Mrs May and I agree.
Chemical weapons are abhorrent. They must NOT be normalised.
That said, I have some questions for her.
1. Will she agree with me, and many others, that Saudi Arabia’s use of phosphorus bombs in Yemen is abhorrent and that it must be stopped?
2. Should we stop selling weapons to Saudia Arabia, and instead bomb their facilities in order to stop them using chemical weaponry against kids in Yemen?
3. Is the difference that Mrs May sees between the regimes in Syria and Saudi anything to do with the fact that Bashar Assad, although a medical doctor, is only a commoner, whilst Salman and his crown prince are royal personages and personal friends of the Saxe Coburg Gotha family?
4. I can see that there is a certain logic in by-passing the United Nations in matters like this. After all, Russia would certainly have used its veto, which would have made the exercise utterly pointless. But does this mean that the current set up of the UN is de facto useless?
5. If so, would it be sensible to reorganise the security council so that say, no countries were permanent members and that none had a veto? A majority could carry the day?
6. In the absence of taking any steps to modernise an organisation which, of course, is vastly out of date in its structures, based as they are on a post WWII world, would it be acceptable for countries other than the USA to take action without the UN’s approval on the basis that the US-UK (they nearly always act together) or France (a little more independent, depending on the president), might veto what THEY want to do?
7. Mrs May and her cabinet and backbenchers have made much of a new global Britain taking back control from dreaded foreigners. Is that control to be taken back and given to parliament in London, or to Mrs May, based on the somewhat dubious tradition of the royal prerogative? And, will Mrs May also take back control of the defence and foreign affairs briefs from Washington?
Russia vows to shoot down any and all missiles fired at Syria. Get ready Russia, because they will be coming, nice and new and “smart!” You shouldn’t be partners with a Gas Killing Animal who kills his people and enjoys it!
8. One reason that was given for the UK action being taken without parliamentary debate was that it would have spoiled the element of surprise. Is Mrs May unaware that there are people in Moscow and Damascus who read the daily outpourings of the boy president in Washington and who, therefore, were not prepared for the ‘nice and new’ missiles heading their way? (PS: Can you have “nice” missiles, and does anyone actually use second-hand ones?)
**********
MUNGUIN'S NEW REPUBLIC 
God, how did we get here, pretty depressing?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Very depressing really.
LikeLike
“You shouldn’t be partners with a Gas Killing Animal who kills his people and enjoys it!”
Glass houses and stones spring to mind here.
I’m very glad I’m outside the 50km range (and behind a few rather big hills) from Faslane, and I’m hoping that my parents are in a deep enough valley (they have a hard time with radio/phone coverage, so I can at least have some hope)
Old music, still relevant. Not sure if it will cheer people up or not:
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh well, I got a laugh 🙂
LikeLike
Tris, I completely agree that chemical weapons are abhorrent and they should be banned – as should nuclear and biological weapons. Here’s another question for Mrs May which I’d love to hear put to her in Parliament (but that would only happen if we had an effective opposition instead of a bunch of posturing idiots) – “Will the Prime Minister categorically state that the United Kingdom possesses no chemical weapons of any description? Will she also state that the UK has no stocks whatsoever of biological weapons? Will the PM further undertake that in view of the appalling damage inflicted on human beings by nuclear weapons the UK will forthwith embark on an immediate and speedy programme of the permanent decommissioning all of its nuclear weapons?”
By the way, I always have to stifle a laugh when I read about the Saudi “Royal” Family – Kings of the Camel-shaggers. Mind you, I also stifle a laugh whenever I read about our own dear Royal family. It’s a hollow laugh, naturally.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Good questions, andi.
Yes, the Saudi “royals” make me laugh. I imagine that the Brits or the Americans installed them on teh throne, just as they did with the original Shah of Persia, who then adopted the name King of Kings, despite having been appointed from the ranks of the Army.
Shades of Emperor Bokassa, but obviously richer and more likely to buy British arms?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Andimac, chemical weapons are in fact banned – the relevant piece of international law currently is the Chemical Weapons Convention, which entered into force in 1997. It set up the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) – http://www.opcw.org – which has its headquarters in The Hague. I used to pass it on my way to work, too many years ago now.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Trumps obedient servile poodle.
