1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

What if Au H20...

Discussion in 'History Forum' started by Salty, Oct 10, 2007.

  1. Salty

    Salty 20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    23,778
    Likes Received:
    398
    Faith:
    Baptist
    What if Barry Goldwater had been elected President in 1964 how would the history of the US been changed? Specifically, Vietnam and the War on Poverty

    Salty
     
  2. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    79
    Not sure many of us would be here.

    I think tach nukes may have been used in Vietnam escalating into full scale nuclear war.

    That was a very scary time. Only God's control brought us through it without "Assured Mutual Destruction."
     
  3. Ivon Denosovich

    Ivon Denosovich New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2007
    Messages:
    1,276
    Likes Received:
    0
    First, I love Goldwater, but I disagree with his decision about Nam. I think the place would be even more hostile to the US had Goldwater used the force he advocated.

    However, I think economically the US would be a better place to live because he wanted to pretty much scrap public assistance as we know it. I believe self-reliance spurs people to be more creative, frugal, and harder working. The boon we experienced from Reagan's tax cuts in the 80's would have come a lot sooner and in a more pronounced way.
     
  4. KenH

    KenH Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,699
    Likes Received:
    22
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I don't think that the Vietnam War would have happened with Goldwater as president.

    Neither would the hopelessly lost from the get-go War on Poverty have been started.
     
  5. Major B

    Major B <img src=/6069.jpg>

    Joined:
    May 6, 2003
    Messages:
    2,294
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree totally. Johnson eventually committed over 500,000 troops, but would never "pull the trigger" to really bomb strategic targets without abandon. When Nixon turned us USAF guys loose in Dec 72, ten days of unrestricted bombing by BUFFs (B-52s) was sufficient to lead to the peace settlement (which would have worked if we had upheld our part).

    Goldwater's ascent to the White House would have so freaked out the Commies that they would have made a deal with him early on.

    The War on Poverty has created more poverty and torn up more families than can be accurately measured.
     
  6. Major B

    Major B <img src=/6069.jpg>

    Joined:
    May 6, 2003
    Messages:
    2,294
    Likes Received:
    0
    Goldwater never actually advocated the use of nukes--but he did not rule them out, which would have given pause to the Commies.

    Who cares if Vietnam is hostile to us? They are a fourth world nation because they won't fully abandon Communist economics.

    Johnson sent well over 500,000 troops--Goldwater would have won it with less, by turning the Air Force loose with conventional weapons (see my reply to Ken H).
     
  7. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    79
    I agree 100% with the domestic issues. Johnson got us stuck in decades of welfarism.


    However, both sides were pretty well balanced when it came to nukes in 1965. The slightest push too far could have tipped a delicate balance. You can only play the tough guy for so long before you have to fight. If not Vietnam, then some other hot spot could well have upset the balance.

    Who knows how a battle of the wills between Goldwater and Brezhnev would have worked out?

    This is what makes "what ifs" so interesting in my mind.
     
  8. Ivon Denosovich

    Ivon Denosovich New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2007
    Messages:
    1,276
    Likes Received:
    0
    That tends to be my understanding of history. Both major parties were adamant about stopping communism.
     
  9. bobbyd

    bobbyd New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2004
    Messages:
    1,468
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think a Goldwater win would have made the 80's look a LOT different because Reagan's speech at that 64 convention put him on the political map. If he had been the actual nominee, he may have suffered the same results.
    But then again, if fate would have allowed Carter to still be the imcumbent in 1980 a trained circus monkey could have beat him.
     
  10. KenH

    KenH Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,699
    Likes Received:
    22
    Faith:
    Baptist
    1) Goldwater was the GOP presidential nominee in 1964.

    2) Carter was the incumbent president in 1980.
     
  11. swaimj

    swaimj <img src=/swaimj.gif>

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2000
    Messages:
    3,426
    Likes Received:
    0
    I know this is begging the question, but, I can't imagine a scenario in which Goldwater COULD have been elected in 1964.

    I also don't think that the election of Goldwater would have been a good thing. The conservative movement was just getting underway. It was infested with radicals who could not have and would not have contributed to good governing. That movement had to mature and it took some years for this to happen.

    Would Goldwater have gotten into the Vietnam quagmire? Probably. Would he have waged the war on poverty? No, and he would not have pushed the Civil Rights Act of '64 either which probably would have hastened race riots.

    Lots of bad things happened in the '60s. The liberals were in control, so they got the blame for it. That enabled the growth of the conservative movement and the rise of Ronald Reagan. To me, things played out just fine.
     
  12. bobbyd

    bobbyd New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2004
    Messages:
    1,468
    Likes Received:
    0
    Isn't that what i said? My point was i don't know if a Goldwater win in 64 would have laid the political landscape that lead to Reagan winning in 1980 since that 64 convention speech really put Reagan on the map.
     
  13. Bible Believing Bill

    Bible Believing Bill <img src =/bbb.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    3,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    OK I will show my ignorance, What does Au H20 mean?


    Bill
     
  14. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis <img src =/curtis.gif>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    21,032
    Likes Received:
    120
    Faith:
    Baptist
    It's the chemical makeup of gold, & water, respectively.
     
  15. KenH

    KenH Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,699
    Likes Received:
    22
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Actually it was after the convention on October 27, 1964, on a nationwide, pre-recorded TV broadcast. Here is the speech for anyone who might have missed it:

    www.reaganlibrary.com/reagan/speeches/rendezvous.asp
     
  16. Bible Believing Bill

    Bible Believing Bill <img src =/bbb.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    3,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks Brother Curtis.
     
  17. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis <img src =/curtis.gif>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    21,032
    Likes Received:
    120
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I like those plays on words/letters. Very clever.
     
Loading...