Sen. Coats wants your opinion on Syria

[jamil]

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.

Agreed.

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....

Think of it this way. If you received more communications on a particular topic than you could process individually, how would you handle them? At that level, your words don't do the convincing, it's the numbers that do. So the specific details of your correspondence matters much less than a simple yea or nay. Yer either ferit, or yer aginnit, and it probably doesn't matter a whole lot how caustic you are in expressing that.

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.

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.

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.

I occasionally listen to the Greg Garrison podcasts that have Young as a guest. If you ask Todd what time it is, he'll explain how the clock works, and afterwards, you're still not sure what time it is. But so far he continues to earn my vote, just not an emphatic one. But in the 9th, someone more of my liking could not win. We take what we can get.

 

[MisterChester]

So far I have only received a reply from my representative, Todd Rokita. To summarize, he basically said he is very skeptical of the proposed action but is not a definite NO yet, as he wants to participate in the debate and listen to everything being presented.

 

[winchester]

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....

maybe its time to stop being nice and let them know were mad as hell and they better start listening to us!!

 

[Tombs]

I am done being nice.

Read the 3rd sentence of the declaration of independence.

If they don't listen and go ahead like a rabid dog, we have a duty to put the rabid dog down.

Just read this, and it should start dawning on you exactly what you are dealing with:
"Each member of Congress is going to have to decide if [they] think it's the right thing to do for America's national security and the world's national security. Ultimately, you listen to your constituents, but you've got to make some decisions about what you believe is right for America." -Barry the dictator.

And yes, I did send off my fair share of letters. It doesn't take more than 2 sentences to relay the word "No."

 

[gunworks321]

Coats does not support strike! Latest Coats notes as of 7:58 pm.

 

[hammer24]

From Sen. Coats:

Why I Oppose a Strike on Syria
​

After several briefings with administration officials and military leaders, gathering input from Hoosiers and hearing today directly from President Obama, I do not believe a targeted, limited military strike on Syria is in the direct national security interests of the United States. Therefore, I do not support a resolution authorizing the president to take military action in Syria.
There is no doubt that the Assad regime used long-banned chemical weapons to murder its own people. This horrific act demands a worldwide response of condemnation. However, the president has not justified his request to engage the United States militarily in Syria.
As a result of Russia’s recent proposal to work with the United Nations to secure and destroy the Syrian stockpile of chemical weapons, the president announced today that he would like to delay a vote on the Syria resolution and give diplomacy another chance.

Reaching an agreement at the United Nations is one thing, but trusting that Syria and Russia will abide by the terms is another matter. Additionally, there remain numerous challenges for the United Nations to secure and destroy these chemical weapons in the midst of a civil war.
This accidental diplomacy should not be mistaken for a credible plan. The president’s failure to lead over the past five years and communicate a vision for the Middle East region threatens the credibility of our country. To maintain America’s strength and integrity in the world, the president must demonstrate that any U.S. military action in the Middle East is related to a direct national security threat and part of a long-term strategic plan, which the administration has yet to define.

 

[Wolffman]

Senator Coates, Congresswoman Brooks, occasionally Senator Donnelly (I don't know why I bother), and Speaker Boehner have heard my opinion about Syria and Obamacare many times. We'll see if it went in one ear and out the other.

 

[mrjarrell]

Well, at least he sent me a reply, even if it is canned.

Thank you for sharing your views regarding American involvement in the Syrian civil war. I appreciate this opportunity to respond.

After several briefings with administration officials and military leaders, gathering input from Hoosiers and hearing directly from President Obama, I do not believe a targeted, limited military strike on Syria is in the direct national security interests of the United States. Therefore, I do not support a resolution authorizing the President to take military action in Syria.

There is no doubt that the Assad regime used long-banned chemical weapons to murder its own people. This horrific act demands a worldwide response of condemnation. However, the President has not justified his request to engage the United States militarily in Syria.

As a result of Russia's recent proposal to work with the United Nations to secure and destroy the Syrian stockpile of chemical weapons, President Obama announced on September 10, 2013 that he would like to delay a vote on the Syria resolution and give diplomacy another chance. Reaching an agreement at the United Nations is one thing, but trusting that Syria and Russia will abide by the terms is another matter. Additionally, there remain numerous challenges for the United Nations to secure and destroy these chemical weapons in the midst of a civil war.

This accidental diplomacy should not be mistaken for a credible plan. The President's failure to lead over the past five years and communicate a vision for the Middle East region threatens the credibility of our country. To maintain America's strength and integrity in the world, the President must demonstrate that any U.S. military action in the Middle East is related to a direct national security threat and part of a long-term strategic plan, which the administration has yet to define.

I have not forgotten that the United States is ending a decade-long military operation in Afghanistan. For the first time in years, Americans are looking with realistic hope toward peacetime. With no clear threat to our national security and indecisive leadership from the President, I cannot support U.S. military action in Syria at this time.

Thank you again for taking the time to contact me. Please do not hesitate to do so in the future on other issues of importance to you.

Sincerely,

Dan Coats
United States Senator
​

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Well, at least he sent me a reply, even if it is canned.

Looks like the same one I got.

 

[IndyGunworks]

I got the same one also.

 

[DragonGunner]

Got it too......no worry though, he won't have to vote on it anyway.

 

[jamil]

I got the same reply from Coats. I expect I'll get some canned blathering doublespeak from Young. I've come to expect no response at all from Joe Joe the union ho. But I already know what his response is.