Geoff, I often find myself with the decision either to explain what we were talking about, or to go off in a new direction with you. Probably it's my fault in that I am often too brief.

I'll try the latter approach this time.

Tom offered that a Kurd appointed president in Iraq is a surprising thing that somehow justifies the war.

I meant to point out that it is very normal for Parliamentary countries in contentious areas to appoint secondary leaders from non-majority parties. I offered Lebanon as an example. Where, for instance, they have a long-term and well-accepted convention that the president (in Lebanon the president is considered the most important post) will be a Christian, even though Christians are not the most populous group (though they were the most populous, when this convention was agreed upon). They also always have a Sunni Prime Minister and a Shiite Speaker of Parliament (lessor posts).

So your references to America (which has no such agreements, and is not a Parliamentary govt.), and to Lebanon's future did not seem to hit the mark. Again, it is probably my fault.