The Shiites had rebelled (with American promises ringing in their
ears). Not that that makes it ok to slaughter them, but it is what many
would have done in the same circumstances (and before you tell me, I
know that that doesn't make it ok either). The Kurds' story seems
somewhat contentious. I've read that the first reports at the time,
blamed the Iranians. Certainly the Iraqis blamed the Iranians, but so
did the European newspapers. Of course, the Iranians were the enemy
then, and the Iraqis the friends, so who can tell why who said what.
Ursula
North Bay
Phil Enns wrote:
Andy Amago wrote:
"She said unleashed, not created."
Tell that to the Shiites slaughtered by Saddam after the first Gulf war. Or the Kurds who died by Saddam's poison gas during the war with Iran. The violence was already present, and been present for centuries before, so it is nonsense to suggest that anything was unleashed.
When I was in Iran, I asked an Iranian, the majority of whom are Persian, of their hatred of Arabs. He replied by telling me how an Arab ruler had conquered what is now Iran centuries earlier and had been a brutal tyrant. This region has a long history of violence.
Sincerely,
Phil Enns Toronto, ON
------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
