Sen. Coats wants your opinion on Syria

[atvdave]

emails sent... thanks for posting..

 

[Bennettjh]

Contacted.

 

[dhnorris]

So we can start another war to run a natural gas pipeline through syria for qatar and saudia arabia but we can't build keystone because of environmental damage? peace is war ignorance is strength, it's going to fall apart pretty quick now check your preps

 

[ViperJock]

Sure a simple "vote no" gets the point across. But if someone is able to give relative experience along with that, then that often drives home the point the much more.
The good thing is that we agree that moving into Syria is a horrible idea. At least the only thing we have to "argue" about is the way we say "no" to those in charge.

Its not what you say, its how you say it. Relate the experience. For example:
Dear Senator Coats,
My name is CavMedic. I have recently returned from a tour in Iraq and have seen the horrors of war first hand. While I agree that the murder of innocent civilians is tragic and that chemical weapons add to the horror of modern warfare, I believe that our involvement will only increase the suffering of innocent people without achieving any useful purpose. I strongly encourage you to vote "no" with regard to the President's ill advised attack on Syria. As an American and a member of the US Army, I know that we are weary of fighting wars with no foreseeable end in countries with no capability to do us harm in a conventional way. I believe that our resources could be better spent strengthening our own economy, helping our returning veterans to adjust and find work at home, and solving the problem of outrageous spending in Washington.

Best Regards,
CavMedic.



Point made. Respect gained. No kissing up done. No touchy feely loss of honor for the writer. You can talk to people however you want. Take this for what it is worth, you will go further if you hold back on the indignation, even if it is righteous. In the end, you want action taken correct? If your goal is to rant, to release frustration, etc then by all means continue in your current communication style. OR learn to say the same thing in a respectful way and get respect in return.

 

[CavMedic]

I get what you are saying but I see no disrespect in my letter. If he (or his staffer most likely) gets his feelings hurt, well, that's not my problem or concern. As an adult he should be able to take a little "tough talk", if not...

 

[DragonGunner]

/facepalm. The letter is angry and belittling. This is not the way to win friends and influence people. Which is what we want to do. Well, if we want to be taken seriously, we do. This kind of thing is what "macho" guys pound each other on the back for "you sure told him." but nothing good ever comes of it. Somebody just feels better for ranting. If you want to talk with the grownups you need to talk like a grownup.

And who are you too judge? You seem to be the only one impressed with yourself. What a wonderful immature world you must live in.

 

[zippy23]

email sent

 

[ViperJock]

And who are you too judge? You seem to be the only one impressed with yourself. What a wonderful immature world you must live in.

Yep that's right. I feel so bad that 2 people on INGO don't see the value of what I am saying. Woe, woe is me.

 

[DragonGunner]

Yep that's right. I feel so bad that 2 people on INGO don't see the value of what I am saying. Woe, woe is me.

LOL...you attack one person claiming he should be more mature (like you), and judge how he should be more like you, even telling him how he should word his letter (like the way you would). To be more grown up in order to win them as friends as a grown up.....Then when someone disagrees with you, you go on the defensive and forget everything you just said. Perhaps you should follow your own advise and talk to me like a mature grown up, you seem to be able to dictate that to others. Funny how hypocrisy can sneak up on someone...isn't it.

 

[Wolffman]

They don't really want your opinion, they just want to make it seem like they do

It scares the crap out of me that you may be right...

 

[indyjohn]

I just called & talked to a staffer at the Washington office. Gave my point of view in a calm and polite manner. The gentleman thanked me, said the senator is expected to announce his position on the issue next week.

Right or wrong, I have to operate on the belief they want my opinion. The alternative does not bode well for the longevity of my country as I know it.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Yep that's right. I feel so bad that 2 people on INGO don't see the value of what I am saying. Woe, woe is me.

Actually, it's probably more than two people. While there may be some value in what you are saying, in general, CavMedic's response is a valid one as well. Senator Coats is being pulled by several forces: on one hand, although most of us think Obama is a douche, he IS the international "face" of the United States and it is desirable that the US be believed when we make a definitive warning - no matter how foolish it may be. On the other hand, spending US lives and treasure for no geopolitical gain is foolish and wrongheaded. Coats, no doubt, believes the latter, but he is probably concerned about the former, as well.

CavMedic's response, as well as your own and everyone else's will help Coats see his way through the issue, I'm sure. And, at least he asked his constituents for their opinions on the issue, which is more than our Junior Senator has done, apparently.

