Alan Reid voted for WAR

[Tartan Seer]

The wording of the motion was not for war, that is correct, but the consequence of an attack on Syria would in itself be an act of war & regardless of the so-called accuracy of Cruise missiles many, many civilians would end up dead - collateral damage as the wretched war mongers so delightfully portray human death & suffering. By voting to green light this attack Alan Reid is unquestionably culpable, although he can breath easier thanks to the No vote in the Commons.
As for the chemicals, the problem is the 'dual use' nature of some chemicals, a convenient fiction to disguise the intent of government & their arms dealers - after all it was the UK that armed & supplied sarin to both both sides in the Iraq/Iran war - & there is no reason to suppose that these sales would have stopped for the Assad regime:
http://news.sky.com/story/1116687/brita ... a-revealed
You are bang on the money Gizmo when you state that all pertinent information has to be collated & evaluated before action is taken - which was why the precipitate action supported by Reid was so inopportune.

[Rockape]

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

As opposed to the resentment and hatred towards the West from the Islamic extremists as a result of us not intervening? Let's face it, nothing we do will please them, and they'll always find an excuse to hate us and our way of life! So, in this instance, I'm glad parliament has voted the way it has. For once we're not going to be the world police, not going to directly involve ourselves with a war that does not concern us. Let the Arab League get their hands dirty, rather than just calling on us and the US to do it!

[EphemeralDeception]

@Gizmo,

Debating over whether the word "war" was or should be used is frankly a bit pathetic. Military intervention = war, it is as simple as that... unless it is as part of a peacekeeping or civil exercise. I really cannot imagine you thought they were voting for peacekeeping?

So I stand by the title: he voted for war, without evidence and without international legal basis. The thread was not about semantics about the word "war". Did Reid represent his constituents or something else? Please address the real topic.

I just want people to consider whether they were represented correctly by their MP. Were you or were you not? Remember parliament was recalled in an emergency for this. Personally, I think it is time these guys became more accountable for their actions. I cannot say if he represented me as I no longer live there.

[gizmo]

I apologise sincerely. I thought the fact that the wording used in some of the posts was a bit simplistic and inaccurate, I will wind my neck in.. Military intervention = war, OK then.. Does an MP need to consult with his/her constituants before every vote, how will we arrange this? Have you contacted him and let him know you are not happy.
I never at any time gave my opinion on the debate, I did however think if we were going to discuss it, we might as well try to be accurate, sorry if this caused you any heartache.

[EphemeralDeception]

No need to apologise but thanks for the nice reply.
Remember my stated goal is just to inform readers and let them make up their own minds. I also asked if readers think he voted in their best interests, nothing more. I don't expect the MP to make a local referendum or whatever on key decisions.

My post is like the web site 'they work for you'. Did he? This is my point.

As I said, he is not my MP, I no longer even live in Scotland, but many family and friends do and felt this merits better awareness. Politicians now depend on the apathy and indolence of the people they represent, but we are finally responsible for those we elect and should know what they have done/ not done.

Up to Reid to explain 'why' he voted as he did why it is in the best interests of the people he represents.

[Hume]

Up to Reid to explain 'why' he voted as he did why it is in the best interests of the people he represents.

....and would he have voted differently if the lib dems were not in coalition?