I think if you want to debate these numbers, you need to add in the number of Iraqi civilian deaths, as well as the number of deaths attributable to terrorism. I assume what you are after is some sort of cost benefit exercise, but you are looking only at part of the cost and ignoring the potential benefit. As such, the question becomes "what makes more sense: spending X money and lives in Iraq to protect citizens from foreign versus spending that same X money to improve local law enforcement and social conditions to reduce murder rates"
|