One Iraq or three?: Difference between revisions

From Discourse DB
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Renamed position)
mNo edit summary
 
Line 3: Line 3:
|source=Chicago Tribune
|source=Chicago Tribune
|date=October 8, 2006
|date=October 8, 2006
|url=hhttp://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0610080391oct08,0,7612304.story
|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
Quotes-start.png "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." Quotes-end.png


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.