Anabolics
Search More Than 6,000,000 Posts
Results 1 to 21 of 21
  1. #1
    CAUSASIAN's Avatar
    CAUSASIAN is offline Banned
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Chechnya
    Posts
    6,130

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

    Taken from the New York Times, it is an exact article, from 1967.

    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)

    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.

  2. #2
    CAUSASIAN's Avatar
    CAUSASIAN is offline Banned
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Chechnya
    Posts
    6,130

  3. #3
    BOUNCER is offline Retired Vet
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    IRELAND.
    Posts
    7,772
    CAUASIAN forgive me because I didn't fully read your articule. I'm pressed for time. I believe it might relate to the recent elections in Iraq.

    I hate to cause offence to my American friends here, but hardly anyone alive outside of America believes the voter turnout figures released last week. Most people got a laugh out of them, hardly believable at all.

  4. #4
    singern's Avatar
    singern is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Chicago/Israel
    Posts
    2,239
    Quote Originally Posted by BOUNCER
    I hate to cause offence to my American friends here, but hardly anyone alive outside of America believes the voter turnout figures released last week. Most people got a laugh out of them, hardly believable at all.
    No offense taken, this is honestly the first I've heard of this, do you have a source with what you believe are more accurate numbers.
    and why does this diminish the fact freedom has given a black eye to terror.

  5. #5
    CAUSASIAN's Avatar
    CAUSASIAN is offline Banned
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Chechnya
    Posts
    6,130
    Bump.

    The same story repeated over and over again. To give a false sense of "winning".

  6. #6
    Teabagger's Avatar
    Teabagger is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    west of the rockies
    Posts
    1,807
    Well I suppose Iran, Syria, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Brotherhood, etc...could provide numbers of voter turnout that were more believeable for you people.

  7. #7
    CAUSASIAN's Avatar
    CAUSASIAN is offline Banned
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Chechnya
    Posts
    6,130
    No, I never said I didnt believe the turnout numbers. But like in Vietnam, the numbers really dont mean anything.

    Because 7 years after the article was written and 7 years after the "elections", they US military retreated and were defeated in Vietnam.

  8. #8
    Teabagger's Avatar
    Teabagger is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    west of the rockies
    Posts
    1,807
    Get your history straight...the US military was not defeated in Vietnam. Vietnam was sold out by Nixon and Kissinger so Nixon could be credited with improving realations with Red China.

  9. #9
    CAUSASIAN's Avatar
    CAUSASIAN is offline Banned
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Chechnya
    Posts
    6,130
    Quote Originally Posted by Teabagger
    Get your history straight...the US military was not defeated in Vietnam. Vietnam was sold out by Nixon and Kissinger so Nixon could be credited with improving realations with Red China.


    The US was defeated.

    What was their purpose in Vietnam? Did they achieve it? No. So they lost.

    So if there werent "defeated" did they "win", its one or the other. Or was it a "draw"?

  10. #10
    Teabagger's Avatar
    Teabagger is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    west of the rockies
    Posts
    1,807
    Quote Originally Posted by CAUSASIAN


    The US was defeated.

    What was their purpose in Vietnam? Did they achieve it? No. So they lost.

    So if there werent "defeated" did they "win", its one or the other. Or was it a "draw"?
    The US mililtary was not defeated in Nam. I know english is not your first language, but this is not difficult. The US did not have the [B]political[B]will to stay the course. No, the US did not achieve its foreign policy objective of keeping S. Vietnam free of communism, but it is dangerous for the foreign fighters, and other Arab governments involved in attempting to stop Iraq's march to democracy to compare Iraq to 'Nam. The "unpopularity" of the Iraq war has more to do with anti-Bush sentiment than understanding what has to be done there. Even if an appeasement loving liberal is elected to office in the US, he/she will not be able to disengage from Iraq until it is stable, and then we will still have a presence there. You can continue to think that because you're able to kill 1 solider and 15 civilians with an IED you are winning...and we'll just wait to see how it evolves. But I can assure you this...your vision of a Middle East, and a planet, ruled by a belief that returns people to the Dark Ages is immature and laughable.

