This one really makes me grit my teeth. From The Economist, 17 Nov 05:
The grave allegation concerned the use, by American soldiers when they recaptured the rebel town of Fallujah last year, of white phosphorus. Did the Americans flout the rules governing the use of chemical weapons, one reason for ousting Saddam Hussein?

The military use of the stuff for illuminating the sky during a night attack or for creating a smokescreen to cover an infantry or tank attack is generally regarded as acceptable. The Pentagon says it was used in those ways during its successful assault on Fallujah late last year.

What is widely considered unacceptable, however, though perhaps not technically illegal, is the use of white phosphorus (“willy pete”, in military lingo) to winkle insurgents out of bunkers and foxholes by means of “shake and burn”. Moreover, filmshots shown on one of Italy's state-owned TV channels suggested that civilians were horribly burned by the stuff during the siege. If it was deliberately or negligently used in a manner that was bound to cause many civilian casualties, that would be a war crime.
Opinions? I believe this is outrageous myself. This same line of thinking can justify that HE is a chemicle weapon. Or that bullets are chemicle weapons because the propellent is a chemicle compound. Slippery slope if I ever heard one.

The more serious problem is that I believe this shows how poorly the American military is seen by foreign people, even our closest allies (in the above case, the British). Indeed, if it was INTENTIONALY used on civilians, it would be murder. But do they really think we would deliberatly, or through negligence, drop WP on civilians? Or is this just another MSM attack on America, Americans, and the President?