Sucks? They put the fun in onions to make Funyons.

So does Absolut, for that matter.  Go buy some Московская if you want real vodka.  Absolut tastes like it was made in a lab.

sierra tango foxtrot uniform

You won't get an argument on that here.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

One of my girlfriend's co-workers went back home to Macedonia, and brought back some Bison (bee-sown) Vodka.  Now that tasted like it had been made in a paint factory.

I was on a business trip to Bulgaria a couple of years ago, and I bought some cheap generic Bulgarian vodka.  It must be a cut above the Macedonian stuff, but it was pretty heinous.  It tasted as though is wasn't so much distilled as synthesized.

Now, in the Balkans where both Macedonia and Bulgaria are, their special little brand of evil is ракия, which tastes like someone threw a bucket of plums in some jet fuel.

sierra tango foxtrot uniform

And we all know that Swedish vodka companies are go-to guys for history lessons.  I might be able to confer some sort of educational value to Absolut's "lesson" if it were, say, a Mexican brand of booze -- at least they have national pride to explain their campaign.  But, this is a complete outsider looking to get some cheapjack sensationalist buzz off their ad campaign.

Illegitimi non carborundum.

That's called an ad hominem argument.  It's a classic fallacy.

Oh, you mean because they're Swedish and not Mexican, I have no right to an opinion about the company's motives behind the campaign?  That's just rude.

Illegitimi non carborundum.

If you're going to piss about the sources of education, you'll never get very educated.

And if I were to rely upon Swedish vodka companies for my "education" I'd probably end up with liver damage before I achieve enlightenment.

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Magazine ads in Spanish damage your liver?  Is that Lou Dobbs Disease?

To be fair to your teacher, as wars go the Mexican-American War was pretty low-grade. I mean, you can teach the whole thing in a few sentences:

"In 1845, the recently-turned independent Mexico asserted its authority over Texas and the North American Southwest. After two years and nine major battles -- all of which were resounding defeats for the Mexican troops -- the United States proved that Mexico didn't have sufficient power to maintain authority over its own capital city, much less anything else."

"In 1845, the recently-turned independent Mexico asserted its authority over Texas and the North American Southwest. After two years and nine major battles -- all of which were resounding defeats for the Mexican troops -- the United States proved that Mexico didn't have sufficient power to maintain authority over its own capital city, much less anything else."

Teacher:  Now class, what does this teach us?

Class (in unison): MIGHT MAKES RIGHT!

Teacher:  Excellent job, children!

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

Class (in unison): MIGHT MAKES RIGHT!

Well, maybe there's something to that?

Well, maybe there's something to that?

Upon sober reflection (like I'm sober right now, ha!), I have to agree with you.  In fact, if we follow the bouncing ball of history, we might see something like this:

Whoa ho!  We are the Aztecs!  We are mighty...our shit doesn't stink!  Hey, who are you?
[THUNK!]

Ah ha!  We are the Spanish.  We are truly might and our shit doesn't stink.  Who are you? [BANG!!]

Hey there!  We're the American...er, Texans!  Yeah, that's right, Texans!  We are the mightiest of all and our shit smells like oil and clover!  Hey, who's that feller?

Lather...rinse...repeat.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

I would think this could partly depend on whether a nation needs allies in a war or not.  If it's one nation pitted against another nation with no other nation involved, it will almost inevitably be the case of the mightier nation winning out.

However, if it's a war where numerous alliances are made, the leading nations will have to make appeals to other nations for military and financial support based on a number of factors including military might, political advantages, and sometimes moral arguments.  An easy way to consider this would be looking at the international support U.S. had in the war against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and the lacklustre international support for our war against Iraq.  

While military might and political advantages remained the same (one could even argue that there is more political advantage for nations to align with the U.S. against Iraq given the amount of oil there and it's strategic geopolitical position), the moral argument has always been nebulous.

However, if it's a war where numerous alliances are made, the leading nations will have to make appeals to other nations for military and financial support based on a number of factors including military might, political advantages, and sometimes moral arguments.

That's still basically saying might makes right, though.  The US did well in Afghanistan because it had overwhelming international support (i.e. "might").  It did poorly in Iraq because it did not (i.e. it lacked "might").  It didn't really have anything to do with right or wrong - indeed, we arguably had purer reasons to go into Iraq (I think most of the neocons honestly thought they were going to liberate Iraq easily and bring on a new era of Middle Eastern peace, freedom and democracy - the problem was their naivety, not their motivations) than we did for going into Afghanistan (that was all about revenge, however justified).  Now, that's not to say that there's not anything to what you're saying.  Moral arguments can be used to bolster support (and immoral actions can weaken support), but ultimately the side with the numbers is the one that does the winning, and the winners that write the history books.  It's fortunate (at least, from my perspective) that generally speaking over the last century or so the world's democracies have done most of the winning, but if World War II had turned out a little differently I think we'd probably be sitting here debating the relative merits of fascism & communism.

There was plenty of might in Iraq.  The trouble is that might is just a mere mite in this fight, because our fight is not right.

sierra tango foxtrot uniform

What's that?

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

It's a question of the prescriptive vs. the descriptive.

I don't know if he even knew about the Mexican-American War, but we certainly didn't hear about it in his class.

If you had lived in Texas as a kid like me, you could have gotten a  year of nothing but the Mexican-American war.  

Although it'd be questionable whether you would have learned about the Civil War or the two World Wars, much less Vietnam.