[macintologist]

Sound familiar?
[quote]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.[quote]

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.

NYT. 9/4/1967: p. 2.

[spiky_dog]

good find. it will be several months, if not years, before we can evaluate whether this election was truthful, significant, or just a lot of smoke being blown up our collective orifices.

[SimeyTheLimey]

It's not 1967, and we won't abandon Iraq to be massacred and thrown into reeducation camps or forced to flee in rickety boats like we did the Vietnamese.

[sideus]

Took long enough for the wackos to come up with something about the recent Iraqi election.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Meanwhile, how's the Democratic process going in South Korea?

[mitchell_pgh]

Vietnam illustrated that "limited war" can NOT be successful. Fortunately we are not in a limited war situation.

[Zimphire]

[James L]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
It's not 1967, and we won't abandon Iraq to be massacred and thrown into reeducation camps or forced to flee in rickety boats like we did the Vietnamese.

I am not sure if the term "abandoned" describes the end result of the Vietnamese era (65-75). It was a boot stomping, and the US was not the winner.

Someone above said it best though... limited war does not work. The US entered Iraq under lies and false pretences. Kudos to them if they remain committed and see it through however. It will be a long haul, and though I have no respect for those who put the US there, there is no end to my respect for those who are doing the job on the ground level.

[James L]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

LOL... great pic! I wonder how many people got it.

[badidea]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Meanwhile, how's the Democratic process going in South Korea?

Originally posted by James L:
LOL... great pic! I wonder how many people got it.

Do you consider yourself special because you managed to recognize apples and oranges (and other fruit) in this picture?



edit: typo

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by James L:
I am not sure if the term "abandoned" describes the end result of the Vietnamese era (65-75). It was a boot stomping, and the US was not the winner.

Abandoned is exactly correct. North Vietnam never won a military victory. Their victory was political. Even after the US pullout, South Vietnam probably could have defended itself if the international community had supported it. But we didn't, we turned our backs with enormous human consequences for those left behind.

Iraq won't be abandoned in that way. We have learnt our lesson.

[nath]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Abandoned is exactly correct. North Vietnam never won a military victory.

WE DID NOT LOSE!!!! IT WAS A DRAW!!! IT WAS A DRAW!!!

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Iraq won't be abandoned in that way. We have learnt our lesson.

I suppose in the same context, the next nation you invade will benefit from the lessons you've learned in Iraq? Hell, with America learning so quickly, frankly the rest of the third world should count itself lucky. No My Lai or Abu Ghraib for them!

Everyone say 'hell yeah' for freedom.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by nath:


WE DID NOT LOSE!!!! IT WAS A DRAW!!! IT WAS A DRAW!!!

I can't help it if you don't know your history. I.e. an accurate, nuanced version, not the O'Level Cliff Notes version.

Hint: read what I said. Contrast military victory with political victory. The applicability of the lesson to Iraq should be fairly obvious.

[nath]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I can't help it if you don't know your history. I.e. an accurate, nuanced version, not the O'Level Cliff Notes version.

Hint: read what I said. Contrast military victory with political victory. The applicability of the lesson to Iraq should be fairly obvious.

I did read what you said, very carefully, before laughing quite a lot. I dont really care whether it was a military withdrawal, a political defeat or a strategic disaster.

The whole thing was a failure on almost every conceivable level, and I was laughing at your instinctive kneejerk 'Actually it really wasn't a defeat in the strictest sense of the word' deconstruction nonsense.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by nath:
I did read what you said, very carefully, before laughing quite a lot. I dont really care whether it was a military withdrawal, a political defeat or a strategic disaster.

The whole thing was a failure on almost every conceivable level, and I was laughing at your instinctive kneejerk 'Actually it really wasn't a defeat in the strictest sense of the word' deconstruction nonsense.

It's not nonsense, it is very relevant to the situation today. Vietnam was indeed a strategic defeat. Or at least it was a tactical defeat. A strategic defeat would have been a defeat in the war in which the Vietnam War was a strategic part -- which was the Cold War. The US won the Cold War in much the same way as it lost the war in Vietnam -- by political means, rahter than by force of arms.

