1. Saddam Hussein, the leader of Iraq, was afraid the Shiite south of Iraq (rich in oil) would rebel against the Sunni Baath Party, which Hussein headed, because of the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran.
2. The Shatt al-Arab waterway was also another reason. The waterway caused much tension in the region because who controlled it had much influence in trade for the region.
<span>The question is asking us to choose among the options. The background is that "The British Empire once controlled modern-day India. While many British historians once defended Great Britain's Right to rule over foreign colonies, British historians today largely take a negative view of such colonialism. Which of the following best explains why this change in interpretation might have occurred?" Here, the major reason is that the values changed - before, people believed in the superiority of white people while now it is believed that all people are equal. This means that they have different subjective options that influence how they see the events - biases. So the best answer is:
B. Historians today have different biases than previous historians.</span><span />
Non violence peace movement
Because once upon a time.........it was the POPE who controlled a large swath of power......like a KING, which included large territories.
<span>But over the years, and power shifts later........the Pope became less and less important, and more or less became boxed in, within Vatican City.......his last seat of Power. When Italy became a Unified Country..............they had to arrange a special deal with the POPE that left him in charge of his little area........a King, of sorts, within the Kings Kingdom. So they declared his little Popedom.......seperate , and allowed him to keep his little seat of Power.</span>
The Etruscans ruled Italy before the Romans
