There's a lot of hypocrisy here about the types of weapons it's considered OK to use in war.
Personally, I don't share the shocked outrage that results from the use of chemical or biological weapons. Why? Because first of all, war itself is an outrage, the ultimate sin, a game where the rules are made be broken (and they always are, by all sides, no matter how piously the "good guys" claim they adhere to humanitarian norms. For just one instance, remember Abu Ghraib in Iraq? or the "collateral damage" video famously published by Wikileaks?
And if you do die as a result of chemical weapons as opposed to the OK ones (bullets, shells, bombs, etc.), what fucking difference does it really make? You're still dead. Maybe the bad guys killed more of you with chemicals, or maybe not: what about things like the MOAB, the "mother of all bombs", that can kill every living thing in some enormous radius? Is that still a "humanitarian" way to kill people? Or phosphorous weapons?
For another thing, the pious good guys use all kinds of "acceptable" munitions that ought to be in the same category as chemical/biological/nuclear, like cluster bombs. Which the West uses all the fucking time.
So don't go moralizing to me about how X is evil because they used Y in war. (Short of actual nuclear weapons, of course, which constitute the ultimate sin. And who is still so far the only nation to have used them?)