If 50% of Congress had been female Republicans in 1963, would the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution have been passed?

Question

Just think about it!

If the House of Representatives and the Senate had been comprised of 50% female Republicans in August of 1963, would LBJ have been successful in getting the Gulf Of Tonkin Resolution passed?

Remember Ronald Reagan's famous recommendation, "Trust but Verify."?

In the absence of a CRITICAL MASS OF TESTOSTERONE, would LBJ have failed to get a sufficient consensus in both Houses to pass the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution?

I feel quite deeply that the more women we get into government, the less likely we are to mistakenly get involved in bogus wars like Vietnam and Iraq.

The CRITICAL MASS OF TESTOSTERONE that has traditionally existed in our government leaves us predisposed to make the kind of major errors in judgement we obviously made that led us into Vietnam and Iraq!

I think that a much larger percentage of women in government at all levels will prevent us from wasting blood and treasure the way we did in Vietnam and are currently doing in Iraq.

The question I am posing here has everything to do with the expediency of an official retaliation whether or not a president has a majority of his or her party in both Houses AND whether or not there are inherent differences is the sexes about the urgency to retaliate against a reported aggression.

Are there inherent differences between the sexes when it comes to official and swift retaliation against an officially reported aggression?

Are women more predisposed to "trust but verify" such information as the official reporting and notification of the so-called "Gulf of Tonkin Incident" before they sign on to any recommended retaliation?

Are men, by virtue of their higher levels of testosterone, more likely to require less verification before they sign on to a recommended strategy of retaliation against an official report of an "incident" of aggression?

We must remember that LBJ wanted to look like a fierce silverback going into the upcoming election against Barry Goldwater.

I must correct one major error here!

The bogus Gulf Of Tonkin Incident was alleged to have occurred in August of 1964. Not 1963 as I put in my original question.

I knew that it was shortly before LBJ was to run for the presidency for the first time against Barry Goldwater just 3 months away, but I goofed when I typed in the year.

The reason why I postulated both Houses of Congress being comprised of 50% female Republicans is because I wanted to have a double dynamic playing itself out here. One of gender and one of political party opposition shortly before a major presidential election.

There is a core 12% that absolutely will not "change horses in the middle of a stream" or vote for a challenger when we are engaged in a war or an emerging military conflict.

In many respects, starting a war is very close to an air-tight assurance that the president currently in office will remain in office.

"Landslide Lyndon" finally got his landslide victory that November !

During the first half of November 1963, Civil Rights legislation had a snowball's chance in Hell to get passed.Once JFK was assassinated, the whole situation changed overnight!
Lyndon Johnson had the nation behind him with an overwhelming attitude in favor of passing landmark Civil Rights legislation that would represent the higher aspirations and objectives of JFK and his administration and thus bolster his legacy.
Suddenly, after his landslide victory in November of 1964, the passage of substantive Civil Rights legislation was virtually assured.
It took JFK's passing to set the stage for this.
Ironically, with his Vietnam escalation, LBJ had already sewn the seeds of his own political demise despite the landslide victory he had just received.
The military retaliation against North Vietnam for an "incident" that didn't even occur, was something that the Joint Chiefs goaded him into doing.
Johnson was still afraid that there were "certain elements" that he had to please or else!

Answer 1

Not necessarily. It might have changed history, or might not. It depends on what information is presented to Congress to vote upon, and the executive branch would have already been prepared for that, an executive branch that would already have had experience with Congress's Lady Senators and Representatives. LBJ and his clique, had they wanted war badly enough would have figured out a strategy that might, or might not have worked on the ladies.

At the same time, there have been female leaders who had no problem taking up the sword in the past, so I personally think that the role of gender in a question of war or peace is just a teeny bit exaggerated.

As for Iraq... what difference would gender make? Looking back, anyone with the information they had, minus Bush's devious yet delusional mindset would not have sent our people to Iraq. LOL, it doesn't take a woman to see that, and there are some guys smarter than that too!

Answer 2

using fact it truly is often the way from some persons on the two components of the isle, like a number of of the liberals who insisted that Bush prevented the draft. the ingredient is, why could you may desire to have a congressional vote as to the place somebody replaced into born? this entire ingredient could have been resolved a protracted time in the past had President Obama in basic terms produced his beginning certificates from the commencing up. There are some who nevertheless think of the government replaced into in charge for the 9/11 assaults. It does not count what information are obtainable or what information is provided, there'll constantly be a proportion of people who will have faith otherwise, for no different reason then whether somebody has a D or an R after their call. bob

Answer 3

I am not really that much into politic's. Why? Because I can't do a dam thing about it. It just makes me mad. I can't believe that over 64% of the human popualtion are retards. The biggest retard of all is in office. And alot of them want to disagree just to disagree.
My opinion of the I.Q. of men isn't very flattering, and I don't care what people think about me. Vote for who YOU think would be a good president , but men don't have a very good record in running the country. Then whenever get's in office screws up, someone else will yell to hear their own voices.

Answer 4

you seem to suffer from lack of understanding of genders and politics. for some reason you think women are less hawkish on such issues as war, where in fact they are histrorically on the same level as males are. Queen Victoria ruled reat Britian for over 70 years, and involved that empire, by her decision, in over 12 wars and 63 military actions, she spread the empire thorugh agression in the middleeast, India and Africa. Many queens and empresses got there nations involved in many wars. so your arguement histrically is not based on actuality.

Answer 5

I suspect that your father abandoned you and your mom when you were very young ! This pre-occupation you have with genitalia versus political moxie is worrisome.

Perhaps you should discuss this with your therapist, because we don't need to be giving you free psychiatric advice.

Answer 6

if it had been 50% female we would have gone to war every 28 days and then 5 days later they would have asked the country they went to war with to "hold me".


personal experience

Answer 7

Moving right along.

Answer 8

i would have to say your critical mass of testosterone theory is more likely a critical mass of greed. women are quite capable of greed as well.