The US pullout of Vietnam wasn't in any way forced on the US, it was voluntary, driven primarily by domestic politics in the US. At worst, the military situation on the ground in Vietnam was a stalemate, but not a loss. The US never had its back against the wall the way the North did, the stakes for us were never what they were for them. Even the greatest political successes by the North were utter military disasters in military terms for the North. The Tet Offensive comes at the top of that list. While Walter Cronkite etc. were declaring victory for the Viet Cong, the Viet Cong was in fact destroyed in that campaign as an effective military force. Militarily, the Tet Offensive achieved nothing. But politically, it turned US public opinion, which was a political victory for the North.

The abandonment of South Vietnam continued after the US pulled out its own forces. When North Vietnam broke the Paris Peace Accords and invaded the South, the US could have, and should have come to the South's aid. But we didn't, again for domestic political reasons. The South fell as a result. The result of that is depressing history -- reeducation camps, and the Boat People. We are still living with that legacy today.

The point of all this is that we talked ourselves into a wholly unnecessary and militarily unwarranted defeat. That will not happen in Iraq.

[ebuddy]

originally posted by Nath; I suppose in the same context, the next nation you invade will benefit from the lessons you've learned in Iraq? Hell, with America learning so quickly, frankly the rest of the third world should count itself lucky. No My Lai or Abu Ghraib for them!

You mean no more Americans turning in and uncovering the attrocities committed by a few psychotic Americans? Americans, shamed by the acts of a few, turned them in and had them court-marshaled and imprisoned. I'm still waiting on some of those terrorists, shamed by the horrors committed by their workmates, to turn them in. Oh well, here's to hoping.

While we're at it, are you really comparing My Lai to Abu-Ghraib? Wow, no shortage of ignorance in this thread to be sure. Hugh Thompson, an American soldier uncovered My Lai. An American soldier turned in and uncovered Abu Ghraib. Americans keeping Americans in check as is always the case and Americans holding them to account by a Judicial process in America. So, yeah I hope a great meany learn from us!

[nath]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
An American soldier turned in and uncovered Abu Ghraib. Americans keeping Americans in check as is always the case and Americans holding them to account by a Judicial process in America. So, yeah I hope a great meany learn from us!

So illegal acts by an illegal force of occupation are OK, as long as they're identified and addressed in the manner deemed acceptable to the perpetrator of the illegality? Wow. Gotta love that freedom!

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Wow, no shortage of ignorance in this thread to be sure.

To be sure.

The original investigation into My Lai (following the complaint of Hugh Thompson) resulted in the verdict that My Lai was a combat operation in which twenty civilians had accidentally been killed. General William Westmoreland sent a personal congratulatory note to Charlie Company, which he probably regretted a year later when pictures and more whistleblowers begain emerging from the woodwork, the most significant of which being Lieutenant William Calley's interview with Seymour Hersch.

In addition, it was discovered that hundreds of civilians had also been killed by other army units, at My Khe and Co Luy.

Clearly the US Army is an organisation well-suited to 'nation-building'.

[MacNStein]

Originally posted by nath:
So illegal acts by an illegal force of occupation are OK, as long as they're identified and addressed in the manner deemed acceptable to the perpetrator of the illegality? Wow. Gotta love that freedom!

Illegal force? By whose authority? The UN?

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally posted by nath:
Clearly the US Army is an organisation well-suited to 'nation-building'.

No kidding, look at how horrible Japan and Germany turned out...

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by badidea:

I brought up South Korea, because it has about as much to do with Iraq as Vietnam does. Yet I notice that no one ever compares the Korean conflict- but if ever there was the ACTUAL, living, breathing example of western fought for, and support of democratic ideas (South) vs. the $hithole anti-western, anti-capitalist alternative (North) in stark contrast for all to see, Korea is it. Who in their right mind would choose to live in the North compared to the South?

Somehow, people love the useless Vietnam comparison, because no one ever got the chance to see the contrast between a free, western supported South, vs. the $hithole alternative North- the whole thing became the $hithole alternative.

But mention Korea, where the example is there, in perfect contrast for all to see, and you get the blank stare. No fun in pointing out apple to oranges situations where the objectives of the west were actually pretty well met I guess. No negative downside to finger-point over?

[nath]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
No kidding, look at how horrible Japan and Germany turned out...

Sure, pre-unification Germany was a bundle of laughs! You're right about Japan though.

[nath]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
No negative downside to finger-point over?

Creation of a potential nuclear flashpoint and partitioned country notwithstanding, of course.