Murder some innocent civilians just for a lift
In the opinion polls.
As many many Tory MPs
are quietly saying.
Shame of it is some Labour MPs couldn’t resist dipping
Their hands in the blood of the innocent then wiping it across their faces in praise of Mays
Err Leadership ??
They the Blairite rump would sooner a Tory right wing Government rather than a progressive fair Labour one.
Or as the propagandist lie
Hard left wing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That always makes me laugh. They wouldn’t know hard left wing if it battered them in the face.
LikeLike
Your friends are freedom fighters your enemies are
Terroists .
Unfortunately the innocent dead Are unable to tell the difference.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Your points 4 & 5 make a lot of sense, and I wonder why no one has brought this up afaik? There is a middle way between the present veto system and a majority vote, namely to require a seconder or two (or three?) before a veto can stick. After all the world has a good many for independent nations now than at the end of WWII.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, maybe something like that.
But the Permanent Members are no longer really representative of the world.
America I can see, as can I see China and Russia. They are massive and powerful. But France and Britain?
What are they there for?
What do they represent?
Maybe the EU should be represented? Maybe India?
I suspect that Britain is still there becasue America counts on it to back it up, and France is there because you couldn’t get rid of France without getting rid of Britain.
It’s certainly not fit for purpose as it stands. A larger permanent membership and two backers for every veto.
But then, remember what happened when Bush wanted something backed… he sent Blair round the other countries, the non permanent members, with bribes of airfields and all manner of lovely goodies, as long as they voted with him.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The UK and France are permanent members because they have (in theory at least) independent nukes. But then who else does now? India? Pakistan??
I agree if we are to have permanent members they should include the likes of the EU as a body and India. Maybe Brazil, or other regional groupings as a body?
But why isn’t this even a issue and a talking point? Or have I missed something?
LikeLiked by 1 person
But is there any real reason why you would have to have WMDs to be a member? As you say, India, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea have nukes.
India is a massive economy. Maybe it should be a permanent member.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The UN routinely fails because for it to work, nations have to be ‘into the spirit of it’, if they’re not then it’s just a facade. A good idea circumvented by the evil and the greedy when they need to manufacture an excuse for, as AC/DC put it, Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap.
They may not seem cheap given the price of munitions but the stakes are mega high so the cost of a few hundred mega-buck missiles count for fcuk all. They’ll get that back from the advertising.
It’s all a great big joke, with all that’s missing being the laughing.
One of the best movies ever btw.
LikeLike
Quis custodiet ipsos custodies…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, that’s always the question, Conan.
LikeLike
Nicely put together Tris.
Another to add.
Can we have a proper democracy in the UK, not one that has a permanent red/blue tory mandate based on 30% of the popular vote.
Witten in the same form, does Mr May agree.
We need out of this.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, we need a referendum on a proper system of PR, but of course we won’t get one.
The one chance that the Liberal Democrats had, and they caved, settling for a referendum on something that Clegg had described (quite rightly) as third rate.
LikeLike
Nah ! We don’t need a referendum we need a revolution…….
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sometimes I think that’s just what we need.
LikeLike
Nah ! We don’t need a referendum we need a revolution…….
LikeLike
I can see the attraction of revolution except that, as history demonstrates, it’s always followed by a counter-revolution. That’s when it gets brutal.
LikeLiked by 1 person
LikeLike
LOL…
LikeLike
I see your lord and raise a prince…
LikeLiked by 1 person
How did they know about Brexit and Tessy?
LikeLike
I was with my family in the basement of my home three hundred metres from here on the night but all the doctors know what happened. There was a lot of shelling [by government forces] and aircraft were always over Douma at night – but on this night, there was wind and huge dust clouds began to come into the basements and cellars where people lived. People began to arrive here suffering from hypoxia, oxygen loss. Then someone at the door, a “White Helmet”, shouted “Gas!”, and a panic began. People started throwing water over each other. Yes, the video was filmed here, it is genuine, but what you see are people suffering from hypoxia – not gas poisoning.
https://www.thecanary.co/global/world-analysis/2018/04/17/a-reporter-finally-entered-the-chemical-attack-site-in-syria-what-he-found-is-extraordinary/
LikeLike