Why was there no red line after 99,700 people were murdered, but only after 300 were killed by gas? Does that?

Why was there NO red line drawn when Saddam Hussein gassed his own people and Iran back in the 1980's?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_at...

As a matter of fact why did the CIA help Iraq gas Iran?

"The Americans have always said that Iraq did not reveal that they would launch chemical strikes.But documents released in the National Archives and interviews with former serviceman show that the U.S. acquiesced in the use of chemical weapons as they tried to help Saddam with the war"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2402174/CI...

Why did the US continue to use the defoliant Agent Orange after it was proven to be poisonous to humans the government knew it was full of toxic dioxins yet they sprayed it on people anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_Orange#Health_e...

It doesn't make any sense from a humanitarian standpoint, but the United States doesn't go to war for purely humanitarian reasons. The government wants to sequester the use of weapons that can seriously harm the United States and its allies.

yes it makes a lot of sense the world ha said no use of chemical weapons when conducting a war so the police men for the world will have to take action.

Chemical weapons are different than conventional weapons in that if their use is tolerated, we open ourselves to a new era of biochemical warfare. This is intolerable, as it has been since the 20s.

Kind of reminds me of Benghazi, Americans dying in the pointless war on terror, crickets from the far right. 4 Americans dead, impeachment now.

I do agree Bashar needs to go.