Zamuel wrote:Regrettable events...
That's certainly one way of describing a years-long series of events, in which the US was directly involved, that caused more than 1,000 times more deaths from chemical weapons than the supposedly "unacceptable" alleged and, as yet, unproven use of chemical weapons in Syria.
Zamuel wrote:...that unfortunately remained unreported for quite some time I think. I would note that discovery resulted in strong pressures being applied and Iraq (supposedly) destroying their stock of Gas weapons (mostly artillery shells.)
Not quite:According to recently declassified CIA documents and interviews with former intelligence officials like Francona, the U.S. had firm evidence of Iraqi chemical attacks beginning in 1983. At the time, Iran was publicly alleging that illegal chemical attacks were carried out on its forces, and was building a case to present to the United Nations. But it lacked the evidence implicating Iraq, much of which was contained in top secret reports and memoranda sent to the most senior intelligence officials in the U.S. government. The CIA declined to comment for this story.
In contrast to today’s wrenching debate over whether the United States should intervene to stop alleged chemical weapons attacks by the Syrian government, the United States applied a cold calculus three decades ago to Hussein’s widespread use of chemical weapons against his enemies and his own people. The Reagan administration decided that it was better to let the attacks continue if they might turn the tide of the war. And even if they were discovered, the CIA wagered that international outrage and condemnation would be muted.
In the documents, the CIA said that Iran might not discover persuasive evidence of the weapons’ use — even though the agency possessed it. Also, the agency noted that the Soviet Union had previously used chemical agents in Afghanistan and suffered few repercussions.
Oh, and Halabja happened in 1988 - by which point the US had known Saddam Hussein was using chemical weapons for
five years.The official US response - after having previously denounced the reports as Iranian lies - was: "Everyone in the administration saw the same reports you saw last night. They were horrible, outrageous, disgusting and should serve as a reminder to all countries of why chemical warfare should be banned," but the US issued no threats and no demands against Iraq, and continued to support Iraq until the conclusion of the war.
Zamuel wrote:A typical military style response. White phosphorus is not a gas or chemically reactive weapon. It's an incendiary ... it burns. It's not intended to be used as an offensive weapon, but is handy to interdict areas and paths, also to protect flanks.
Yes, that is my point. It is not supposed to be used as an offensive weapon. And yet, the US military was forced to admit having used it as such in the battle of Fallujah, having previously lied about it. This suggests they knew such use was legally and morally questionable.
Zamuel wrote:There are no treaties regarding it's use. There is a "convention" (non signatory) that suggests it not be used around civilians.
False. It is governed by the Protocol on Incendiary Weapons, which specifically prohibits their use around civilians, and WP's status under the Chemical Weapons Convention is iffy at best, since it is a highly toxic chemical that can directly cause death (which, if you had read your own source, you would be aware of).
Of course, conveniently for the Battle of Fallujah, the US did not sign up to the Incendiary Weapons convention until 2009, and even then, basically
reserved the right to use incendiary weapons whenever it liked, including against civilians. However, the US not being a signatory to a treaty does not mean that the treaty does not exist.
I also note that you apparently have nothing to say about the lack of any western military action against the various "rebel" groups that have allegedly used chemical weapons themselves.
"Perhaps you want me to die of unrelieved boredom while you keep talking." - Martin Luther