Ah yes, the ethically and morally sound just war. Let me know how that happens.

The thing is war involves the use of force, and the tools of war are weapons. The thing about weapons is that they tend to be used to kill people. Killing people is bad. Now lets bash on the US for a while.

1: All weapons are made from chemicals. Lead is a chemical, uranium is a chemical. If you twist the language around enough, all weapons are chemical weapons. The same goes for radioactive weapons. The chemical weapons used by Saddam might have made a better example.

2. Depleted uranium is less radioactive than natural uranium, hence the word depleted. If a person is standing around all day with depleted uranium shells crashing all around him, for a long enough period of time for dust to get into his lungs in significant quantities, then he may have concerns about the health effects of this. He may also be concerned that he is being bombed. "oh no we are being shelled...quick, everyone hold your breath".

So if I understand your logic, you would like states to provide a list of the weapons they would like to use before committing to war. Perhaps they could also give a list of the people they plan to deploy, as well as times and areas of operation. This way teams of monitors could be in place to ensure nothing naughty happens. Or perhaps you don't really understand war?

In the last two paragraphs you used the term 'held to account' three times. How would this be implemented? And if the country to be 'held to account' disagrees

Depleted uranium may be less radioactive than natural uranium when in an inert state but when it's used in incendiary shells, that's completely different, as even a cursory examination of the results of the Gulf Wars have clearly shown.

I suggest that people investigate this documentary http://www.abc.net.au/atthemovies/txt/s1489013.htm to see how such weapons have been quietly tested on our soil (because they're too dangerous to be tested back in the USA) and if the citizens of Rockhampton ever wondered "which way the wind blew" afterward.

Polystyrene is harmless too but it's also a component of napalm.

If the allies were so comfortable with their use of White Phorphorus ("Shake 'n Bake") weapons, why were they so desperate to avoid acknowledging their use?

Dear Ms Tranter, Would you have preferred that Crocodile Dundee have pulled out a pocket knife instead? Of course he was probably breaking some law by having such a large knife in a public place but he would never have used it in a malicious or irresponsible way. I was more than happy that he had that knife handy.

Since the beginning of the wars in Iraq in 1992 male sperm counts in Israel are down by 40%.Drs in Fallujia have told women not to have children because the birth defects are so servere.

The Fukushima debacle is said to be equivilant to 1000 Hiroshimas far worse than Chernobyl.The USA and NATO are headed for another world war created again by the banking, military,oil industrial complex.The lunatics are truely in charge of the asylum.

Again why are people concerned about the secondary effects of these weapons. Of all the weapons that are used I would say guns and bullets kill the most people. So why no talk of these weapons?

Arjay, I'm sorry I must have missed those 70 million deaths due to Fukushima. Is that the correct figure, or are you exaggerating slightly?

A worthy subject but please don't expect any solution, anytime, ever.

"Perhaps the Labor Government may care to explain Australia’s abstention from that vote?"

Yes, perhaps if they even know what they are voting for or absaining from.
Right now, we have this feckless government voting for more of the same in Palestine after 60 years so I do not think that they have any interest in taking an honest stance on any subject that requires any thought as does this disgraceful subject. As as for the US, the makers of the weapons that kill the people in wars, they haven't even shown any responsibility in the areas of Laos or Cambodia, indicating clearly that they do not care.

So no one cares, Kelli and that's sad, very sad indeed as the aftermath of battles are civilian deaths for years and years from mines, deaths by the thousands and no one cares about thaT either.

So it is admirable that you raise this issue but it will fall on deaf ears, particularly in little Australia where we have built up a tradition of 'yes, sir, no sir three bags full, sir' when dealing with the world's #1 terrorists, the US as you will see clearly in the Palestine vote next month. Gillard has been a Goyim zionist for years and brings those selfish and incaring traits to her role as America and israel's little helper. Sadly that means us as well.

That's the disgrace of it all. Our feelings in such matters count for nothing

Kellie, I liked your article. I wonder how long it will be before we have a government which is able to make decisions, without having to wait for a phone call from Washington (the present state of the US economy means it will probably be a reverse charge call) giving instructions on how to vote and what to say.

The short round guy in the opposition thinks Australia should be more active in action against butchers, I don't suppose that he has given much thought to this, he would not have to look further than West Papua for a target.

The International Court would be a very busy place if justice was done to all those that sold weapons and chemicals to Saddam and others, and all those who have been responsible for killing civilians. They would probably have to have the court in a large football stadium to fit them all in. There would be at least four US presidents, 4 UK prime ministers and a few Aussie prime ministers in the dock as well as many industry leaders from around the world.