One Iraq or three?: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Yaron Koren (talk | contribs) (Renamed position) |
Yaron Koren (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
||
Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
|source=Chicago Tribune | |source=Chicago Tribune | ||
|date=October 8, 2006 | |date=October 8, 2006 | ||
|url= | |url=http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0610080391oct08,0,7612304.story | ||
|quote="Three Iraqs are not better than one. A splintered Iraq means that it will never emerge as a bulwark for democracy and freedom in the Arab world. A Shiite regional bloc is likely to become a satellite of Iran, the big winner in any split." | |quote="Three Iraqs are not better than one. A splintered Iraq means that it will never emerge as a bulwark for democracy and freedom in the Arab world. A Shiite regional bloc is likely to become a satellite of Iran, the big winner in any split." | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{opinion|Post-invasion Iraq|Iraq should be split up|against}} | {{opinion|Post-invasion Iraq|Iraq should be split up|against}} |
Latest revision as of 00:04, August 26, 2014
This is an opinion item.
Author(s) | Chicago Tribune editorial board |
---|---|
Source | Chicago Tribune |
Date | October 8, 2006 |
URL | http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0610080391oct08,0,7612304.story |
Quote |
Add or change this opinion item's references
This item argues against the position Iraq should be split up on the topic Post-invasion Iraq.