Deja Vu? Officials Cite 83% Turnout Despite Vietcong Terror (9-4- 67)

[Amaryllis]

Deja Vu, anyone?

Officials Cite 83% Turnout Despite Vietcong Terror
by Peter Grose, Special to the New York Times, September 4, 1967

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.

EDITED BY ADMIN: COPYRIGHT

[juslikagrzly]

1. Deja Vu for me, for somewhat different reason

a friend just mentioned this article last Sunday and sent me a copy of it today. Too weird; parallel universe anyone?

Thanks for the entire article. My friend just sent a snip.

[seaclyr]

2. Saw something similar in the Guardian (UK) last week

making a direct comparison between now (Iraq) and then (Vietnam). I'll see if I can track it down. (On edit) here it is.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1402922,00.html

[Moderator]

3. Amaryllis

Per DU copyright rules
please post only four
paragraphs from the
copyrighted news source
and provide a link to
the source.


Thank you.


DU Moderator

[Amaryllis]

15. Sorry, it was so old I thought it would be ok. When does it become public

domain?

[Wilms]

4. Some line about "those condemned to repeat the past"...

keeps gnawing at me.

Let's guess what grade * got in history class.

[Amaryllis]

5. I kept saying that in the build up to the Iraq war: anyone who supports

this war has no knowledge of history.

[berniew1]

6. Iraq turnout now estimated at 30 to 35%; and not what it seemed

New Gov't reports set the turnout in Iraq at less than 35% and say a 30% turnout would be acceptable. Early numbers quoted were based on "feelings" of officials. But 5 of 18 districts had virtually no turnout and the boycot was not only in Sunni areas but also in some Shia areas.
Also in areas where the turnout was higher, there were reasons other than a wish for democracy. In the Kurdish area there were ballot issues dealing with Kurdish autonomy- something all Kurds support and are trying to assure occurs. ie- split from the rest of Iraq.

And in Shia areas, turnout was based on virtual certainty that Shia will win the election and rule Iraq after being suppressed for the last more than 40 years. And the party winning was the party of the religious clerics. ie. conservative Islamic party.

There appears to be a good chance that the elections will lead to either civil war or a split up of Iraq. Not the results being touted by the Bush admin. And there is no indication the election will reduce the opposition to the U.S. occupation.

However maybe the publics desire for peace and democracy will prevail in spite of the historic problems and attitudes. But the road will not be easy and its not clear the desires of the various players there are compatible.

[anaxarchos]

9. Can you cite a source? n/t

[Amaryllis]

14. LINK to full story:

http://fairuse.1accesshost.com/news3/nytviet.htm
Didn't have link when I first posted. It was so old I thought it would okay to post the story, but admin edited for copyright. I don't know how old is has to be before it's public domain.

[seaclyr]

7. Funny, the Shias think the numbers are wrong......

From The Independent, reporting on the election in Iraq:

The election results will not become official for three days to allow for procedural challenges. The Shia coalition, which had been projecting that it would take 60 per cent of the vote, said it was meeting yesterday to discuss whether to challenge the numbers. "They will discuss it with the commission," said Jenan al-Obeidi, a candidate for SCIRI. "We think the votes are more than that."
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=610875

[NationalEnquirer]

8. Hah, good post!

History is the great test tube...

[anaxarchos]

10. Just to finish the historical comparison...

After 4 months of optimistic talk (after the '67 "elections") about having "turned the corner on the insurgency", etc. came the TET offensive. Virtually every large town and city in southern Vietnam was attacked and it became clear to even Walter Cronkite that no "victory" was on the horizon. In the next year, U.S. troop strength and combat casualties both increased by 50%, and LBJ quit.

The press, then, was far worse than now, if that can be imagined. But, it turned out that it was one thing to spin the news and entirely another to spin reality....

[Igel]

11. So what was the voter turnout in the first S. Korean elections?

Reasoning by analogy only works when the analogy holds.

If the Sunnis make a treaty, break it, take over the country with their army, put many in re-education camps and then a few million Iraqis leave as refugees, then I'll say the parallel holds. Otherwise asserting that the analogy holds is just another way of predicting failure.

[anaxarchos]

12. If that's your version of what happened in Vietnam....

you'll love Iraqi democracy.

[Igel]

13. Only if it turns out to be a democracy.

Somebody brought up Vietnam last week. I went and looked at the treaty that was signed.

Did S. Vietnam attack the North in 1973 or '74?