If you actually did a bit of research, there are groups inside Iran who actively (and covertly) are the political dissidents of the country. They have a following, and most of that following is a young one. They do not like the Iranian leadership, and want to end the religious rule -- they want freedom, and they want democracy.

And yet you insist (as most Neocons do), that we need to invade to get that to happen. I would insist we need to support the dissidents and let them work their own magic, and overtake the rulers internally. Imagine this for a moment -- the United States does not win its Revolutionary War, but instead it is won by France. Then we get the 'spoils' of war, whatever France decides to give us. There is no pride in this for us, and most people would realize that what they are getting is not real democracy, they are getting what somebody ELSE wanted for them. Democracy, since you fail to realize it in all your posts, does not mean the same thing for every region. But it DOES lead to more peace, fairness, and openness for everybody. But it is something that has to be SEIZED, not GIVEN. Iranians will never accept a government handed to them by the US if we remove their leadership.

The same is true in Iraq. Right now, the path to peace is THRU IRAN. Even Petreus acknowledged that much in the last hearings, and that's why none of military leaders are going to label al-Sadr a terrorist, or criminal -- he is the rule of the land, and while he is guilty for much of the violence against the US forces, he is also the way the country will get settled. George Bush and co are against working with Iran to get that accomplished, but most of the military leadership has already admitted that Iran is our path to salvation. We have given them exactly what they wanted in our invasion, and we've decimated our world-wide readiness for our military. Imagine if North Korea decides to march on South Korea -- who will support the troops on the DMZ? NOBODY. That's what they said in alternate hearings while Petreus was testifying.

Iraq is in a holding pattern. The violence is down because most places have been "ethnically cleansed". Militias rule most of the country, and they already have gathered the support they need to rule effectively. Millions of Iraqis have left the country entirely due to the instability. There is no 'victory' to be had. Read up on your history. This is EXACTLY what happened in the early 1900s with the British. People went peaceful, calmed down, violence was down for the same reasons I am saying now. And when the Brits left, it erupted and Iraq got yet another set of dictators for the years to come. And to boot, we are paying people off NOT TO FIGHT US. Do you think we can do that forever?

While i am a big proponent of optimism in Iraq -- I am also a realist. You're a dreamer if you think that we are going to have a democracy in two years. They didn't SEIZE their democracy, they were granted it. And mark my words, when we leave (and eventually, we will HAVE to), it will devolve into violence and power struggles almost immediately.

I suggest you talk about subjects you've done a little more homework on. Right now, you're speaking from point of view that is idealistic, but not based in reality. If you want to read up on the early 1900s Brits in Iraq, re-read the hearings with Petreus and the adjacent hearings on our military readiness, then get back to me. Right now, you're just repeating the Limbaughs and Coulters who have nothing to say other than warmongering.