but why is the US there?

Submitted by roslyn esther (Canada), Nov 8, 2007 at 08:53

Your article says that the US should stop taking responsibility for Iraqi welfare. The trouble is and has been that the US, once it confirmed no weapons of mass destruction, gave Iraqi welfare as the reason for its presence. If it stopped its efforts to help Iraqis, it would have to either leave or give a reason for staying. What would that be?

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".