tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6220299165806866855.post3615631221568055618..comments2016-04-09T03:45:45.102-07:00Comments on The Obama Watch: National Security & Foreign PolicyWeisz (Michel C. Zala)http://www.blogger.com/profile/15082590035654575212noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6220299165806866855.post-46850434832580637902008-03-14T15:35:00.000-07:002008-03-14T15:35:00.000-07:00Hello again, KevThanks for spreading your comments...Hello again, Kev<BR/>Thanks for spreading your comments corresponding to the specific threads. <BR/><BR/>In terms of job search and how to make the best of your resume/coverletter, I am sure I can help. Go ahead and mail me your basic material.<BR/><BR/>With regard to your specific comment here - Yes, it is exactly this kind of modesty I like about John Mccain. he is not using his children in a cheap manner, but always tries to do the right thing, even if nobody looks. Yes, Character counts indeed.<BR/><BR/>As far as the often mentioned temper is concerned - my answer is "gimme a break!".<BR/>Look, it is such a thin line between passion and being passionate about something and emotion. Why should our President not feel passionate about something up to sometimes "losing it" over some stupidity? It is just plain human and nobody can say that John's Temper has ever led him to a specific decision or shooting from the hip. I find a bit of a temper quirte actually refreshing in this world of caution and political correctness with politicians who could have been massproduced out of some mold.<BR/>Once again I sure can identify with this man, as sometimes it is really difficult not to show emotion. In other words - the so called temper of John McCain is actually something positive. He is no robot but just another human being like us. As long as this temper does not interfere withhis duties, causes bad decisions, hell, show me some emotions and allow me to identify with you. We give John McCain so much credit in terms of experience and integrity. His track record as well should allow us to give him the benefit of the doubt that emotion would never motivate him to take any action.<BR/>Could you sincerely think that this man, who has now truly been there and done that, seen and experienced the worst in mankind, could possibly "blow a fuse" and take action with grave cnsequences in the heat of the moment? Not in a million years.Weisz (Michel C. Zala)https://www.blogger.com/profile/15082590035654575212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6220299165806866855.post-16520821897289875022008-03-14T12:36:00.000-07:002008-03-14T12:36:00.000-07:00Indeed, I did stray a little from the original top...Indeed, I did stray a little from the original topic in my last post so I will endeavor to stay more on the issue of "national security" here. But before I start, let me say that it is very generous of you to offer such a critique and I will eagerly accept and follow up with an email.<BR/><BR/>One thing I learned recently from an article in the NYTimes is that Senator McCain has a son in Iraq serving in the Marines. Or at least he had been serving---I'm not sure if he still is. It should come as no surprise given that military service is often a tradition in families. Nevertheless I find it interesting that he tries to downplay his son's role. That he could be in favor of a presence in Iraq at all must mean that he is willing to divorce personal interest from professional judgment. It speaks highly to his degree of honesty, and sense of modesty. On the issue of national security, I will concede that McCain is probably the best choice. However, the press has mentioned his temper at times. Does that temper inform on his ability to govern and decide on issues of national security? I think it would be folly to ignore it unless we are sure such displays are not representative of the person.Kevhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07778414215976087944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6220299165806866855.post-59438649907684322472008-03-13T12:45:00.000-07:002008-03-13T12:45:00.000-07:00Hi KevI sure understand your situation and time co...Hi Kev<BR/><BR/>I sure understand your situation and time constraints. As Top Exec I hired (and fired) many - if you want a second pair of eyes for a review/edit of your resume, I am happy to help and come back with some advice, if you wish. You can attach a copy or your resume (and your cover letter to an e-mail to michel.zala@roadrunner.com.