listen.

this is the right way that you approach this.

then, once the report is released, two things can happen:

1) it can be critiqued, to determine flaws and exaggerations. peer review.
2) action can be taken, where deemed appropriate.

the world can't be allowing the united states to go around bombing people based on gut instincts, and colloquialized applications of terms from probability theory - as disingenuous as that may even be, in the precise example.

can i see your hypothesis testing, ms. may? no? k. didn't think so.

i'm not even going to say the bombing shouldn't have happened, as that would be just as bad as jumping to the conclusion that it ought to have. the problem here is a lack of due process - and this is absolutely necessary to establish, in context.

the united nations doesn't appear to be working any more, and i don't have specific suggestions as to approaches or paths to reform, but we need to find a way to re-establish process. the world cannot be a macrocosm of the wild west; there must be a sheriff in town.

as far as i can tell, the only major western politician that has reacted intelligently to this is jeremy corbyn.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/04/13/47-groups-urge-un-secretary-general-act-syria