Quote:
Originally posted by Lurch@Sep 7 2004, 09:07 PM
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"
|
To quote Mr. Anonymous from an earlier thread, a CIA analyst critical of the Iraq war and the reasons the USA went there:"
I've never really understood the idea that any American government, any American elected official is responsible for protecting civilians who are not Americans. . . . . .
. . . . . My own opinion is we should err on the side of protecting Americans first. And if we make a mistake in that kind of action, I think the American people will accept that. It's — this is a matter of survival.
He doesn't agree with the Iraq conflict but he's hardly sympathetic to civilians in other countries in actions where he thinks the USA should be.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5279743/
Cowperson