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 In the absence of taking any steps to modernise an organisation which, of course, is vastly out of date in its structures, based as they are on a post WWII world, would it be acceptable for countries other than the USA to take action without the UN’s approval on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?)
**********
