Voting Deja Vu?

Posted on Wednesday, February 02 at 09:51 by gorian
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.

Contributed By



Article Rating

 (0 votes) 

Options




Comments

  1. Wed Feb 02, 2005 6:16 pm
    The big difference between these two wars is John F. Kennedy started Vietnam, then the left got cold feet and railed against the war when Nixon was in office. President Bush started this whole thing and he will see it through to the end, no matter how much the left whines and cries.

    I think it says a lot about a person, or a group of people, when they can't even see the Iraqi election as JUST MAYBE being a good, positive first step in the right direction.

    Who's side are you people on? That's a rhetorical question by the way, the answers to that question are painfully obvious.

  2. Wed Feb 02, 2005 6:42 pm
    "In his other calls, Bush thanked Canada for the international observation role it played in the Iraqi election" <a href='http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/world/10797128.htm?1c'>Link</a><p> You are free to quote any Canadian news source that says that the elections in Iraq are a bad thing. No, I couldn't find one ethier. The only links I've found were from the same countries that were remarkably silent after the elections, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria . . .Guess the neocons will have to come up with different rhetoric.<p> <p>---<br>"If you must kill a man, it costs you nothing to be polite about it." Winston Churchill<br />

  3. Wed Feb 02, 2005 6:45 pm
    John Kennedy started it, but recinded the order just before his assasination. Johnston quickly reinstated it.

    You might want to remember that in the US in 1967 (and before) a great deal of people were in favour of the Viet Nam war. It wasn't until Tet in 1968 that it became obvious to the public that the war wasn't winnable.

    That's the point of the irony. Are we, right now, in the 1967-equivilent in Iraq? Is there going to be a "Ramadan 2005" which will be the equivilent of Tet? The point is that at one point in a war they lost, the US administration, used the EXACT SAME excuses and line to indicate they were winning and doing the right thing. They were wrong.

    What has changed in 35 years? What makes you think this time is different? Maybe this is different, but if you can't see the parallels between Iraq and Viet Nam, you are a fool or an apologist for the Bush regime or both (likely the later).

  4. Wed Feb 02, 2005 6:59 pm
    Darvin,

    I think there is some positive that is coming out of this. But it still doesn't mean the path of the Bush admin was the right path.

    I'm still confused as to why Saudi Arabia, a country that had more links to 9/11 then Iraq, ended up getting no pressure from the U.S. Not to mention a history of hand shakes between the Saudi's and U.S goverment.

    Hypocrisy.

    Kevin

    ---
    "War does not determine who is right - only who is left."
    --Bertrand Russell

  5. Wed Feb 02, 2005 6:59 pm
    Vietnam was winnable in my opinion, it would have just taken different tactics. Like I don't know, maybe invading North Vietnam for starters. The way that war was foungt was incredibly asinine.

    What's most humiliating is what happened after US troops withdrew from Vietnam. The slaughter of all the pro-democracy viatnamese civilians, the slaughter of the cambodians, etc. The left was silent during that time, proving once again that mass slaughter of civilians is OK with the left as long as YANKEE GO HOME.

  6. Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:09 pm
    The Left does not want the Iraqi people to be free-- because it would threaten their anti-American political identity (which is far more important than a better life for the Iraqi people). Fortunately, they lack the courage to actively support the insurgents -- just as they lack(ed) the courage to promote freedom in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria and elsewhere. Death and suffering have become the stage prop of the Left to make rhetorical points.

    The Left is hoping for a civil war and a retreat of America from the region -- at the cost of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis (ie, the abstraction they hope to validate their identity). They adhere to the racist belief that Arabs are incapable of freedom or do not want freedom-- but would rather provide their children with a wasteland built on hate and imminent annihilation. This is why they have no moral or intellectual authority in the US.

    My hope is that the Left and liberalism in particular will regain its ability to speak of peace and freedom and human rights without these obvious clouds of hypocrisy. That, however, will require courage and convictions and faith which is currently lacking.

