My Rep wrote me back: He DID listen; And, 20 Need-To-Knows re Syrian Rebels

reply to post by Riouz


A charter that includes one and all, would include the US of course.

We are all in the sandpit. We need to establish the rules. And all play nicely.

The time outs also must be clear and binding.

Think Progress - as of 9AM this morning - Numbers for/against Syria Strike
Interesting (but a bit confusing) chart on congress support for Syria ...

reply to post by FlyersFan


What worries me MOST is that even if Congress votes "NO", he can STILL do this -
no matter what the rest of the freaking WORLD thinks.

If he does, then yes, as Riouz said:

HE SHOULD BE TRIED FOR WAR CRIMES. I already think he should anyway - along with Bush, and all of their JSOC minions.

Disgusting. What IS IT with 'men' and 'war'!!!???????

Right now I'm reading "The Autobiography of Henry VIII" - and it talks quite a bit about the 'war-monger' mentality of people who get into powerful positions. They get "bored." They want "excitement".

You know what? HOW ABOUT you ride the Ripcord at your local amusement park!
Scary enough for you, McCain?
How bout you, Barry?

reply to post by wildtimes


I don't know what political party that rep belong to but i think he speak sin a neutral fashion, which is a good thing. and every one should speak like that.

Originally posted by wildtimes
What worries me MOST is that even if Congress votes "NO", he can STILL do this -

I think Obama may have just shot himself in the foot on that ...
ATS Thread - Obama Admits Syria Not Threat to USA

reply to post by wildtimes


I commend you for doing what has become the 'rebel' thing these days and actually working the system as it's been designed to get worked.

The greatest victory 'TPTB' have ever achieved have been convincing the masses that our political system not only doesn't work, but never can work. As long as people believe that? It will stand 100% true too. The ultimate self fulfilling prophecy. I wish more folks would take those first steps to try. It's not what people have been told to expect...but there is absolutely no convincing anyone of that.

reply to post by kaylaluv


We re not going to teach Assad to stop killing his people.

By killing his people.

Assad will wait for some civilians to be killed. Then come the horrible pictures.

I don't want any responsibility for pictures like that.

I wrote my representative and senator, last Friday, and checked the box requesting a response, but no word yet. One of mine is John McCain, so its a lost cause there, but I am still holding out hope for the other. It must be nice to have such an immediate response - well done, you!

I contacted my senators and congressman last week but today sent all of them plus the WH messages

My message to the Prez:
PLEASE do NOT attack Syria. It is clear from Russia's and Iran's response that it WILL trigger a major war. Is the killing of millions really worth "saving face"?
Our troops are war weary, we already can't fund another war and how can you even consider letting our troops be mercenaries for some middle eastern country? Now it looks like you are even afraid to hear from congress as it is being considered to drop the vote on the issue. It is quite clear from the calls and messages from the American people that 99.9% of the American people OPPOSE getting involved in a 3 year old civil war. I question the sanity of considering going ahead with this in the face of Russia and Iran threatening to get involved and the ENTIRE world saying don't do it!

I sent a similar message to my congressional representatives, but also questioned Obama's sanity in wanting to oppose 99.9% of the people of the world in going ahead with a strike.

reply to post by wildtimes


Religion motivate all of them.

Assad is a Alawite and a elitist/upperclass and the Shia are lower class, which is what changed when his father took over. The alawites were persecuted for years before they gained their status.

It's all about religion.

I remember a old sang, "more people have died in the name of God then anything else in human history".

-SAP-

reply to post by kaylaluv


I am not even going to mention morality.

If the problem is the development of chemical weapons, then I suggest our intelligence agencies carry out quiet and precise assassinations of those responsible for developing these weapons, and those selling them.....so no need to go very far, possibly down the hall for them. Our intelligence community needs to, in short, do their own dirty work. Destroying the caches and production will not solve the problem. They (rebels) can just make more
or buy more.

No aircraft carriers, no cruise missiles. Cyanide or a bullet to those selling and producing the CW. Risk your own necks, this is EXACTLY what they exist for.

We can't afford it, there is NO guarantee that things wont escalate and require ground troops, and we REALLY don't need another religious sect in power anywhere.

We can't see into them, they are unpredictable, and unreliable in every sense.

We are spread too thin. Ever wonder when the US looked like more of an inviting target then now? Never.

We couldn't repell a land attack on the US main land right now as we stand. You know that.

We couldn't even afford to.

Just stop

or do it yourselves like our grandparents and parents generation did.

My own personal opinion - I hope your rep holds this decision because I feel that within the next week or two media outlets will be contacted and even bribed to win the American people over. It doesnt take much - a good USA today or NY Times article may do the trick. Am already seeing this. Fortunately am also seeing comments from participants unswayed by the attempt to get Americans to change their thinking. Time to watch the media do the dirty work, and polls shift. Its all about manipulating the masses to put a different kind of pressure on reps...then - it all turns out just as he and his followers intended.

I wrote to my representative as well, he is already leaning to NO, no response yet.

Here is the CNN take of the vote, there are comments which is interesting to see how they are leaning.

U.S. House: How they'll vote on Syria strike - CNN

reply to post by wildtimes


If he votes as he says he will support him in the future. If next election we shun the yes voters and support the no's it will send a very strong message (and it will feel good).

nice reply from your rep that. kudos to him and you

My congressman is house foreign relations committee chair, Ed Royce, he definitely knows how I feel.


This 99% AGAINST thing is definitely powerful as congress is strongly leaning no.

I got this response the next day. I'm pretty sure they just copy and paste the name but he seems like a good man. I am sure they don't have the time to respond to every email that quickly.

Dear Adam,

Thank you for contacting me to share your concerns and views about the events unfolding in Syria and the proposed American response. I appreciate hearing from you.

President Obama, as required under the War Powers Act, is consulting Congress before taking action related to the use of chemical weapons by the Government of Syria. I applaud him for pursuing this consultation, since various Presidents have at times ignored this requirement.

I take the events in Syria and the consultation process extremely seriously. There are many aspects of this that I am reviewing. One is to understand the full scope of evidence pertaining to the reported use of nerve agents by Syria. In addition, why isn't there more of a coordinated international response since, as President Obama has pointed out, the "red line" on chemical weapons is an "international" red line?

Another aspect is to understand the full range of potential policy instruments that might both bring the international community together and deter future use of chemical weapons. Have we fully explored non-military options including statements of condemnation, ejection from international organizations, economic sanctions, and war crime tribunals?

Moreover, what are the risks of escalation and retaliation of largely unilateral actions? And what is the consequence of the U.S. and the international community failing to respond substantively, whether in a military or non-military manner, to the use of chemical munitions?

These are some of the issues that I am intently examining to understand the pros and cons of the options before us. I deeply appreciate knowing your views on this very important issue.

All my best,

Jeffrey A. Merkley
United States Senator

reply to post by wildtimes


I wrote Chuckie Schumer. Got a robo-response with nothing meaningful on it. Didn't even mention Syria. Sad.

I think it's great that your representative took the time to consider what his constituents are telling him, and vote accordingly. I wish more lawmakers would do this, and get voted out accordingly if they ignore it.

Interestingly, I saw Allen West (R), the former one-term Florida Congressman, on Faux News the other night. (He has sworn ever since the election that he will win his seat back.) Anyway, he said that he would have voted for a strike on Syria regardless of how his constituents felt, because to HIM, it felt like the RIGHT thing to do. Imagine that. He must have stock in Raytheon.


- Synallaxis

Thanks, all.....
please, contact your Reps....even if they don't respond to you personally, our message will get across.