<BR/><BR/>Well, Michigan is a tough place - but believe you me - California has been hit hard as well. In this thread ( I must try to be disciplined) I can not go any further, as it is devoted to National Security. I will say as much, as that I do agree that Clinton would certainly be the better Dem Candidate, albeit she is simply not electable, as she polarizes the coountry to a far worse extent as Obama. On tp of that, At this point, if Clinton somehow managed to get the nomination, it would set the Dem Party back for a decade, disenfranchising a large segment of traditional Democrats, while rasing an army of Reps due to deep seeded animosity.<BR/>To your last remarks - do not confuse our current state of the economy ( which has nothing to do with Parties, but is a normal biorythm) with a result of the current or recent administrations.<BR/><BR/>Democratic Platform ( as again demonstrated) is large Gov, interfering sytle, trade subventioins and trade protection, higher taxes and traditionally higher deficits.<BR/><BR/>John McCain stands for a better, healthier America, not just one segement of the population.(I'll fight for the small guy is just a campaign slogan). he is right. If America does better, everybody will do better. as simnple, yet comprehensive) as that.<BR/>Right now it very much looks like Obama vs. McCain. I researched Obama's record a bit more and realized, that there is no record. From the get go, the man planned to become US president, the Senate only a stepping stone.<BR/>Evidently one can find a lot with McCain to disagree with, as that man did not only vote but took hard tough stances with built-in controversy. To attack McCain on that, while accepting that Obama did not take onoe hard toough decision one could hold against him later, is simply against any sense of fairness.<BR/><BR/>Today - on MSNBC ( left oriented media) one could find a long article to Obama's role during his Senate Term...... I linked it under "Facts about senator Obama".<BR/><BR/>Clearly it comes to the conclusion that Obama is a great fund raiser, a rock star with great popularity. A pragmatist running on nothing but this image.<BR/><BR/>Do you really think this man has the credentials, experience, willingness to get anything done he shied away in the past? Right now, America needs a doer - not a talker. Michigan deserves it to get change implemented - not just talked about.<BR/>Regards<BR/>MichelWeisz (Michel C. Zala)https://www.blogger.com/profile/15082590035654575212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6220299165806866855.post-45084117677977353572008-03-12T20:40:00.000-07:002008-03-12T20:40:00.000-07:00Michel,I apologize for taking so long to get back ...Michel,<BR/><BR/>I apologize for taking so long to get back to this blog for I had meant to return much sooner. Unfortunately, my primary mission at this point in time is to secure employment as quickly as possible, a task which I have diligently but unsuccessfully set myself to with great vigor.<BR/><BR/>How's that for painting things in a more favorable light? <BR/><BR/>Well I'm not sure at this point which candidate I'd have the most criticism for although critiquing McCain is a little more problematic. Those are interesting and valid points you raised in the last blog about the potential for a worsening economic crisis. Presently I would say that the economy in West Michigan has already been in a recession w/ an 8% unemployment rate and a housing market that crashed long ago. It stands to lose many of the jobs and could get much worse if the Big 3 automakers continue to lose market share to foreign companies as they have been. So many of the issues you bring up---health care affordability and its impact on our own wallets---gas prices---legislation of OP's (inevitable but hopefully delayed) I think hearken back to the expression "it's the economy stupid". I agree a hundred percent that Obama is a blank page and the wrong choice in that you don't take a guy out of MBA school and make him CEO just as you don't take an ivy-league groomed candidate and make him president so early in his career. But if Hillary pushes through this and gets the super delegates, wouldn't she be the better choice? When we hit the Great Depression and unemployment was at 25%, there was no safety net at that time, no social programs in place. It was FDR that put these into place, later on LBJ and (if I remember correctly) his war on poverty. In any case it was the democrats that put this into place and not the Republicans. So how can I be sure that McCain, even with his likable down to Earth personality, would look out for the little guy (because I still fall into that category, though I'd much rather fall into the "wealthy corporate friendly" one)???