  7. Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:29 pm
    <i>"My hope is that the Left and liberalism in particular will regain its ability to speak of peace and freedom and human rights without these obvious clouds of hypocrisy. That, however, will require courage and convictions and faith which is currently lacking."</i><p> <blockquote>Jack Layton and Canada’s NDP will protect Canadian sovereignty by:<p> <br> * Placing a priority on peacekeeping and peacemaking operations conducted under UN auspices.<br></blockquote> From the New Democratic Party's website (our far left party):<a href='http://www.ndp.ca/ftp/platform/en/sovereignty.php'>Link</a><p> <blockquote>Address by Prime Minister Paul Martin on the occasion of his visit to Washington, D.C.<p> April 29, 2004<br> . . .<br> In the specific case of Iraq, we did not join the coalition forces. I believe this was the right decision for Canada, and Canadians supported it. But there is no disagreement at all with what has to be done going forward.<p> To this end, Canada has pledged $300 million dollars to assist the Iraqi people to rebuild their country and establish responsible and democratic governance. We are already providing training in Jordan for Iraqi police. And as circumstances permit, we are prepared to do significantly more in this and other areas of institution building.<p> We are also ready, in concert with our Paris Club partners, to forgive Iraqi debts to Canada of around $750 million. We agree as well that the sooner the UN can move back into Iraq, the better. Now so far, the policies I have described, including the need to send troops abroad, are primarily defensive, designed to counter threats against us.<p></blockquote> Taken from:<a href='http://www.liberal.ca/news_e.aspx?type=news&news=478'>Here.</a><p> Thanks folks, I'll be here all week dispelling Neocon propaganda and myths. Don't forget to tip your waitress.<p> <p>---<br>"If you must kill a man, it costs you nothing to be polite about it." Winston Churchill<br />

  8. Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:54 pm
    Great! Give a few dollars and help peacekeeping operations -- so long as its not too dangerous -- (like Sudan, Rhwanda, Iraq). What courage! I'm sure those who are living every day under oppression in the Arab world are filled with hope at such a grand vision. Bravo!

  9. Wed Feb 02, 2005 9:08 pm
    Don't start on me on how dangerous peacekeeping (MOOTWA) can be. Especially when the US supplies satellite photos, food, supplies and ammunition that are used to shell and shoot UN peacekeepers. As an American, you have no right to talk about Rwanda. What happened there was a direct result of US support for Croation troops, UN Bureacracy and your President turning a blind eye to the obvious.

    Iraq is your problem. You broke it, you clean it up. We'll help out where we can.


    ---
    "If you must kill a man, it costs you nothing to be polite about it." Winston Churchill

  10. Wed Feb 02, 2005 9:26 pm
    "Don't start on me on how dangerous peacekeeping (MOOTWA) can be. Especially when the US supplies satellite photos, food, supplies and ammunition that are used to shell and shoot UN peacekeepers."

    Specifics would be nice here...

    " As an American, you have no right to talk about Rwanda. What happened there was a direct result of US support for Croation troops, UN Bureacracy and your President turning a blind eye to the obvious."

    OK, so what you're saying is that Canada has no moral obligation to protect the hundreds of thousands killed in Rhwanda because of the US? Interesting. The Croation troops prevented Canada from caring about the lives lost? Damn Croations! UN Bureacracy? Didn't your leaders say that the UN establishes the criterion on which to act? Since moral responsibility wasn't inferred by UN auspicies, you are absolved? You can just blame the UN, while seeking ethical shelter from the UN for action and inaction? What courage!

    "Iraq is your problem. You broke it, you clean it up. We'll help out where we can."

    We'll take care of it, no doubt. We will plant freedom there and it will spread through-out the region, because freedom is the right of every human being. Don't you worry your pretty head about such things. A few dollars, some symbolic gestures and you are absolved of moral obligation.

  11. Wed Feb 02, 2005 9:57 pm
    "Specifics would be nice here..."

    Read "Ghosts of the Medak Pocket" by Carol Off. Google is your friend in the meantime.

    "OK, so what you're saying is that Canada has no moral obligation to protect the hundreds of thousands killed in Rhwanda because of the US?"

    Google again: "Shake Hands with the Devil, Gen. Romeo Dellaire". You'll find he was UN Force Commander in Rwanda during the genocide. He begged, he pleaded for troops. At that time the US, Germany, Italy, Greece and other NATO countries had over 3000 troops in Rwanda. Not one of them lifed a finger to help out, even after 10 UN Peacekeepers were murdered by Hutu tribesmen to make a point. We had peacekeepers in Rwanda, Crete, Bosnia, and many other countries, but the UN failed the Force Commander's efforts to pre-emptively stop the genocide. Afterward, it was too late.

