Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 20:35:08 +0200 (MET DST)
Subject: Re: Who won in Vietnam?


>At 8:21 AM 4/4/96, Adam Rose wrote:
>
>>I can't understand how anyone could see the US defeat as anything
>>other than a major defeat for Imperialism.
>>
>>Everyone at the time saw it as such, both pro and anti Imperialists.
>>The US was, and still is, afraid to commit its troops to a war where
>>there is a serious risk of large scale casualties. As soon as the US
>>does encounter such a risk, as in Somalia, it withdraws.

Doug wrote:

>As the man said, let's look at the record. The US destroyed the Nicaraguan
>revolution. Its enemy of over 70 years, the USSR, collapsed. China is
>embracing capitalism. Vietnam, one of the poorest countries in Asia,
>suffered for 20 years after its victory, and is now courting US oil
>companies and Coca-Cola. There is no force on earth that could challenge
>the US military right now. Perhaps for the first time in history, a true
>world market is upon us.
>
>With defeats like that, who needs victories?
>
>Doug

Doug,

I wonder if you have a cristalball. Because nobody could see how the above 
would turn out. In fact, with your reasoning there should never had been a 
left opposition to Stalin, Mao, Fidel, Ho Chi Minh because 20 years later 
everything turned into one big defeat and who needs victories.

The independence won from the colonialists was a great victory, just as 
reunification of Vietnam. The twists and turns of the present leaderships in 
these states does not mean that we put everybody into one big pot and call 
it a defeat.

I defend Cuba, Vietnam and China from imperialism despite the actions of the 
present leaders...

malecki



     --- from list marxism2-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---