<BR/><BR/>On the OPT and OP issues, I think that's a viable idea as the forum is pretty dead at the moment. It used to be more interesting but as funds are limited I've diverted attention elsewhere anyways. But good ideas.Kevhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07778414215976087944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6220299165806866855.post-363157746969880152008-03-06T14:01:00.000-08:002008-03-06T14:01:00.000-08:00To Kevin's last comments:NOam Chomsky, a writer of...To Kevin's last comments:<BR/><BR/>NOam Chomsky, a writer of the uttermost left spectre, must always be taken with a ton (not a grain) of salt. Brilliant at times but a hardcore socialist.<BR/><BR/>The argument of the Irak War having created more terrorists is certainly a valid point, but can not be proven either way. After all, please do not forget that it was Saddasm also who offered a reward to any suicide bomber (family) in Israel. While WMDs haven't been found after the chaos, it was fact that he tried to acquire them, inasmuch as the Iranian's do it now.<BR/>Fact is that while the losing Sunni may have been radicalized, the so called war on terror has worked and we have not seen one more attack since 9/11 other than a few thwarted ones. Due to a coprehensive effort on various dimensions and locations, Al Khaeda does seem to be on the run and not able to mount the logisitcs of a successful attack from their hideouts in Somalia and Afgahnistan/Pakistan. At least as far as homeland security is concerned the often blamed Bush Admin did something right.<BR/><BR/>Hindsight is always 20/20. Think back at 9/11's aftermath. Very very hard decisions had to be taken with mistakes almost a given in such a tumultuous moment. Almost all Americans including the Europeans stood behind us in our disgust for a genocidal dictator who gased 25000Kurds in Halabdja. For that alone he deserved to go.<BR/>Now look at the geostrategic situation with the crude oil price exceeding $100 just this week. For as long, as we depend on 25-40% of our oil from this region, we must keep the region stable and have a local presence, exactly the same, as when we staioned troops in Germany to keep the Sovjets at bay.<BR/><BR/>As far as Health care goes, John still needs to present his plan.<BR/>One thing is for sure - neither Clinton's nor Obama's Cloud castles can be implemented. Want to know, how universal health care in Europe in effect look like? 500$/month mandated insurance cost and 50% co-pay on treatment. Up to 25%of income towards health care. Trillions of debth. Pension age at 72. It is not financiable.<BR/><BR/>Economy ( special thread in fact) I will only say that the DEM platformns result in a desaster. ONly free trade and a non-interfering gov lends itself to a stable economy. Economical ups and downs are natural biorythms which shoul dnot be mistaken as fault of the current admin.<BR/><BR/>And by the way - we are not in a that bad condition, as the media tries to let us believe.<BR/><BR/>I can guarantee you, should the Dems come to power, we will slide into a deep recession almost immediately.<BR/><BR/>IN the end you are right - we face enormouos challenges on almost any front, which is exactly why I can not bring it over myself to disregard experience, track record and qualifications and bet the country on promises and slogans.<BR/><BR/>One reason why Obama lost TX and Ohio was that finally the media and the voters grew old of his slogans and started to examine the man a bit deeper. I hope that this trend continues, forcing Obama to take clear positions on issues. His inexperience and naivety will very quickly manifest itself.<BR/><BR/>Just ask yourself, what an election of Obama woul din fact mean to you and your family individually:<BR/><BR/>- you will pay several k more taxes every year.<BR/>- You will find yourself mandated, as far as health care is concerned. Choices will be taken from you.<BR/>- The gov will interfere and legislate aspects such as OPs almost immediately.<BR/>- Treatment will even more than in the past be governed by Washington and the insurance...<BR/>- Choices wil lbe taken from you in almost any aspect of our civil liberties...<BR/>- Irak will be abandoned hastily with Islamic Fanatics proclaiming victory, hence gaining enthused recruits for a further motivated terror strategy against us "infidels".<BR/>- Resulting instability in the region will cause your gallon gas prize to hit 6-10$.....pushing us into a true rezession.<BR/>- your retirment age will be ending up at >70, as no one can npay for these programs...<BR/><BR/>Just a few direct home hitting consequences possible, if we elect Obama......and I could go on and on.