It's official- Bush asks congress for declaration of war on Iraq

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by joseph1944
Nixon boys wanted him to fight the Chicago thing but Nixon said let it go.

The vote fraud in Chicago was less than the margine by which Nixon lost the state. Daley didn't win the Presidency for Kennedy.

The reason why Nixon said let it go was because an investigation into vote fraud there would very likely lead to an investigation into vote fraud for the Republicans elsewhere. And Tricky **** had his hands in all parts of his campaign. In '68 he helped sabotage the Paris peace talks so that he could win. An evil, evil man.

[Jack_www]

I dont see why you people making such a big deal out of this. First of all it does is confrim a lot that has been said in the news for the last few months. Also all he said that he would take action against Iraq, but never said what kind of action. Also no resolution or DOW has been sent to Congress. What President Bush said he was going to do now is to try and convince allies of US and American public that they such all suport taking action against Iraq. Also CNN, MSNBC, and FOX news showed the press confrence of president live, I saw it on TV yesterday.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


The vote fraud in Chicago was less than the margine by which Nixon lost the state. Daley didn't win the Presidency for Kennedy.

The reason why Nixon said let it go was because an investigation into vote fraud there would very likely lead to an investigation into vote fraud for the Republicans elsewhere. And Tricky **** had his hands in all parts of his campaign. In '68 he helped sabotage the Paris peace talks so that he could win. An evil, evil man.

Che, All I ever heard was that Nixon, in marked contrast to Gore, decided to not contest. Kennedy, in turn, was extremely grateful for Nixon's statemanslike gesture.

Your statement clashes so much with conventional wisdom that I sincerely doubt Nixon failed to contest the election for the reason you stated, vote fraud elsewhere.

I don't recall, but I believe that even if Texas and Illinois were reversed, he still did not have enough electoral votes.

As to sabataging the peace talks, hah! The NV were playing the US like a banjo. They were the crafty ones, not Nixon.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
Che, All I ever heard was that Nixon, in marked contrast to Gore, decided to not contest. Kennedy, in turn, was extremely grateful for Nixon's statemanslike gesture.

Outside Chicago, I doubt you would have heard or read this. It was in the Chicago editorials.

As to sabataging the peace talks, hah! The NV were playing the US like a banjo. They were the crafty ones, not Nixon.

And yet it was the South Vietnamese that pulled out of the talks, not the NV. And the South Vietnamese did so because they were told that they could get a better deal with Nixon as President than the deal that was on the table (the very deal which the US then signed 5 years, 25,000 dead Americans, and over a million Indochinese later).

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Outside Chicago, I doubt you would have heard or read this. It was in the Chicago editorials.



And yet it was the South Vietnamese that pulled out of the talks, not the NV. And the South Vietnamese did so because they were told that they could get a better deal with Nixon as President than the deal that was on the table (the very deal which the US then signed 5 years, 25,000 dead Americans, and over a million Indochinese later).

95% pecent of that election was about Vietnam. Nixon said he had a plan to end the war honorably. He said this openly and throughout the campaign to everyone. If the SV walked out because of Nixon, it was not necessarily because he said something in private he was not saying in public.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yes, Nixon did choose not to contest when all his aides were telling him too. Seeing what has happened after Bush and Gore, I think we all owe Nixon a debt of gratitute, especially for not putting the country through that during the Cold War.

[Felch]

Hey, the US won the Vietnam War. We crushed the Viet Cong and left GVN secure from internal revolt.

Then we left. The eventual conquest of the south by the north happened after we left. ARVN lost the war, not the US.

[Ned]

Felch X, There is a difference in winning the battles and winning the war. Hannibal won all the battles in Italy. He withdrews like we did. But did Carthage win the war?

[Felch]

Ned, we won in Vietnam. The Viet Cong were defeated. The defeat of the South Vietnamese happened years after we left.

And your Hannibal comparison is quite frankly retarded. It has nothing to do with the situation in Vietnam.

Hannibal didn't win because he failed to capture Rome when he had the opportunity. He languished in the south of Italy, until he had to be recalled to Africa to fight Scipio. In Vietnam we had a peace treaty, and by the time of the peace treaty, South Vietnam was more stable than it had been for years. The South Vietnamese lost the war through corruption and incompetence. We won.

[Ned]

Felch X, My point, consistently made, is that we could not win the war unless we took North Vietnam - just like Hannibal and Rome.

The so-called peace treaty was little more than a cease fire agreement that allowed us to withdraw. Hostilites continued because there was no fundamental resolution of the conflict.

Even the Romans screwed up Scipio's victory by not totally subjugating Carthage. Marcus Cato knew this. Every speech he made in the Senate from the fall of Carthage in the Second Punic War until the Third Punic war ended something like this:

"Carthage must be destroyed."

We and England and Franch beat Germany in WWI, but then simply imposed sanctions, etc. WWII was made inevitable. Learning our lesson, the Allies did not withdraw from Germany at the end of WWII.

At the end of the Gulf War there was only a cease fire and sanctions. We did not win that war. We only won the battle. The war continues.