  11. #11
    CAUSASIAN's Avatar
    CAUSASIAN is offline Banned
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Chechnya
    Posts
    6,130
    Quote Originally Posted by Teabagger
    The US mililtary was not defeated in Nam. I know english is not your first language, but this is not difficult. The US did not have the [B]political[B]will to stay the course. No, the US did not achieve its foreign policy objective of keeping S. Vietnam free of communism, but it is dangerous for the foreign fighters, and other Arab governments involved in attempting to stop Iraq's march to democracy to compare Iraq to 'Nam. The "unpopularity" of the Iraq war has more to do with anti-Bush sentiment than understanding what has to be done there. Even if an appeasement loving liberal is elected to office in the US, he/she will not be able to disengage from Iraq until it is stable, and then we will still have a presence there.
    Listen Israeli, its pretty sad, that although English is not my first language. I seem to have a better grasp of the English language.

    I DO NOT CARE if "The US did not have the [B]political[B]will to stay the course." That is not anyone's problem.

    That is an excuse for the loss in Vietnam. WHATEVER the case may be, it was a loss in every way.

    You can continue to think that because you're able to kill 1 solider and 15 civilians with an IED you are winning...and we'll just wait to see how it evolves. But I can assure you this...your vision of a Middle East, and a planet, ruled by a belief that returns people to the Dark Ages is immature and laughable.
    I love how people have a one dimensional view of a war. It shows ignorance.

    You seem to ignore the tens of thousands of soldiers who are injured. Who are with no legs and hands. Its not only about "1 dead soldier". Soldiers, that did their job, BUT were tricked by the people that are supposed to put them in harms way, only if necessary.

    My view of the Middle East is a utopia. Not a country run by aggression and foreigners. Not a country that has to kneel down to oil hungry jackasses. Not countries that have to suck up to anybody.

    The Middle East deserves the best. But that can only be done when people start minding their own business, stop meddling in other nations affairs, like annoying neighbors. And worry about their own problems.

    It was the US that corrupted and put Saddam in power, it was the US that put Ayotallah Khomeni in power, it was the US that put the Taliban in power.

    FOR THE LOVE OF GOD. Stop invading other countries and then act like its some huge favor, its not.

    As history has shown, when agressive foreign nations meddle in other nations affairs, the consquences are always negative.

  12. #12
    CAUSASIAN's Avatar
    CAUSASIAN is offline Banned
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Chechnya
    Posts
    6,130
    Actually it seems like you are playing word games. You keep saying "US military". The US military retreated, that is usually considered a loss. But answer this question -

    Did the US win or loose in Vietnam? Or was it a draw?

  13. #13
    thegodfather's Avatar
    thegodfather is offline Dulce bellum inexpertis
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Middle East
    Posts
    4,035
    Caus...you want the entire world to be ruled by your religious beliefs? Its what Teabagger insinuated in his post, and you failed to address that in your subsequent posts, I'd just like to know your thoughts on that.

  14. #14
    Teabagger's Avatar
    Teabagger is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    west of the rockies
    Posts
    1,807
    Let me break it down for you C. The US military never lost a battle to the N. Vietnamese or the Cong. As a matter of fact we slaughtered their ass in every confrontation of any consequence. We were defeating the Cong in the countryside with the Phoenix program, and the CIDG and a myriad of other initiatives. After Tet the VC were no longer a viable fighting force. Our incursion into Cambodia and Laos had in effect closed their sancturies (see: Syria and Iran) and this was done with inept politicians running the war. You may think we are like the old Soviet Union, you may like to think that a few sub-human bombs are a victory, you may think targeting, attacking, and killing unarmed civilians, predominately women and children, is a great victory for Allah, and finally you may like to think without the US or Israel in the Middle East it would be a paradise, but history proves your thinking is flawed.