<BR/><BR/>In conclusion: this election will have direct consequences to you, Kevin and me. Doesn;t that warrant a bit of due diligence for the hiring process of this position? <BR/><BR/>Can we really afford to just buy into promises, image campaigns and slogans of change and hope, when the consequences of that choice hit home that hard?<BR/><BR/>With John, we know precisely, what we will get. No buts and ifs, backpedaling or flip flopping. A known quantity, honorable, honest, stiff, stubborn, passionate, worldwide respected by Reps and Dems alike and driven.<BR/><BR/>Ask youself, why John uses the means of Townhall Meetings for his prevalent campaign methode and not just speeches. He allows for questions, follow up questions and a discussion. The others deliver mainly stump speeches and Saturday Night live.<BR/>As I do, John does not shy away from a debate with his own voters.<BR/><BR/>Finally I get a president who is willing to offer honesty, even if sacrificing votes.<BR/><BR/>Once again - I vote for substance over style.Weisz (Michel C. Zala)https://www.blogger.com/profile/15082590035654575212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6220299165806866855.post-69642544920078262102008-03-06T13:06:00.000-08:002008-03-06T13:06:00.000-08:00Hey Kev - nice of you to come on board.Kind of sa...Hey Kev - nice of you to come on board.<BR/><BR/>Kind of sad any effort to have a spirited debate on the OPT site is being extinguished right away. Boring in fact to see everybody kind of parroting each other.... and keeping the discussin on a superficial level...<BR/>Your thread as well as mine immediately created views and replies and all the others just seem to stagnate.... I do not really see, where the moderators come from....<BR/><BR/>Any how - here, I invite honesty, openness up to a spritied debate and will not exercise censorship, even, if my positions should be attacked vehemently - and they will, as people are as emotionally vested in this year's election as never before. So - please, do not feel the same way as in the OPT site, where you backed off quite a few times to "keep the church in the village", as they saying goes...<BR/><BR/>This is about a refreshing, spirited debate, where you can dish out as hard, as you are willing to take, for as long as we do not innsulot each other on a personal level. Hope you can bring a few friends with a sharp mind over to this not advertized blog - Hey - I would even invite Fekim and Yorko to prove my points. As I am no longer on the OPT site ( too much censorship), please go ahead and invite anyone over who has an outspoken mind and wants to have a truly gripping debate.<BR/><BR/>I am more than willing to go as far an open up a thread with regard to Healthcare/OP issues in context with these elections, if you wish in order to continue "The decision making process", qwhich has been closed on OPT, where some form of hibernation has set in again....<BR/>What do ya think?Weisz (Michel C. Zala)https://www.blogger.com/profile/15082590035654575212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6220299165806866855.post-34100660612928701672008-03-06T12:01:00.000-08:002008-03-06T12:01:00.000-08:00That's an interesting point about Rumsfield I had ...That's an interesting point about Rumsfield I had no idea McCain was a part of his sacking. It was in no small part due to Rumsfield's misguided military opinions that the Iraq war was bungled. I remember that he wanted to send even fewer troops there than we did, relying more on special ops units, a recipe for disaster. Boots on the ground still count for too much during an occupation. But it was his was post-invasion expectations for stability that were off, not his estimate of how easy it would be to invade. Our commander-in-chief I think relied too much on Rumsfield, and that contributed to how events have unfolded.<BR/><BR/>But what about Noam Chomsk's opinion in one of his more recent books that the Iraq War has created more terrorists than it has vanquished? I think that's a valid point, and quantifying the good or bad outcome of the war is too difficult so that we can neither condone nor condemn our decision to invade.<BR/><BR/>I agree that Obama is too much of a blank page. I remember seeing him interviewed on MSNBC, and he was asked to cite personal history for future decision making, and he had to backpedal and polito-speak. On the point of national security McCain may in fact be our best choice. But other issues warrant consideration, such as health care, the state of our economy. I cannot base my vote solely on my uncertain prediction of how well the U.S. may project strength if one candidate is elected over another. And I cannot believe that Republicans in office will help middle and lower class Americans.Kevhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07778414215976087944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6220299165806866855.post-48798073245323334982008-02-22T12:41:00.000-08:002008-02-22T12:41:00.000-08:00Good Points.I always felt, we did the right thing ...Good Points.