View Full Version : Election Euphoria


jsh1120
02-02-2005, 04:45 PM
Making the rounds of the Internet today...



U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote : Officials Cite 83% Turnout Despite Vietcong Terror

by Peter Grose, Special to the New York Times (9/4/1967: p. 2)

WASHINGTON, Sept. 3-- United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam’s presidential election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting.

According to reports from Saigon, 83 per cent of the 5.85 million registered voters cast their ballots yesterday. Many of them risked reprisals threatened by the Vietcong.

The size of the popular vote and the inability of the Vietcong to destroy the election machinery were the two salient facts in a preliminary assessment of the nation election based on the incomplete returns reaching here.

Pending more detailed reports, neither the State Department nor the White House would comment on the balloting or the victory of the military candidates, Lieut. Gen. Nguyen Van Thieu, who was running for president, and Premier Nguyen Cao Ky, the candidate for vice president.

A successful election has long been seen as the keystone in President Johnson’s policy of encouraging the growth of constitutional processes in South Vietnam. The election was the culmination of a constitutional development that began in January, 1966, to which President Johnson gave his personal commitment when he met Premier Ky and General Thieu, the chief of state, in Honolulu in February.

The purpose of the voting was to give legitimacy to the Saigon Government, which has been founded only on coups and power plays since November, 1963, when President Ngo Dinh Deim was overthrown by a military junta.

Few members of that junta are still around, most having been ousted or exiled in subsequent shifts of power.

Significance Not Diminished

The fact that the backing of the electorate has gone to the generals who have been ruling South Vietnam for the last two years does not, in the Administration’s view, diminish the significance of the constitutional step that has been taken.

The hope here is that the new government will be able to maneuver with a confidence and legitimacy long lacking in South Vietnamese politics. That hope could have been dashed either by a small turnout, indicating widespread scorn or a lack of interest in constitutional development, or by the Vietcong’s disruption of the balloting.

American officials had hoped for an 80 per cent turnout. That was the figure in the election in September for the Constituent Assembly. Seventy-eight per cent of the registered voters went to the polls in elections for local officials last spring.

Before the results of the presidential election started to come in, the American officials warned that the turnout might be less than 80 per cent because the polling place would be open for two or three hours less than in the election a year ago. The turnout of 83 per cent was a welcome surprise. The turnout in the 1964 United States Presidential election was 62 per cent.

Captured documents and interrogations indicated in the last week a serious concern among Vietcong leaders that a major effort would be required to render the election meaningless. This effort has not succeeded, judging from the reports from Saigon.

NomisR
02-02-2005, 05:08 PM
There are a few major differences between the election in South Vietnam and Iraq

1. There was a primary opposition of North Vietnam whereas Iraq is just random insurgencies

2. You have widespread support of the North Vietnam and Ho Chi Min in South Vietnam whereas in Iraq, support of Insurgents are limited.

3. Election in Vietnam is more for show with Candidates were arrested for making false campaign promises, I mean if you do that in an election, you can eliminate all the opposition that way regardless, such has yet to be seen happen in Iraq and I don't think US wants the world to think it's setting up another puppet gov't.

So basically, even though a lot of similarities, hopefully the outcome would be different. ;)

Grabitquick
02-02-2005, 05:09 PM
As Yogi Berra would say, "deja vu all over again."

jsh1120
02-02-2005, 07:27 PM
Meanwhile, the US apparently "lost" $9 billion of the $20 billion in Iraqi funds dedicated to Iraqi reconstruction. Fortunately, it wasn't the money that Congress appropriated for the purpose. Only $2 billion of that $18 billion has been spent.

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/30/iraq.audit/

shazusa
02-03-2005, 09:16 AM
This war is the same as the Vietnam war? So we have lost nearly 60,000 soldiers? So our accuracy in hitting military targets is about 10%? So the politicians in power are not committed to winning the war on terror?

My mistake; all we need now is a soldier to come back here and have a "Summer Soldier" event and say that he was north of the Syrian border on Christmas day.

