[Boondock Saint]

Have at it.

[The American Lion]

[Spin]

[| I, CWAS |]

[arcis]

He has set the benchmarks in german foreign policy for all future governments. Only slight modifications are possible. The times of brown-nosing in Washington are gone and will not be tolerated any longer by the peolple.

[Spin]

Not funny. Not even satire. And doesn't explain why Merkel, who was pro Iraq, qon the election.

[| I, CWAS |]

[QatzelOk]

That last cartoon is very Amerocentric in that it implies that the Vietnam War was the the quintessential anti-colonial war. There were many others before and after closer to the Iraqi situation.

[Rodion]

Also, though I regret the US losing in Vietnam, the Vietcong weren't terrorists, like this cartoon seems to imply. They were partisan fighters who stood their ground against a modern military. Give credit where credit is due.

[STA]

Satire this month so far:

[Boondock Saint]

[Red_Army]

Also, though I regret the US losing in Vietnam

Ideology: Socialism

I don't understand, why would you want the US to succeed in pushing its agenda down the throats of the Vietnamese?

[The American Lion]

Army, you can say the same thing to the North Vietnamese when they pushed it own agenda down the throats of the south vietnamese. (With backing of USSR and China.)

[Red_Army]

Except there are no north or south vietnamese...

There is Vietnam, and you damn well know that the majority of the country would have sided with Ho Chi Minh.

[The American Lion]

But there were two nations with two different ideologies. It just the south had bastard leaders.

[Steven_K]

There weren't two nations. There was one nation that was divided in half after the Communists won the national election.

[Pat]

http://static.flickr.com/18/69775848_c95f828f9a.jpg?v=0

[Ombrageux]

But there were two nations with two different ideologies.

This is when this retarded American notion of the "nation" rears it's ugly head again. The same sort of crap which asserts that America became a "nation" with the revolution.

Let's recap, a NATION is not a STATE. And no, by state I don't mean your bastardized definition which is actually a province/region. By state I mean sovereign legal entity with more or less a monopoly on the use of force. Vietnam was two STATES (one catholic-capitalist, the other godless-communist) but was still one NATION.

[Rodion]

Red_Army wrote:

I don't understand, why would you want the US to succeed in pushing its agenda down the throats of the Vietnamese?

Because America's agenda is much better than that of the Soviet Union. Do not confuse socialism with the so called "socialist" states. A true socialist regime remains theoretical for now.

[Ombrageux]

Because America's agenda is much better than that of the Soviet Union.

That certainly is not clear. While I'm 90% of people would rather live in the USA than the USSR, the USA was not creating a "little America" in Vietnam. No, it was propping up an authoritarian, albeit capitalist, regime, just as in South Korea. There was no American liberalism, even the economy was quite statist.

Even though South Korea EVENTUALLY became democratic, that was not conceived or at issue during the Korean or Vietnam wars. At that time it wasn't communism VS democracy, it was right-wing authoritarian bastards VS left-wing authoritarian bastards.

(though you might ascribe to the theory that certain right-wing authoritarian bastards with sufficient economic growth allow for the creation of capitalist liberal democracies, which may or may not justify support for right-wing bastards over left-wing bastards)