I think women are really good at making friends and not good at networking. Men are good at networking and not necessarily making friends. That's a gross generalization, but I think it holds in many ways.
Madeleine AlbrightRead
I know that war is very cruel and that life is harder when you aren't able to live in the place you called home.
Interpretation
The quote speaks to the harsh realities of war and the pain of displacement from home.
Madeleine Albright reflects on the cruelty inherent in war and the profound impact it has on individuals, particularly the feeling of loss and hardship that comes when one is forced to leave their home. This quote emphasizes the emotional and psychological toll of living in conflict and the yearning for a sense of belonging and security that many people lose in times of strife.
In practice
This quote can be used in a speech about the impacts of war on families at a peace rally.
I think women are really good at making friends and not good at networking. Men are good at networking and not necessarily making friends. That's a gross generalization, but I think it holds in many ways.
My parents were of the generation who thought they were the children of a free Czechoslovakia, the only democracy in central Europe.
I really think that there was a great advantage in many ways to being a woman. I think we are a lot better at personal relationships, and then have the capability obviously of telling it like it is when it's necessary.
Well I do think, when there are more women, that the tone of the conversation changes, and also the goals of the conversation change. But it doesn't mean that the whole world would be a lot better if it were totally run by women. If you think that, you've forgotten high school.
The main thing is to remain oneself, under any circumstances; that was and is our common purpose.
You think that the heads of state only have serious conversations, but they actually often begin really with the weather or, 'I really like your tie.'
Women are so much a part of war, even if they tend to see another side of it. To say they don't understand war is ridiculous.
The object of defense is preservation; and since it is easier to hold ground than to take it, defense is easier than attack. But defense has a passive purpose: preservation; and attack a positive one: conquest.... If defense is the stronger form of war, yet has a negative object, it follows that it should be used only so long as weakness compels, and be abandoned as soon as we are strong enough to pursue a positive object.
Then somebody suggested I should write about the war, and I said I didn't know anything about the war. I did not understand anything about it. I didn't see how I could write it
In a guerrilla war, the line between legitimate and illegitimate killing is blurred. The policies of free-fire zones, in which a soldier is permitted to shoot at any human target, armed or unarmed, further confuse the fighting man's moral senses.
It's all rot that they put in the war-news about the good humour of the troops, how they are arranging dances almost before they are out of the front-line. We don't act like that because we are in a good humour: we are in a good humour because otherwise we should go to pieces.
Twenty-first century war adds new risks: more and more often there are no front lines, no central command, no rules of engagement - only a chaotic collision of politics, power, faith and bloodlust. Victims are as likely to be civilians as soldiers.
Subscribe for the occasional hand-picked quote. No noise.