>>>Too bad you place so much relaince on WikiPedia and so little on your own memory.
>>>That should beat your puny WikiPedia crap.
>>
>>Touche. Sorry you had to do some research to find some facts for a change.
>
>Well it should not be necessary to 'find some facts' for something so clear. All of a sudden something repeated many times is not a "fact" unless it can be found/cited on the internet? Or it's not a 'fact' because you find some quote of unknown circumstance that omits the word "unified" or "united"?... So you think the proper conclusion is to say 'unified' played no role in the objectives?
>That's a high-calibre research result, isn't it!
>
>I also couldn't find in Wikipedia any documentation of the official reasons/objectives for the war in Iraq. Gotta wonder about that.
>
>>
>>>UPDATED: Rumsfeld's list included: "help Iraq's transition to democratic self-rule". Did he suggest in any way a 3-parted former Iraq????
>>
>>Does that phrase in any way suggest a unified Iraq?
>
>Isn't that about as weak as you can get? If he didn't say a former Iraq or a 3-parted Iraq, doesn't it follow that he means Iraq in its current incarnation as a state???? Especially given the dangerous implications of 3 new "stand-alone" countries?????

A weatrher forecast for Iraq, from the British satyrical news magazine, "Private Eye"

Parts of Iraq will be Sunni
The rest Shi'ite.