[mcswift]

Hello everyone. I've been reading the blogs and comics for a while but this is my first time participating in the forum and I think this might be a good place to start.

As a dual Canadian-American citizen, I took special interest in the latest Filibuster post. Along with JJ, the war was probably my first (reasonably) informed political issue and my support fell along similar lines. I have always found my binational experience has left me in generally compromising positions on many issues but my support for the Iraq War was likely the most inflammatory and the beginning of my personal discussion on what it means to be a member of two societies.

I have since realized that the assumptions driving my support for the war were misplaced and ill-informed but--unlike JJ, Mrs. Clinton, and a number of others--I have realized both the error in my judgement and more importantly, the damage allowed by the support it garnered.

I must say that I do not understand the boldly unapologetic nature of American power. The admission of poor assumption is not the same as the surrender of the underlying ideal. Principles of international peace and security should not be compromised because American liberal intervention superseded appropriate due diligence and respect for sovereignty and international law. The resistance to this admission (and subsequent protection in many respects against litigation) simply illustrates the rigidity of America's international paradigm. 'Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results'.

[CommanderSock]

People got duped by special interests. Democracies aren't always benign. When Japan invaded China in 33, they were a democracy. The Japanese people fully supported the invasion. Many Americans fully supported Iraq. Joke's on them, but worse, what happened to the Iraqi people was no joke.

That old saying, those who live by the sword die by it. Overtly aggressive countries, like people, don't last long.