    You people can't live in peace with each other, let alone the rest of the world. Have a wonderful day in your fantasy land C.

  15. #15
    3Vandoo's Avatar
    3Vandoo is offline AR-Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Bandit County
    Posts
    4,249
    The US military won the war!

    the Viet Cong won the liberal heart of the middle class america!

  16. #16
    Teabagger's Avatar
    Teabagger is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    west of the rockies
    Posts
    1,807
    Quote Originally Posted by 3Vandoo
    The US military won the war!

    the Viet Cong won the liberal heart of the middle class america!
    Thank you Vandoo, although he still will not get it.

  17. #17
    CAUSASIAN's Avatar
    CAUSASIAN is offline Banned
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Chechnya
    Posts
    6,130
    Quote Originally Posted by 3Vandoo
    The US military won the war!

    the Viet Cong won the liberal heart of the middle class america!
    Not military.

    Did the US win or loose in Vietnam. I dont care about anything.

    Overall, it was a failure for the "US" and a loss.

    Wars are only a small part of the battle. Everyone knows that.

  18. #18
    CAUSASIAN's Avatar
    CAUSASIAN is offline Banned
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Chechnya
    Posts
    6,130
    Quote Originally Posted by thegodfather
    Caus...you want the entire world to be ruled by your religious beliefs? Its what Teabagger insinuated in his post, and you failed to address that in your subsequent posts, I'd just like to know your thoughts on that.
    No. Let each country decide what how they want to rule their nation.

    I dont care if the US and Britian worship Satan. Just dont get aggressive with other nations for your benefit or you allies benefit.

  19. #19
    3Vandoo's Avatar
    3Vandoo is offline AR-Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Bandit County
    Posts
    4,249
    Quote Originally Posted by CAUSASIAN
    Not military.

    Did the US win or loose in Vietnam. I dont care about anything.

    Overall, it was a failure for the "US" and a loss.

    Wars are only a small part of the battle. Everyone knows that.
    I see you are not mitary, WAR is the general senses of conflict.

    Battle is a part of war, a war has many battles in it!

    The US won the war in the field, they did destroyed the viet kong in the jungle.

    the Viet Kong destroyed the Moral of the average american citizen.

    they retreated, so yes, did the Vietnamiesse people gained anything?

    NOPE!

    A failure is not a loss and a loss is not a failute

  20. #20
    CAUSASIAN's Avatar
    CAUSASIAN is offline Banned
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Chechnya
    Posts
    6,130
    Quote Originally Posted by 3Vandoo
    I see you are not mitary, WAR is the general senses of conflict.

    Battle is a part of war, a war has many battles in it!

    The US won the war in the field, they did destroyed the viet kong in the jungle.

    the Viet Kong destroyed the Moral of the average american citizen.

    they retreated, so yes, did the Vietnamiesse people gained anything?

    NOPE!

    A failure is not a loss and a loss is not a failute
    You didnt answer the question.

    Was the war in Vietnam, a WIN, LOSS, OR a DRAW for the US? I has to be one of the other.

    The Vietcong defended, they werent the one that attacked, so they CANT loose if the attacking army retreats. They defended and chased away the aggressor.

    If the aggressor army does not accomplish the objectives, they had. They LOST. I dont care what the conditions were at home.

    The physical conflict is half the battle in any war. This has been known before Sun Tzu.

  21. #21
    3Vandoo's Avatar
    3Vandoo is offline AR-Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Bandit County
    Posts
    4,249
    Quote Originally Posted by CAUSASIAN
    You didnt answer the question.

    Was the war in Vietnam, a WIN, LOSS, OR a DRAW for the US? I has to be one of the other.

    The Vietcong defended, they werent the one that attacked, so they CANT loose if the attacking army retreats. They defended and chased away the aggressor.

    If the aggressor army does not accomplish the objectives, they had. They LOST. I dont care what the conditions were at home.

    The physical conflict is half the battle in any war. This has been known before Sun Tzu.

    it was a win for the US it stopped the progression of the communism throught asia

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •