Hier een stukje waaruit blijkt dat de VS toegeeft chemische wapens te hebben gebruikt en te gebruiken in diverse conflicten :
Another controversial category of NLW likely to be used in Iraq is toxic riot-control agents (RCA), such as tear gas, CS gas, and pepper spray. The media has reported that the United States is preparing to use such agents in Iraq particularly if the conflict centers on street fighting in Baghdad itself, as seems likely.
The use of riot control agents would possibly break the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), which entered into force in 1997. If US forces were to use these agents, it would drive a wedge between themselves and their closest coalition partners, the British Government, which is opposed to their use. The CWC bans the use of these agents in battle, not least because they risk causing an escalation to full chemical warfare. This applies even though they can be used in civil disturbances at home. It is British policy not to allow troops to take part in operations where riot control agents are employed. The U.K. Ministry of Defence has reportedly warned the United States that it will not allow British troops to be involved in operations where riot control agents are used, or to transport them to the battlefield.[vii] The International Committee of the Red Cross has also warned that use of such agents would violate the CWC.[viii]
Nonetheless the US Marine Corps confirmed that CS gas and pepper spray had already been shipped to the Gulf.[ix] Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld testified to Congress on February 5 that Pentagon officials are fashioning rules of engagement that could allow the US military to use non-lethal agents if the United States attacks Iraq.[x]
It cannot be overemphasized that what Rumsfeld appears to be proposing would be illegal and a violation of the rules set down by the CWC, which states that "any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals" is forbidden as a method of warfare. The United States, along with some 150 other countries, including the United Kingdom, have ratified this treaty and are pledged to uphold it.[xi] The US ratification included a number of exemptions which might make permissible ? from the US Government?s viewpoint ? the uses of riot control agents that the Department of Defense is contemplating, even though Article I of the CWC clearly states ?Each State Party undertakes not to use riot control agents as a method of warfare.?
Yet a close reading of the text and negotiating record of the CWC shows that RCA forms both a special class under the CWC and also fall under the category of ?toxic chemicals?, with all the restrictions imposed upon classic chemical weapons. The US interpretation of the CWC regarding RCA is invalid because it evades the requirement that prohibit the use of toxic chemicals, except where intended for purposes not prohibited under this Convention.
However, in recent years, the Pentagon has gradually turned to new and dangerously loose interpretations of the CWC that would allow the military use of incapacitating chemicals. The changes in policy amount to a "very serious assault" on the CWC, warns microbiology professor Mark Wheelis of the University of California, who has written extensively on chemical and biological weapons issues:
And it is being guided by very narrow, shortsighted tactical concerns. If the United States is allowed to continue to develop [calmatives] sooner or later we are going to be employing artillery shells and aerial bombs [loaded with calmatives]. And we are going to have troops trained to use them. If the United States does this, other countries will follow suit. The long-term implications are quite profound.[xii]
According to Wheelis, it amounts to no less than "preparing for chemical war".[xiii]
As British chemical warfare expert Alastair Hay noted, Rumsfeld, in his testimony referred to the CWC as a "straitjacket" limiting US options in war. What the United States should be able to do, Rumsfeld claims, is resort to the use of non-lethal agents in combat situations when there are civilians present and there is a need to preserve life. He gave two examples. The first was "when transporting dangerous people in a confined space", such as within an aircraft. The second was when "women and children" are trapped with enemy troops "in a cave?. [xiv]
Most nations consider that such action is forbidden by international law. The CWC explicitly forbids the use of riot-control agents except for domestic law enforcement purposes. Under the CWC these and other chemicals can also be used for policing operations if domestic national law permits them. The exemption applies only to those policing operations and not to any external armed conflict. It would be stretching credulity to argue that the current conflict with Iraq is a simple policing operation. Furthermore, US armed forces are forbidden by the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 and related regulation from domestic law enforcement
En ja: Amerika heeft toegeven Witte Fosfor gebruikt te hebben. En aangezien Witte Fosfor een Chemisch Wapen is, hebben ze indirect toegegeven chemische wapens gebruikt te hebben
Als conventioneel wapen is het ook verboden en de VS heeft toegegeven RCA's te hebben gebruikt en dat zijn overduidelijk chemische wapens.
![[img]http://www.powerbeat.org/images/idf_chem.jpg[/img]](http://www.powerbeat.org/images/idf_chem.jpg)
![[img]http://www.powerbeat.org/images/cw_shell.gif[/img]](http://www.powerbeat.org/images/cw_shell.gif)
![[img width=385 height=224]http://www.vrtnieuws.net/nieuwsnet_master/versie2/nieuws/details/051116fosfor/N_051116_fosfor_1_v.jpg[/img]](http://www.vrtnieuws.net/nieuwsnet_master/versie2/nieuws/details/051116fosfor/N_051116_fosfor_1_v.jpg)
![[img width=165 height=119]http://www.vrtnieuws.net/nieuwsnet_master/versie2/nieuws/details/051116fosfor/N_051116_Fosforslachtoffer_m_v.jpg[/img]](http://www.vrtnieuws.net/nieuwsnet_master/versie2/nieuws/details/051116fosfor/N_051116_Fosforslachtoffer_m_v.jpg)