TRTL

"what is the ideal outcome for the US in Iraq?"
I think the Americans will step back as soon as Iraq's current government shows it's willingness and ability to police itself and govern by rule of law. It's a matter of allowing the Iraqi government time and opportunity to strengthen and come to terms with their internal differences. Right now religion is being used to shatter any hope of democracy. I think religion will eventually unite the Iraqi's once the al-Qeada types are seen for what they truly are.

Every one is talking like the U.S. absolutely must have Iraqi oil or America is doomed. I doubt the U.S. government, who ever that might be tomorrow will care if it's State ownership. The care is that the oil revenue goes to the Iraqi people and raises their standard of living and allows for them the opportunity to create something else for themselves other than dependency on oil. Like creating other manufacturing or employment opportunities. Americans will always do business. They have many of the things that the Iraqi's would like to have and will trade for oil given the opportunity.

Look at Iran. Massive oil and natural gas wealth yet the average Iranian sees no benefit thanks to Ayatollah Khomeini and his crew.
Yet Iran can spend billions to frustrate peaceful co-existence in the Middle East. Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, and Iraq. And to what benefit?
Why does Ayatollah al-Sistani(an Iranian) encourage Moqtada al-Sadr to develop such internal strife and sanction the murder of his fellow Iraqi's?

If Iran doesn't moderate and quit working against any peaceful resolution for the Middle East it may require a regime change. Are we then going to say. Ya but, America is just doing it for the oil, too?
Is the world going to allow the Khomeini's of the world to have nuclear weapons to be used as a bludgeon to dominate M.E. life?

Do you want a world war?

Do you really want America to stay home and be an isolationist government?

And "Australians" -that is whole population, de-facto biologically inferior non-Anglo populous inclusively, benefit from a colonial-style economical management of selling out local assets overseas by ballooning personal and national debts, which is "investment opportunities for foreigners" as read in a national newspaper.

Is above used ENGLISH clear?

Aqvarivs - nothing would please America more than to have stable, friendly government in Iraq. On this point at least, we are agreed.

I note you talk of the possible necessity of America instituting regime change in Iran to avert a war.
Interesting... there are a few points I'd raise at this juncture.

1) Saddam was hostile to the US, in fact, pretty much all the regimes removed by the US have been hostile ones, for obvious reasons.
The point I'm getting at here, is if a regime is merely bad to it's people but behaves internationally, then it is okay with the US.

Witness Saudi Arabia.

2) Iran on the other hand, has a democratically elected leader. The possible regime change you speak of would effectively be removing a democracy and attempting to install a new one... My question is, would a new one be any better?
Would this new leader be genuinely democratic?

Note, that a much more significant threat to the US has been North Korea - yet nothing has been done there.

I for one, wouldn't have objected to an enforced regime change in North Korea for the notable reasons that

1) The motives couldn't be ascribed to economic reasons
2) The US hasn't had the same role in installing Kim Jong Il as they have with Hussein
3) The regime has proven they have the resources to acquire WMD. In the case of Iraq, it has become evident that the 'evidence' was not gathered in a dispassionate manner - rather, with a bias toward an assumption the regime possessed them.

Basically, I'm saying that the US motives you suggest aren't as clear cut as they would appear from your post.
I've no problem believing there was an element of altruism in the US decision to invade Iraq - though that altruism was more a convenience than an actual motive.

TRTL

Iranians do not get to "democratically" elect their leader. Iran is not a democracy. Iran is a Islamic Republic. Ayatollah Khomeini is their leader. They get to elect from a short list of candidates preselected by Khomeini and the State Judiciary, a eunuch. Ahmadinejad being one. Ahmadinejad can not act unilaterally. He would need implicit instruction from Khomeini.

The regime change I'm speaking of is the chatter in the news about Iranian nuclear empowerment, Iranian hostile influence in the M.E. peace process, Ahmadinejad's anti-western dialogue with other nations, and an increase in the number of Iranian secret service personal being captured in Iraq. Infiltrating Shia communities to further disharmony and perpetuate the sectarian violence that they hope will assure that no democracy is created in the M.E. Funding Hezbollah in Lebanon and playing Syria off Fouad Siniora's government and Israel.

Due to these little things that work against any peaceful resolution in the M.E., Iraq, and any opportunity for a Palestinian resolution or Statehood an Iranian regime change has been brought into the equation.

While North Korea may have nuclear weapons. Kim Jong-Il and his personality cult government are isolated from the rest of the world. Kim Jung-il uses his "potential nuclear threat" to extort money from the west as aid and increased trade with South Korea and China at their expense.

This is nothing to do with altruism. This is a hopefully profitable out come for all concerned. The world.

There is bad that you can work with and hopefully influence to positive change and there is bad that just gets worse. GWB had 4 years to do something. He was given 4 more. Some other government will have to take up the torch as to American foreign policy come 2008.

I don't think America is motivated by evil intentions. They are THE superpower trying to make particular changes to the world for tomorrow. Tomorrow it may well be another superpower making changes you don't like too. Like whether or not you have any freedoms. Times change. There is no law that says a superpower must be benevolent.

Around the merry go round we go.

Iran's level of influence in Iraq is open to interpretation.
I've no doubt there has been some interference in Iraq, though I also suspect we'll be seeing an exaggeration of their involvement in the coming months. It will make the US failure there a lot more palatable if they can blame a third party.

You are right in asserting the Iranian democracy is seriously flawed, though there is nominal input from the public.
I think it's far too optimistic to suggest that a regime change could lead to anything better than the current chaos in Iraq, though this time it would be on a grander scale with two nations falling into disarray.
It would create the kind of chaos that organisations such as Al Qaeda thrive on.

What historical examples of successful US led regime change do we have in the middle east, when compared to the failures?

TurnRightThenLeft,

"You are right in asserting the Iranian democracy is seriously flawed, though there is nominal input from the public."

I'm not asserting any such thing. I'm stating plainly, factually that Iranian government is not a democracy. Why you persist on clinging to such an erroneous notion I have no idea.

"What historical examples of successful US led regime change do we have in the middle east, when compared to the failures?"

We have no examples of a U.S. regime change in the M.E.. Iraq is the first of it's kind and It is far to early to label it a success or a failure. Like most others, you have made the U.S. responsible for whether such a change of government is successful or not. When the reality is that the Iraqi people of one stripe or another will ultimately produce a success or ensure a failure to have their own ends succeed.

I can only sit here nestled amongst my freedoms, my democracy, and hope for the best, and that saner minds prevail in Iraq. For any nation to reject democracy in favour of totalitarianism boggles my mind. I can not attribute sound reasoning to such an event.

That and make sure that such like minded people never come to power or attain any office of official influence here. Regardless of race, culture, religion or political stripe. History has taught us that freedom left undefended is soon replaced by dictates