They are not just my views on what constitutes chemical weapons, Teribus. They are also the USA government's views on what constitutes chemical weapons and the views of virtually every country in the world that have signed the OPCW convention banning chemical weapons . The only countries that are not signatories to the Chemical Weapons Convention drawn up by the OPCW - whose description of what constitutes a CW I quoted yesterday - are Angola, Egypt, North Korea, South Sudan and Syria.
You seem to be unaware of the fact that it is the OPCW, working in close cooperation with the the UN, that sends out the CW inspectors. The organizations inspectors travel on United Nations Laissez-Passer.
You asked for proof that the USA had exported chemical weapons to Iraq and argued on 06 Sep 13 - 02:02 AM that "component parts and materials which through some convoluted process might possibly be used as part of a weapon" did not constitute such chemical weapons . But the Convention clearly states otherwise.
With your view of what constitutes a chemical weapon it would be impossible to sign states up to the banning of chemical weapons in any meaningful way. A state would be able to argue that, because the component parts hadn't yet been assembled , there was no proof that it was in possession of CWs.