 

[ViperJock]

LOL...you attack one person claiming he should be more mature (like you), and judge how he should be more like you, even telling him how he should word his letter (like the way you would). To be more grown up in order to win them as friends as a grown up.....Then when someone disagrees with you, you go on the defensive and forget everything you just said. Perhaps you should follow your own advise and talk to me like a mature grown up, you seem to be able to dictate that to others. Funny how hypocrisy can sneak up on someone...isn't it.

Wow. You have no understanding of social psychology or use of indirect language. I'm not on the defensive. Quite the opposite, I just got tired of a pointless argument. I'm not going to speak to you like an adult when your previous post is a direct attack on my supposed ego and my wonderful imaginary life. This is my whole point. You say stupid baseless **** and expect me to continue listening to you? Nope, I have no respect for you now and will address you as you as such. This is exactly what Coats will do if you address him in a similar manner. Feelings hurt? nope. Just have no need to consider your opinion.

BTW never addressed anyones maturity. just making a point that if you want people to listen to you, and take you seriously, you don't rant at them. Something many will never understand. And yet they will be Suprised when they don't get their way....

 

[bwframe]

Coats sent acknowledgement of receipt, nothing back from Donnelly. Got a wordy response From Todd Young:

Dear Mr. Frame:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the ongoing civil war in Syria. I appreciate hearing from you about this important issue.

Since March 2011, Syria has been in the throes of a civil war as the Syrian National Coalition and their various coalition partners have attempted to overthrow President Bashar al-Assad’s regime. President Assad has previously supported terrorist groups which have attacked the United States and our allies. Moreover, he has subverted Lebanon’s independence, assassinated its leaders, and blocked Arab peace efforts with Israel.

On August 18, 2012, President Obama called for Assad to step down, and he indicated that any use or transfer of chemical weapons would cross a “red-line” prompting U.S. involvement in the Syrian conflict. One year later, on August 31, President Obama publicly requested that Congress authorize the use of force against the Assad regime to discipline the regime for the use of chemical weapons and degrade the capacity for any subsequent attacks. I adamantly agree that the use of such prohibited weapons should be prevented by any regime; however, prior to the initiation of any hostilities by our Armed Forces, this Administration must consider utilizing all instruments of national power, including diplomatic responses coordinated with our allies, to prevent the further use of chemical weapons.

The President also has the obligation to engage in robust consultation with Congress prior to initiating military action and I am pleased that he initiated that necessary debate. I remain concerned that the Administration’s delayed response—both in engaging Congress and in responding to the Assad regime—has led to an escalation of the conflict to a degree which will inhibit our ability to meaningfully and positively influence events. Any actions taken by the Administration must be part of a broader strategy to stabilize the region and help lead the belligerents to a political settlement. However, I remain concerned that this Administration lacks an overarching strategy for the region, reflected in this Administration’s continued delays. I am skeptical that any proposed strikes will have a positive outcome for our own national security concerns and will prompt an international response that our country is seemingly ill-prepared for. That being said, I look forward to reviewing the Administration’s proposal and the relevant intelligence our National Security officials have gathered. Rest assured, I will give the Administration’s proposal serious and thorough consideration.

I support the transition to a Syrian government based on democratic principles and protection of fundamental human rights. However, the U.S. must ensure we do not assist in the transfer of power to any regimes with ties to terrorist organizations. Given the involvement of terrorist organizations on multiple sides of this conflict, I am wary of the U.S. lending military support to any party involved. The United States must carefully weigh any potential involvement and work with our allies as we evaluate all possible responses and consider how effectively to advance our national interest, fundamental values, and national security. Additionally, we must prevent terrorist groups, like Al Qaeda and Hezbollah, from seizing and utilizing chemical weapons, and consider the security of our Allies as they continue to host over 2 million refugees and warn of further escalation of the conflict.

I am hopeful that we can make a positive contribution towards peace and regional stability, and uphold the norms deterring the use of weapons of mass destruction, as this conflict continues. Rest assured, I look forward to working with our Commander-in-Chief and my colleagues in Congress, to advance a broader strategy that will bring peace and security to the region and beyond.

I will keep your thoughts in mind as Congress continues to weigh any potential involvement in this conflict going forward. Again, thank you for contacting me. It is an honor to represent you in the U.S. House of Representatives.

In Service,
Todd Young
Member of Congress

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Coats sent acknowledgement of receipt, nothing back from Donnelly. Got a wordy response From Todd Young:

Dear Mr. Frame:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the ongoing civil war in Syria. I appreciate hearing from you about this important issue.

