Sorry. Try this instead, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articl...prove_america_helped_saddam_as_he_gassed_iran
Not going to add another website account to my list, but I think I know what you're asking. Many of us have been concerned about the US double standard for a long time. Imho Chomsky makes the most sense of it. The US will stand for anyone if they're good for business, or at least no impediment to it.
One is enough of keep us from attacking them. You can't have any credibility going around saying I can have 5000 hydrogen bombs deployed all over the world, and you can't have one, because i'm a righteous good guy with God on my side and you are a terrorist. Reason, If you really were a righteous good guy with God on your side you wouldn't need, or want, 5000 hydrogen bombs, and you would have no reason to fear an attack by terrorists. The reality is that the U.S. is not a good guy, but a country that has become a thug and pariah as far as much of the world is concerned. We had huge stocks of chemical warfare agents up into the 1960's, long, long after we had signed the 1925 Protocol. AND we knowingly aided and abetted the gassing of many Iranians in the 1980's. We also put the Shaw in power against the will of the Iranian people. Honestly, we deserve to be attacked. I hope it does not happen, but when you act that way, what should you expect? We've made a practice of interfering in the internal affairs of other countries, including aiding and abetting assassinations, all over the world in the interests of American business. We committed acts of war against other nations and lied about it. Everyone but the American people know about these manifold transgressions of international law that we are signatory to. (Read Moynihan's "Secrecy") This is why the U.S. is a target of so much hatred and terrorism. The only good defense against terrorism is to stop doing these heinous acts against other nations. We are more than capable of defending ourselves, which is wasteful, and now we've become an obnoxious, hypocritical, aggressive thug.
Here, read this also. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ec828d6-1549-11e3-961c-f22d3aaf19ab_blog.html