<BR/><BR/>I always felt, we did the right thing for the wrong reasons - and we did it without thoroughly addressing the post war situation.<BR/><BR/>As former member of the armed forces you should be proud of he fact that the US removed one of the worst dictators ever and at the same time established an urgently needed presence in a region we still procure half of our oil from. Stability in this region is of significant importance to the National security of all western democracies. That should give you a hint of an answer as far as the WHY is concerned.<BR/>Inasmuch, as I argue for pragmatism and not a widespread Islamophobic panic, we must at the same time acknowledge, that we are enemy 1 for millions of islamic fanatics. Establishing a solid Iraki Democracy (which takes time) counterbalancing the Iranian fundamentalists is of strategic importance.<BR/>Obama's stand of withdrawing the troops in 2009 is not only naive and would send the wrong message to these people, it woul dbe outright dangerous and a slap in the face of every soldier who bled for the liberty of the Iraki people.<BR/>Yes Rumsfeld and company blundered the post war effort - but let us not forget that John was instrumental in sacking him and brings a deep knowldege of t hese issues to the table. Exactly because he is a POW and knows the horrors of war on a personal level, he will never send the troops lightly to war. On the other hand, put yourself into the shoes of Osama Bin laden or any rogue country such as IRAN - whom would they rather like to see in the White House? Can you imagine the propaganda after an early hasty withdrawal? Who would literally jump into a vacuum ? Iran, Russia, Syria....<BR/>As hard as it is to imagine for many, we have entered a new form of Cold War with Russia, China and couontries like Iran, Nkorea, Syria et al. Only deterrence is a proven methode, keeping such regimes in check. No messages of hope and kumbajah will ever work. It is a historical fact.<BR/>I spoke about "predictability". <BR/>John brings that to the table. Ask yourself the what if question and you know as potential enemy of the US, what the ramifications of aggressions would be. That is a good thing, as it makes them think twice, before messing with the US and its allies. That is the reason the Cold War never erupted into a hot one.<BR/>Not knowing, what Obama would do (other than is idiotic notion of invading Pakistan) the room for interpretation would be much wider.<BR/>His suggested retreat with a promised time line wouol dbe interpreted by islamic fundamantalists as victory, motivating many more recruits to join their forces. The consequences on every dimension of the issue would be disastrous.<BR/><BR/>Dear Friend, Fear and Paranoia with regard to our personal and national security is not necessarily a bad thing.Before 9/11, if anyone had predicted such an atrocity, he would have been laughed out of the building. We all then watched these towers come down in utter disbelief.<BR/>Now look at IRAN - an entire country full of fundamentalists with a govermnent full of radical Fanatics who still openly proclaim that Israel must be eradicated.<BR/>This country alone warrants a solid presence of the US in the immediate region to keep their nasty ambitions in check with a tough and experienced commander in chief. Please try to imagine the region after Obama;s hasty retreat. A nightmare scenario without a doubt.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6220299165806866855.post-2138044077776606452008-02-22T11:46:00.000-08:002008-02-22T11:46:00.000-08:00On the point of National Security, I think the Rep...On the point of National Security, I think the Republicans have bungled the whole Iraq War and having served in the sandbox myself I still ask myself "why are we over here?" I'd like to see the Democrats in office to avoid pointless conflicts, so long as they are not Islamic sympathizers which I perceive Obama to be. I am no fan of Obama, and no fan of Islamic extremism. It does seem at times that we are surrounded by enemies, but we shouldn't let fear or paranoia dictate our decisions. Historically, Republicans have always been better in their approach to protecting our country, so I would consider McCain. His time as a POW is not a factor in his favor, though his military service is.. . .Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com