leon Brown made Oct 22 at 2020 10:39 PM

MSG Felipe De Leon Brown — Thu, 22 Oct 2020 22:39:50 -0400

I have the same opinion now that I had more than twenty years ago when I first read the United Nations Universal Rights. Eleanor Roosevelt (FDR's widow) was a vociferous advocate for equality and human rights. She continued as an advocate for the UN even after it was founded. As part of the World Language Advanced Placement curriculum, the College Board® directed that we professors address the question of equality. The passion, the zeal, that I invested in preparing that block of instruction ratified my long-held view that yes, women would be better political and civil leaders than men that any government led by a woman would be a more humane, a more unimpeachable and yes, more egalitarian government than any run by a man. The UN would be no exception. Women, in general seem to have more empathy, more compassion than men in general. In my opinion, the only thing that men excel in is war making and the majority of the men who send us to war are incompetent. A woman having to decide to wage war would, in most cases, seek the best diplomatic solution possible before calling out the troops. In general, women are a lot more intelligent than most men care to recognize or acknowledge. My wife, if she were still alive today, would tell you that I walked the walk when it came to us being equals. In fact, with her I had a happy life because I made sure that she would always be a happy wife. Of course, I almost always had the last word...Yes, love.

Response by Lt Col Charlie Brown made Oct 23 at 2020 7:35 AM

Lt Col Charlie Brown — Fri, 23 Oct 2020 07:35:44 -0400

It depends on the woman. You can't compare a Nikki Haley or Margaret Thatcher to someone like Hillary Clinton

Response by PVT Mark Zehner made Oct 23 at 2020 2:49 PM

PVT Mark Zehner — Fri, 23 Oct 2020 14:49:58 -0400

Not sure. Everyone does it differently so I guess yes

Response by SGT Michael Hearn made Oct 23 at 2020 10:00 PM

SGT Michael Hearn — Fri, 23 Oct 2020 22:00:39 -0400

RUN IT IN THE GROUND