Alan Reid voted for WAR

[EphemeralDeception]

From BBC - list of LDs who voted against.


Gordon Birtwistle (Burnley)

Michael Crockart (Edinburgh West)

Andrew George (St Ives)

Julian Huppert (Cambridge)

Dan Rogerson (Cornwall North)

Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove)

Ian Swales (Redcar)

Sarah Teather (Brent Central)

Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire)


Did Alan Reid represent himself or his party? Certainly not his constituents? The LDs were also the only party to vote for WAR.

[gizmo]

Not quite sure he would agree he voted for war.

[WC1]

Did Mr Reid actually vote? The fact that he's not on the list of those who voted 'No' doesn't necessarily mean he's on the list of those who voted 'Yes'. Unfortunately I'm having a job getting hold of that list!

[EphemeralDeception]

We don't send politicians to not represent us in Parliament by not voting. Parliament was recalled to vote, what could have been more important?

From BBC - only technical abstentions were "One Tory, Tim Loughton (Worthing East and Shoreham), and one Lib Dem, Paul Burstow (Sutton and Cheam) voted in both lobbies, a technical abstention."

In any case he voted for war or did not vote against = supporting international illegal military action and very likely not representing his electorate. Up to readers to determine if they are well represented by this or not, I am just making people aware.

[Board Admin]

Did Mr Reid actually vote? The fact that he's not on the list of those who voted 'No' doesn't necessarily mean he's on the list of those who voted 'Yes'. Unfortunately I'm having a job getting hold of that list!

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmhansrd/chan40.pdf

The list of how MP's voted on the Main Question (Whether to use military intervention in Syria YES or NO) is on page 66 of the above pdf which is 1551/1552 of the report itself.

Alan Reid voted YES.

[WC1]

Thanks Admin. I tried to get this info on the Parliament website, but didn't find it very easy to navigate. You obviously persevered where I didn't!

[booboos]

make your views known directly to him!
http://www.writetothem.com/

[Swanseajock]

I don't want our country to get involved in another conflict, but was it really a vote for war? Or was it a vote to allow Parliament to vote again should action be required? Seems a bit smoky to me.

[Tartan Seer]

This is the same Alan Reid who voted against the Iraq war whilst in opposition, yet votes FOR war whilst in government. This MP is a disgrace, voting to rain Cruise missiles down on Syrian civilians without proof of Assad's guilt re chemical weapons and without thought as to the wider consequences for the region nor the rule of law.
Let us indulge Reid and assume that Assad did use these heinous weapons - who supplied them? Alan Reid's London government, busy selling the deadly nerve agent sarin as Cameron & co have the brass neck to parade as defenders of human rights & democracy.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-wo ... ls-2242520
What do we do if Assad hunkers down, absorbs the bombing & retaliates with a further chemical attack? Boots on the ground? This crisis requires cool heads & serious diplomacy, not the naive and blundering cowboy antics of the Americans. What Alan Reid thinks he was doing - other than putting party before country - goodness only knows. Perhaps he will explain himself.

[gizmo]

The fact he voted against the Iraq war is surely to be appauded. I dont believe he would agree he voted for the motion " to rain Cruise missiles down on Syrian civilians without proof of Assad's guilt".
The UK Govt, guilty of quite a lot I agree, did not "supply Assad with these heinous weapons".
According to the report in the record, it allowed the export of Sodium Fluoride and Pottasium Fluoride, common chemicals with hundreds of uses.
I like a bit of Tory bashing myself but lets keep it within reason.

[Tartan Seer]

The motion, if it had been successful, would have resulted in Cruise missiles being launched. The reality of modern warfare is that innocent civilians would have been killed, adding to the resentment & hatred towards the West that will haunt us for years to come. And Reid DID vote for action regardless of consequences - right now we still don't have proof that it was Assad rather than a 'black ops' job by the Israeli's or the CIA, or indeed the Gulf oligarchs,
Which makes Reid's action all the more monstrous.
Westminster did supply these weapons, just as they & the CIA supplied Saddam Hussein for the chemical attack on Halabja.
It is time to wake up and smell the coffee if you are concerned about what your government is doing in your name:
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/08/2 ... GQ20130828
plus ''The Troodos Conundrum' & 'Don’t Celebrate Yet' by UK's former Ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray is well worth reading:
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/
And are you really so naive you believe the spooks didn't know what Syria's massive importation of Sodium Fluoride and Pottasium Fluoride was for?

[Tartan Seer]

Gizmo, this from the Independent 1 hour ago

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 93642.html

[gizmo]

Far from naive.
Read the Independants story.
The chemicals never reached Syria, it was an unspecified amount of chemicals(not a massive importation). The UK Govt did not supply chemical weapons, it OKd the selling of a common industrial chemical commonly used in plastics manufacture and toothpaste at a time it was perfectly legal to do so.
I wondered how long it would be before the CIA cropped up, Mossad as well, Gulf Oligarchs is a new one on me.
Again, I enjoy a bit of Tory bashing but we dont have to believe every thing you read, that doesnt make me naive.

[Tartan Seer]

If you want to believe that the UK & other States were purely selling ingredients for toothpaste, well that's your prerogative, but it ignores the nature of the Assad regime and the realities of geo politics in this part of the world. As for Mossad (which has a vested interest in direct US intervention) & the Gulf States (financing & arming the Syrian rebels as proxies for conflict with Iran which supports Assad) the true story will probably never be told. But it does demonstrate the folly of stripping the Syrian conflict down to simple Good vs Bad & becoming involved in a conflict without all pertinent information (which neither the US nor UK has) - or an exit strategy if the adventure goes pear shaped.

[gizmo]

I agree with some of what you say, however, the original statement was Alan Red voted for war, this was not the wording of the motion, you said Reid "voted to rain Cruise missiles down on Syrian civilians without proof of Assad's guilt" this was not the case.
You said " Alan Reid's London government was, "busy selling the deadly nerve agent sarin as Cameron & co have the brass neck to parade as defenders of human rights & democracy." this was bo****ks, they OKd the selling of perfectly legal chemicals in currently unknown quantities at a time it was legal to do so.
If it transpires it as a "massive importation" to a weapons manufacturer then someone needs their arse kicking, if it was a normal delivery to the Damascus Colgate factory maybe we are over-reacting.
Whether or not the CIA, Mossad and Smersh are involved, lets face it none of us know. This does not mean they are just very sneaky (a good quality if you are a spook) it means we dont know.
Only a total cretin would strip this down to a good v bad situation. What we can do to help, whether we should intervene, who did what to who, God alone knows. Collating all petinent information is a must, so getting our facts right is important.
That means all of us though.