Iraq is the central front in the War on Terror. The stakes are higher now than in Vietnam. The people are much more behind what is happening now than in Vietnam. Terrorism will be dealt a crushing blow in Iraq. It is happening now. The militant Islamist terrorists will be on the run in other countries, and they will be pursued.

It was a mistake to leave the South Vietnamese in their time of need. It was a mistake to leave Saddam in power in the Persian Gulf war. President Bush knows these things. He will not let them happen again. He will be in the White House too long for the liberal minions to be able to unravel the success in Iraq--if they happen to win the White House in 2008. By then, the War on Terror may have shifted to other places. Perhaps the liberals will have their chance to weaken American resolve by then.

In any event, I am proud that we Americans have liberated the Iraqis. The immediate future is going to be tough due to the terrorists there now. Their more distant future looks very good. I just hope that their grandchildren do not forget America's sacrifice for them as France and Germany have. Even so, they will likely have the most prosperous economy in the Middle East 60 years from now. If they eschew socialism, perhaps they will not experience the 12.1% unemployment that Germany now faces. Still, it is better than their state now.

On a lighter note, I wonder how many RX-8s we will see over there in the years to come.
:D :D

globi
02-03-2005, 09:26 AM
I just hope that their grandchildren do not forget America's sacrifice for them as France and Germany have.
Didn't France help the US during the revolutionary war? Would there even be an America without France?

globi
02-03-2005, 09:27 AM
Iraq is the central front in the War on Terror.
So the bombs in Madrid were organized by terrorist hanging out in Iraq?

jsh1120
02-03-2005, 10:19 AM
This war is the same as the Vietnam war? So we have lost nearly 60,000 soldiers? So our accuracy in hitting military targets is about 10%? So the politicians in power are not committed to winning the war on terror?Uh, you seem to have missed the point. No one should contend that the war in Iraq "is the same as the Vietnam War." (History seldom, if ever, repeats itself.) In many ways, however, the strategy and reaction of the US in Iraq resembles that of Vietnam. And as the news story from 1967 demonstrates, the hopes that high election turnout meant something important in 1967 are similar to the current reactions to the recent Iraqi election.

You're right that the US hasn't lost 60,000 troops in Iraq (yet.) However, two years into our major involvement in Vietnam, end of 1966, the US had lost slightly over 8,000 casualties compared to over 1400 in Iraq with a lower level of troop deployment. Not that great a disparity.

As to our "accuracy" in hitting "military targets," considering that "military targets" are difficult to find unless one considers entire cities (e.g. Fallujah) "military targets," I'm not sure that one can assume much greater "accuracy" this time around.

As for "politicians in power" being "committed to winning," the US dropped more bombs on Vietnam than were used by all the combatants in WWII. If your contention is that such a "commitment" was insufficient, I'm not sure what you have in mind for Iraq.


Iraq is the central front in the War on Terror. The stakes are higher now than in Vietnam. The people are much more behind what is happening now than in Vietnam...
Well, we might debate who made Iraq "the central front in the War on Terror" (whatever that is.) It certainly wasn't the "central front" before the US invasion. However, your contention that "the people are much more behind what is happening now than in Vietnam" is simply false.

In the January 7-9 Gallup Poll, Americans disapproved of the President's handling of the war in Iraq by 56% to 42%. Fifty percent said it was a mistake to go into Iraq. According to the Gallup Organization, "the share of Americans who believed it was mistake to send troops to Vietnam did not reach 50% until August 1968, three years into the heavy U.S. troop involvement in Vietnam, meaning the criticism of the Iraq decision is a year ahead of that schedule. " http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000750298

In any event, I am proud that we Americans have liberated the Iraqis. The immediate future is going to be tough due to the terrorists there now. Their more distant future looks very good..."As the article at the head of this thread suggests, "the more distant future" in Vietnam looked very good in 1967, too. History may not repeat itself, but those who ignore it are more likely to make the same mistakes over and over again.