Since March 2011, Syria has been in the throes of a civil war as the Syrian National Coalition and their various coalition partners have attempted to overthrow President Bashar al-Assad’s regime. President Assad has previously supported terrorist groups which have attacked the United States and our allies. Moreover, he has subverted Lebanon’s independence, assassinated its leaders, and blocked Arab peace efforts with Israel.

On August 18, 2012, President Obama called for Assad to step down, and he indicated that any use or transfer of chemical weapons would cross a “red-line” prompting U.S. involvement in the Syrian conflict. One year later, on August 31, President Obama publicly requested that Congress authorize the use of force against the Assad regime to discipline the regime for the use of chemical weapons and degrade the capacity for any subsequent attacks. I adamantly agree that the use of such prohibited weapons should be prevented by any regime; however, prior to the initiation of any hostilities by our Armed Forces, this Administration must consider utilizing all instruments of national power, including diplomatic responses coordinated with our allies, to prevent the further use of chemical weapons.

The President also has the obligation to engage in robust consultation with Congress prior to initiating military action and I am pleased that he initiated that necessary debate. I remain concerned that the Administration’s delayed response—both in engaging Congress and in responding to the Assad regime—has led to an escalation of the conflict to a degree which will inhibit our ability to meaningfully and positively influence events. Any actions taken by the Administration must be part of a broader strategy to stabilize the region and help lead the belligerents to a political settlement. However, I remain concerned that this Administration lacks an overarching strategy for the region, reflected in this Administration’s continued delays. I am skeptical that any proposed strikes will have a positive outcome for our own national security concerns and will prompt an international response that our country is seemingly ill-prepared for. That being said, I look forward to reviewing the Administration’s proposal and the relevant intelligence our National Security officials have gathered. Rest assured, I will give the Administration’s proposal serious and thorough consideration.

I support the transition to a Syrian government based on democratic principles and protection of fundamental human rights. However, the U.S. must ensure we do not assist in the transfer of power to any regimes with ties to terrorist organizations. Given the involvement of terrorist organizations on multiple sides of this conflict, I am wary of the U.S. lending military support to any party involved. The United States must carefully weigh any potential involvement and work with our allies as we evaluate all possible responses and consider how effectively to advance our national interest, fundamental values, and national security. Additionally, we must prevent terrorist groups, like Al Qaeda and Hezbollah, from seizing and utilizing chemical weapons, and consider the security of our Allies as they continue to host over 2 million refugees and warn of further escalation of the conflict.

I am hopeful that we can make a positive contribution towards peace and regional stability, and uphold the norms deterring the use of weapons of mass destruction, as this conflict continues. Rest assured, I look forward to working with our Commander-in-Chief and my colleagues in Congress, to advance a broader strategy that will bring peace and security to the region and beyond.

I will keep your thoughts in mind as Congress continues to weigh any potential involvement in this conflict going forward. Again, thank you for contacting me. It is an honor to represent you in the U.S. House of Representatives.

In Service,
Todd Young
Member of Congress

Todd must be much taller than he looks in his Facebook photos....he has to be in order to straddle the fences he does so well and so many times.

 

[bwframe]

Todd must be much taller than he looks in his Facebook photos....he has to be in order to straddle the fences he does so well and so many times.

We'll see how he votes. Has he failed us yet?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

We'll see how he votes. Has he failed us yet?

I don't think so. But this response is typical of all his I've read. (Most were back during the common sense gun control threat earlier this year). He's definitely not cut out of the Rand Paul/Ted Cruz mold. And considering his district, maybe he's a lot more savvy than I'm giving him credit for.

 

[Mark 1911]

Seems to me there is no military solution for middle east. Hasn't this been the lesson of the last 70 years? Bypassing diplomacy and jumping straight to a military response seems like a HUGE mistake to me. Our involvement will only escalate and tie us up in another war for years to come, will cost many American lives and hurt our economy, and could become a very, very serious war, perhaps WWIII.

 

[bwframe]

I don't think so. But this response is typical of all his I've read. (Most were back during the common sense gun control threat earlier this year). He's definitely not cut out of the Rand Paul/Ted Cruz mold. And considering his district, maybe he's a lot more savvy than I'm giving him credit for.

He's had meetings and running dialog on various issues with the Btown uber libs, a large portion of his voters. Might explain why he feels the need to explain situations with such detail and not show his direction too early. I'll be shocked if he doesn't go our way.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

He's had meetings and running dialog on various issues with the Btown uber libs, a large portion of his voters. Might explain why he feels the need to explain situations with such detail and not show his direction too early.

You're probably right. I doubt they voted for him or will vote for his re-election but as long as he comes out on the right side of things, I guess that's what counts.