buckeyemike Posted June 6, 2008 Share Posted June 6, 2008 I really believe that, if he had not been assassinated, RFK would have beaten Nixon in the 1968 presidential election. Thus, the whole history of America changes over the last forty years. Any thoughts? Would we have been better off? Or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olivier in france Posted June 6, 2008 Share Posted June 6, 2008 i had tried to discuss that on the PPP forum earlier this week without much success... http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?showtopic=66773 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marv's Neighbor Posted June 6, 2008 Share Posted June 6, 2008 The main thing going on in 68 was Viet Nam. It took Nixon 7 more years to get us out of that but I really don't recall what RFK's plan was/would have been. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olivier in france Posted June 6, 2008 Share Posted June 6, 2008 The main thing going on in 68 was Viet Nam. It took Nixon 7 more years to get us out of that but I really don't recall what RFK's plan was/would have been. basically he planned to get out of there as fast as possible... (he had met De Gaulle in Paris during the campaign, hoping the General could play a role in coming negociations with the VietCong , L Johnson who had not yet said he was not running again -and was not planning for peace at all- was terribly angry about that freelance trip to France ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkyMannn Posted June 6, 2008 Share Posted June 6, 2008 basically he planned to get out of there as fast as possible... So he said...........just like any pres candidate this year said about Iraq. Easier said than done Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olivier in france Posted June 6, 2008 Share Posted June 6, 2008 So he said...........just like any pres candidate this year said about Iraq. Easier said than done well i don't think that was what Nixon was saying.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marv's Neighbor Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 basically he planned to get out of there as fast as possible... (he had met De Gaulle in Paris during the campaign, hoping the General could play a role in coming negociations with the VietCong , L Johnson who had not yet said he was not running again -and was not planning for peace at all- was terribly angry about that freelance trip to France ) With all due respect, the only previous "negotiations" DeGaulle ever had with Viet Nam was a French surrender in 1954. Viet Nam was JFK's war so I wouldn't think his Brother would turn 180 degrees for a fast exit. That was a long time ago and politicians have been known to do/say anything to get elected. I do recall, at JFK's funeral, General Degaulle was offered a ride in the procession to Arlington, but said that since Mrs. Kennedy was walking, he would also walk. That was a very respectful, statesman like response to a nation in mourning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 Good question. That is a Butterfly Effect question and America would be a much different place. We might be a much more liberal country. Or maybe he gets voted out and their is a conservative backlash in the 70's. Nixon did some great things for America too. He established relations with China. Could Bobby Kennedy pull that off? I am not so sure. Nixon started the EPA and ended the Vietnam war- Bobby might of done both. Carter got elected- so liberalism was still alive and well after Bobbys death. Race relations would probably be much better if Bobby was elected. Interesting question, I am gonna think this one out more Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 well i don't think that was what Nixon was saying.... Nixon ended the Vietnam war Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olivier in france Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 With all due respect, the only previous "negotiations" DeGaulle ever had with Viet Nam was a French surrender in 1954. Viet Nam was JFK's war so I wouldn't think his Brother would turn 180 degrees for a fast exit. I do recall, at JFK's funeral, General Degaulle was offered a ride in the procession to Arlington, but said that since Mrs. Kennedy was walking, he would also walk. That was a very respectful, statesman like response to a nation in mourning. In 1954 De Gaulle was not in charge of the country... he was not responsible for the Indochine fiasco at all... while he has had full responsability of the negociations to end the war in Algeria in 1962 and knew a little about the kind of dirty war the US were into in Vietnam... He was probably very capable to play the middle man between the Vietcong and the US.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olivier in france Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 Viet Nam was JFK's war so I wouldn't think his Brother would turn 180 degrees for a fast exit. Ending the war in Vietnam was one of his main campaign promises ; Saw an other documentary about him yesterday on cable (History Channel). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olivier in france Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 Nixon ended the Vietnam war yeah but he did it in 7 years! and ending the war was not a promise he was making during the 68 campaign something RFK was doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olivier in france Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 Nixon did some great things for America too. He established relations with China. So true. His (with the great help of Kissinger and Pakistan's president Butho -father-) unlikely alliance with China in 1972 was probably the first step of the slow process that won the cold war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts