VDH: two themes combined

[cema]

Someone in my friends feed has been complaining about certain elite universities, and (separately) Hacker News linked to articles questioning how much elite education is worth. This is one theme; the other one is Obama's policies, especially foreign.

Victor Hanson managed to combined them in one essay. I am not sure what to make of it, but it reads nice.

Comments

[sowa.livejournal.com]

"Obama's foreign policy will not result in damage to the US of A..."

I believe that he already damaged the foreign policy by declaring USA weakness (very much like in the story). But what proof of this will you accept? What should happen for you to agree? Something spectacular, like nuclear exchange between Iran and Israel? Or you would blame it on them, not on O. appeasement policies? Or may be confirmed nukes in Iran possession will be enough? Or you don't care about this?

proof of what - the damage?

[tandem-bike.livejournal.com]

i don't think there has been damage so far...

here i can argue some.

1) all of his mealy-mouthed talk aimed at the muslims - is.. just talk. he can declare weaknesses and "reach out" to the muslim world all day - this does not change policy. the savvier arabs picked up on that. he did profess an unbreakable bond with Israel. this was THE ONLY part of those 3 speeches that was not hot air...

2) nuclear exchange, as you say, between Iran and Israel, is alas a possibility. i don't think we want to live to see this.. but the analysts in my alma ( WW) think it is coming. i hope they are wrong! ( Cema would say they are another elite group in an elite uni!)

Re: proof of what - the damage?

[sowa.livejournal.com]

My question is: what will convince you that O damaged US foreign policy?

Depending on you answer, I may say: yes, this did not happened yet, or even very unlikely to happen. Or I may say: let's wait a little. Or that it is happened already, but you didn't noticed (this is unlikely, I believe).

Without a benchmark, it is nearly impossible to argue. For example.

1) You separated his speeches into two parts. About one you say that it is just talk, about other - it is unbreakable. And I think that there are two parts, but it is the part about the unbreakable bond with Israel which is just talk.

O is already twisting arms of Israeli's. He even refused to assign somebody of decent stature to talk with a recent delegation. He refuses to talk about the Iran treat, insists on halting the natural development of the settlements. One part of the former Palestine should be Judenfrei in his (not really his, all "progressives" agree on that) vision, the other should accord equal right to both Arabs and Jews.

2) So, if this possibility turns out to be reality with O in office, would you agree that his foreign policy failed?

P.S. Have no idea what WW is.

Re: proof of what - the damage?

[tandem-bike.livejournal.com]

Answer: i guess time will comnvince me, and only time. Carter did damage US foreign policy despite being teh most well-internioned of people. still is.

i could give you a horror scenario - but i don't think even that would have meant that O is at faulty, same as i do not blame Bush for 9/11 like many people do. i partially blame Clinton, actually.

re 1) i hope you are wrong. but i see your point - why am i saying his overtures to arabs are TALK, and to Israel we pledge unconditional support?

the answer is _ ALL is talk. BUT. if he starts withdrawing financial and military help to Israel, or ( even less likely) starts supporting Hamas, yes, that would mean you are right. hope not!!


"Palestine should be Judenfrei in his (not really his, all "progressives" agree on that) vision, the other should accord equal right to both Arabs and Jews"

unfair, eh? agree, especially given the ratio of arab states to jewish states.

but then - what IS fair, in your opinion??
i believe in this - plan A - Israel says no, no palestinian state is possible, we are going to slowly reclaim our historical land - that is honest, but where do the arabs go, then??
or, plan B, if Israel says, yes let's hava a palestinian state but control it closely to prevent another Gaza - then not expanding settlements but abolishing them to create a reasonable border would be the next step.

plan A seems insane. plan B has problems, but appears more "fair" to both sides. what do you say, professor?

WW is Woudrow Wilson school at p-ton where i sat out quietly many middle-eaast-related debates.

2) if this is a reality that he literally betrays and abandons israel - NO T LIKELY - i will move to israel and that would be teh end of that.

Re: proof of what - the damage?

[sowa.livejournal.com]

"Carter did damage US foreign policy despite being teh most well-internioned of people. still is."

Agree with the first part. Totally disagree with the second. I don't know any other open anti-semite among recent US Presidents. His islamophilia and admiration of Khomeini are at the roots of all problems in this part of world that we have now. His hypocrisy (ср. анекдот про надувное бревно для Ильича) is beyond any limits.

Next, you changed you position. Now it is ALL talk. So, we agreed on an important issue: O commitment to the Israel is JUST TALK.

Concerning your plan A (it is not my plan, neither N's, I believe, but let me comment on it anyhow). I am not sure that you are aware of the fact the very notion of "Palestinian people" is of quite recent vintage. It did not existed in 1970, for example. So, there are no palestinians, there are arabs. And there are dozens of arab states, including extremely rich and with huge territory. They, not Israel, should be pressed to become part of solution, not a (hidden) part of the problem.

I noticed that you posted this question in your journal. To my regret, the discussion there turned out to be not particularly pleasant. And main part in it is taken not by you (there are no your comments at all), but by you dear friend Taki Net. I respect your feelings for this particular user, but my feelings are quite different (and I hope that you will respect them also). So, commenting there is out of question.

Actually, I wrote about these issues, but not in my journal. Once quite recently, once several years ago. But I don't want us to intrude into these journals with our conversation.

Here is an offer. I create a small group of friend, including you and cema, and excluding all about whom I have reasons to believe that they cannot participate in a decent discussion (of these issues). I post links to these two discussion, open only to this group, and we may talk there.

offer,,,

[tandem-bike.livejournal.com]

okay.. let's try..yes.

Re: offer,,,

[sowa.livejournal.com]

Done.

[cema.livejournal.com]

Thanks.

Re: proof of what - the damage?

[whocares1970.livejournal.com]

>> if he starts withdrawing financial and military help to Israel... <<

If I may:

WASHINGTON - The Obama administration has blocked Israel's request for
advanced U.S.-origin attack helicopters...

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2009/ss_israel0424_05_27.asp

[cema.livejournal.com]

Things like this have been happening in the past, one action could be explained away. Of course, in case of Obama we already seem to have the preponderance of evidence that he is trying to impose his view on Israelies and push it through with arrogance.

[whocares1970.livejournal.com]

I agree. I guess I am viewing Obama as being on the wrong side overall, thus I react to these things differently now. During the time of Bush, I would be calling the White House comment line, but with Obama - I do not see what would be the point...