I thought the point was that failed states, particularly communist variants, will always collapse of their own accord. Reagan pointed that out time after time in relation to the USSR; that as much as he wanted to defeat communism, it was doing the job just fine by itself.

It's possible to spread teh democracy and freedom without necessarily having to obliterate third world countries as part of the deal.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally posted by nath:
Sure, pre-unification Germany was a bundle of laughs! You're right about Japan though.

What are you talking about, West Germany was doing VERY well pre-unification. You can't put East Germany of the American tab... that was all the Soviet Union's doing...

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Creation of a potential nuclear flashpoint and partitioned country notwithstanding, of course.

Neither are downsides to be blamed on the west. North Korea creates the nuclear conflict, and would be that many times more dangerous and powerful if it had the resources and slave labor of the entire peninsula, not just the north.

That the peninsula is partitioned is a good thing- unless you really believe anyone in South Korea, now one of the world’s most prosperous nations, would want to live under the tyranny of the North, now one of the world’s most wretched. I don’t recall West Germans clamoring to live on the eastern side of the iron curtain either.

I thought the point was that failed states, particularly communist variants, will always collapse of their own accord.

South Korea doesn’t exist because anyone was willing to sit around and wait for the North to collapse of its own accord. Every South Korean would today be Kim Jong il’s slave, still waiting for such collapse were that the case. The South has its freedom due to the use of force. Contrary to what many have been led to believe, (that Korea was a ‘lost’ war) the initial goal of communist containment in Korea was met by the west. The goal was never the defeat or takeover of the North.

Contrary to other popular myths, the same goal could have been achieved in Vietnam, were it not for the horrid comedy of errors in how the war was conducted, capped by ridiculous one-sided ‘peace agreements’ that the communists broke every single time.

Reagan pointed that out time after time in relation to the USSR; that as much as he wanted to defeat communism, it was doing the job just fine by itself.

Reagan (and many others) understood the crucial part of the equation to defeating communism that the left has yet to come to grips with- FORCE. Sure communism will collapse on its own eventually- when it’s contained, (the whole point of stopping the spread in Europe and Southeast Asia) and kept in check by a stronger military potential than communists can compete with.

It's possible to spread teh democracy and freedom without necessarily having to obliterate third world countries as part of the deal.

Of course, and it’s absolutely impossible to spread freedom and democracy by sitting around waiting for every dictatorship to collapse of its own accord. If that’s what people were hallucinating would happen with the likes of Saddam Hussein, they must have been smoking something pretty potent.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

dp

[James L]

Originally posted by badidea:
Do you consider yourself special because you managed to recognize apples and oranges (and other fruit) in this picture?

Nope... I consider myself special because you replied to my post. Sigh, my life is now complete.

[James L]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Neither are downsides to be blamed on the west. North Korea creates the nuclear conflict, and would be that many times more dangerous and powerful if it had the resources and slave labor of the entire peninsula, not just the north.

That the peninsula is partitioned is a good thing- unless you really believe anyone in South Korea, now one of the world’s most prosperous nations, would want to live under the tyranny of the North, now one of the world’s most wretched. I don’t recall West Germans clamoring to live on the eastern side of the iron curtain either.


South Korea doesn’t exist because anyone was willing to sit around and wait for the North to collapse of its own accord. Every South Korean would today be Kim Jong il’s slave, still waiting for such collapse were that the case. The South has its freedom due to the use of force. Contrary to what many have been led to believe, (that Korea was a ‘lost’ war) the initial goal of communist containment in Korea was met by the west. The goal was never the defeat or takeover of the North.

Contrary to other popular myths, the same goal could have been achieved in Vietnam, were it not for the horrid comedy of errors in how the war was conducted, capped by ridiculous one-sided ‘peace agreements’ that the communists broke every single time.


Reagan (and many others) understood the crucial part of the equation to defeating communism that the left has yet to come to grips with- FORCE. Sure communism will collapse on its own eventually- when it’s contained, (the whole point of stopping the spread in Europe and Southeast Asia) and kept in check by a stronger military potential than communists can compete with.


Of course, and it’s absolutely impossible to spread freedom and democracy by sitting around waiting for every dictatorship to collapse of its own accord. If that’s what people were hallucinating would happen with the likes of Saddam Hussein, they must have been smoking something pretty potent.

Interesting post.

Of course, the fear of, and fight against, communism did often go too far. You only need to look no further than McCarthyism to see that.