The U.S. Bridges the gap with Saddam Hussein

On March 16th 1988, 5,000 Kurds in the Iraqi city of Halabja were killed instantly when chemical weapons were used by Saddam Hussein against them. Saddam Hussein used mustard gas and the nerve agents sarin, tabun, and VX.

A chemical weapon is defined as "any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm".

In March, 2005 The United States attacked Falluja to release the city of its insurgent stronghold. During the course of the battle, the United States used a chemical called White Phosphorous. Very few in the West have reported on this besides the British Media. The Guardian:

White phosphorus is fat-soluble and burns spontaneously on contact with the air.
According to globalsecurity.org: "The burns usually are multiple, deep, and
variable in size. The solid in the eye produces severe injury. The particles
continue to burn unless deprived of atmospheric oxygen... If service members are
hit by pieces of white phosphorus, it could burn right down to the bone."

This chemical has uses other than lethal such as use as a smoke screen or to light a battle field, so it has not been banned outright by the Chemical Weapons Convention. But it is pretty clear, that when this is used against people it is considered a chemical weapon.

Apparently this is not the only chemical used by the US in Iraq. When the Iraq war started, many questions were asked about whether Coalition Forces had used Napalm in Iraq. They denied it. I’m not sure if this chemical is banned, but I believe it is.

In August 2003 the Pentagon confirmed that the marines had dropped "mark 77
firebombs". Though the substance these contained was not napalm, its function,
the Pentagon's information sheet said, was "remarkably similar.

Napalm is made from a combination of petrol and polystyrene whereas the chemical component of a mark 77 firebomb is made from the combination of kerosene and polystyrene. Napalm is banned, yet this gel in mark 77s is not. The difference; petrol vs. kerosene. Now I’m not a chemical engineer, but to me the difference is marginal when it comes to the firestorm they produce. Would it be ok if they used gasoline and polystyrene? I mean seriously, why do you think Napalm was banned? Probably due to the incendiary devastation it causes on the population it lands on. So why would you think that any other incendiary device is ok?

What makes the U.S. and Saddam Hussein different? Maybe the intentional targeting of civilians. Well, no, Saddam Hussein saw the Kurds as rebels and the U.S. sees the Iraqi insurgents no different.

Maybe its different because Saddam Hussein blanket blamed the whole population for the ills of a few, whereas in Falluja the U.S. differentiated the two; the civilians of Falluja vs. the Insurgents. What if we discover that the U.S. attacked people indiscriminatingly in Falluja, anyone remaining in the city was a target, would that then make the U.S. and Saddam Hussein the same with respect to Hallabja and Falluja?

Personally, I think the use of the weapons even against any people regardless of their status is wrong, and only one question remains in my mind. Now that we know that the United States has used chemical weapons in the far past (Vietnam, WWII) and the recent past, the question remains, who will attack the United States to stop them from using chemical weapons on civilian populations? Makes you wonder doesn’t it?