    "The Croation troops prevented Canada from caring about the lives lost?"

    That's cold. I know of many soldiers who were peackeepers there that took their own lives since 1993 over the lives in the pocket they could not save. We prepared for 1200 Serb/Croat/Moldovian refugees, we found 1 horse and some chickens. Everything and everyone else was dead. Yes, the Croation troops actively prevented us from saving thousands of Serbs. And they used former East German TU-72 tanks, American made missles, mortars and rifles to do it.

    "What courage!"

    You keep questioning my courage. So, let's whip them out and see who's is longer. When did you earn your Blue Beret? When did you earn your UN Force Commander Medal of Commendation? When did you earn the Governor Generals Meritourious Service Medal? When did you earn the US Bronze Star?

    "We will plant freedom there and it will spread through-out the region, because freedom is the right of every human being."

    So true. Explain to me how to bomb a country into freedom again?


    ---
    "If you must kill a man, it costs you nothing to be polite about it." Winston Churchill

  12. Wed Feb 02, 2005 11:32 pm
    <p>This anon is something else. Everytime there is a good point made, he/she skips addressing those points and jumbs on a personal attack. Nothing but out of control emotions in the post. Anon address all those points made my Dr. Caleb. I'm interested reading what you have to say. <blockquote>Google again: "Shake Hands with the Devil, Gen. Romeo Dellaire". You'll find he was UN Force Commander in Rwanda during the genocide. He begged, he pleaded for troops. At that time the US, Germany, Italy, Greece and other NATO countries had over 3000 troops in Rwanda. Not one of them lifed a finger to help out, even after 10 UN Peacekeepers were murdered by Hutu tribesmen to make a point.--Dr Caleb</blockquote> <blockquote> Especially when the US supplies satellite photos, food, supplies and ammunition that are used to shell and shoot UN peacekeepers.--Dr. Caleb</blockquote> <p>Robert McNamara and Romeo Dellaire both have solutions. They have the experience to come up with better solutions. Yet they are ignored. They are ignored so the U.S and the U.N can just duplicate their mistake all over again, until someday they may learn from their mistakes. <p>Kevin <p>---<br>"War does not determine who is right - only who is left."<br />
    --Bertrand Russell

  13. Wed Feb 02, 2005 11:40 pm
    "No election, whether fair or fraudulent, can legitimize criminal wars on foreign countries, torture, the wholesale violation of human rights..."
    Enough said.

    And Darvin... let us look at history. Did your fellow Americans find legitimacy in the elections held in former Soviet Bloc under occupation? No they did not. What about the elections held by the Soviets in Afghanistan? Nope, not there either. So what makes this occupation any different?

    There is nary anywhere in history where elections held in an occupied nation have been successful in the long term.

    So that is where we are coming from. Elections do not excuse criminal behaviour, whether that be Soviets or Americans.

  14. Wed Feb 02, 2005 11:51 pm
    "Vietnam was winnable"<br />
    <br />
    Yah all you had to do was kill a few million more of them to save a few thousand of them. Not to mention a couple million more from Cambodia and Laos.<br />
    <br />
    <a href="http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=5096">http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=5096</a><br />
    <br />
    "What the US did in Indochina involved the mass killing of civilians and the premeditated, wholesale destruction of the environment using chemical defoliants such as Agent Orange. These are war crimes under the 1957 Geneva Conventions Act."<br />
    <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4401617,00.html">http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4401617,00.html</a><br />
    <br />
    What's more, there are STILL people dying in those countries from unexploded cluster bombs etc. There are STILL people suffering from the chemical warfare. But hey Darvin, whats a few million more eh?<br />
    <br />
    Stunning in your ignorance of history you truely are.



view comments in forum


You need to be a member and be logged into the site, to comment on stories.




Your Voice

To post to the site, just sign up for a free membership/user account and then hit submit. Posts in English or French are welcome. You can email any other suggestions or comments on site content to the site editor. (Please note that Vive le Canada does not necessarily endorse the opinions or comments posted on the site.)

canadian bloggers | canadian news