First, I'm happy to see that you are attributing opposition to the war to a 'party'. All this time I'd heard that the opposition was because the war was bad, not because a certain party had established a policy against it. I guess this is political after all.
But the real issue:
I'm not ignoring the bad things, I just think you're exaggerating them. You complain about looting and dehydration, but do you think that the Iraqis are in a worse state now than they were a month ago? That really is the only important question here. You can complain about the reasons we went in all you want (although nobody cares because we're in and it's almost over), but there is no question (none - not even one) that the Iraqi people are in a better state now than they have been for decades.
So boo hoo. There's looting. That may be bad, but it certainly not as bad as the chemical baths and electrocution chambers that have been found BY THE HUNDREDS in the Baghdad prisons. The military is already organizing security to stop the looting.
And as far as dying of dehydration goes, you apparently forget the thousands that have been starving to death every year under Saddam. The US is bringing aid, but they've been slowed because of Iraqi mines and resistance. (And please don't say that the Iraqis starving was the US's fault - we put sanctions on them because they haven't been following the UN rules. Even if he didn't want to follow those rules, Saddam has a bucket of money he could use to spread the food around. Seems he bought a lot of palaces instead).
Please don't accuse me of coloring the facts when I'm only doing what you're doing but reaching a different conclusion. Thanks for noticing me though.
Which facts am I coloring? Am I understating the vileness of looting? Or am I exagerrating the vileness of torture chambers, war crimes, executing POWs, and weapons of mass destruction? As I said in a previous post (which you conveniently never responded to) - blind opposition is just as bad as blind support.
