very touchy subject, my bro in law served two terms over there and he says and i quote "we need to leave and let them sort it out themselves" and that is how the majority of troops say. to me it was only for us to take control over the oil in the region and has anyone yet seen on the news where they found the WMD's?? i dont think so. and now bush wants to go into iran hhmmm hellooooo where do you think one of the second biggest oil producers are? iran and the iran government said if the us dont mind their own business they will release billions of oil into the economy for free and oil companies (like the one bush owns) would go bankrupt. its not about stability cause there really wasnt any after the first time we invaded. just that the iraq's were peaceful till we started invading for their oil.

What if i think we invaded Iraq to have a stable staging point from which to base troops to respond to trouble in the middle east because Turkey has been at best a fickle ally and putting troops like that in Israel would be the worsed idea ever?

Specifically to take down Iran's current government. However, Bush and crew greatly underestimated what it would take to get the Iraq government up on it's feet.

Honestly though, i can't respect anyone who says we should just pick up our toys and leave after making a mess in their house no matter what condition the country is in.  It's even more dispicable then the things Bush did to invade in the first place. 

That will cost us more money and lives, but I agree. Set up three governments, and get the hell out. 

my friend just got back from the Air Force(totally out) and him and his wife (army and has a couple months left) both agree they need to stay. I just met a guy who is joining for 6 more years and getting deployed right away. "we need to  stay" a long time ago friend got a hold of me a while back. we shot the shit and he agreed in staying (tried to recruit me and is not a recruiter). and a friend of mine just got out of basic and is deploying right away and i quote "it's terrible over there and i feel i am here to help out."

 Then say goodbye to Turkey and Iran as Kurdistan comes into place.

One thing you need to learn is to never, ever change the borders of countries unless you want years of chaos. 

I don't know if that was sarcasm or not, but I've always thought we should just nuke Iraq.

actually instead of nuking Iraq we should use a hydrogen bomb. Its designed to kill people and leave buildings intact.

 hey that would also make sure there is no nuclear radiation!

No viable points of entry. Turkey wouldn't let us use their land, or even their bases likely to even bomb let alone mount a campaign to the northwest and I doubt Kuwait would let us mount an invasion either. Or bombers since Iran actually has the potential to strike back a bit. Paratrooper assaults would just be idiotic considering the terrain and the fact that they know it better.

Leaving either a naval assault from the gulf of Oman, which likely would be blocked... and an Eastern assault from Afghanistan which would mean to get to Teahran and anywhere of importance we'd have to go all the way through Khorsan and Semnan.

It'd be a long trek, and Semnan would be a real pain to deal with if Iran started using guerilla tactics. We COULD get to Tehran by there if that was Bush's original plan... but it would probably make the bloodshed in iraq look like childs play.

Meanwhile Tehran would be fairly unmolested.

While Iraq... who was rightfully easy to conquerer (though they underestimated how rebuilding) would offer a nice place from which to bomb.

Furthermore they could take Tehran by going through Khustean, Chaharmahal and Bakhitari and Qom. Likely forcing their main government into the mountains right next to Iraq.

Which is where they would likely hide anyway if we took Tehran considering the geography.

Making a pacified Iraq that much more important.

Or if they wanted to they could push them south... east wherever. With Iraq and Afghansitan covered you could force two fronts if you wanted and pretty much direct where Iran had to defend from.

Of course i'm not a military expert or anything. 

Lol. Oh yea, these puppies leave building intact...

A hydrogen bomb is just like a nuclear bomb but its fusion not fission. Meaning? Little radiation and a much bigger boom.

 Anyway, on topic I agree that we should split it into 2 or 3 regions. The Iraq as we know it is just a mandated artificial border that the UN drew up in the 50's. For milenia the region of Mespotamia was divided into tribal regions where in people got along for the most part. The U.N was formed and it looked at Africa and didn't like how the people there never really formed what Europeans thought of as a real, border defined, nation-state. So they simply took out some pens and some maps and started drawing in lines. They then told these regions "Hey, your all one "country" now. Form a flag and goverment of some kind". 

 Iraq isn't meant to be one region, there are countless generations of bloodshed between Shia and Sunni Muslims. They will not accept rule from the other party peacefully. Either give them each their own region to govern or do what Saddam did and have a fanatical loyal black army that murdered anyone who spoke up. Say all you want about Saddam but his method of rule fit the region perfectly, no terrorist really dared to try to recruit iraqies because they knew Saddam's private army would hear about and kill them and all their familes.