Quote from: Hibush on April 25, 2024, 06:08:30 PMStudents at my school were really gung ho on divesting from fossil fuels a few years ago. They thought that news of our school selling all its oils stocks would galvanize the CEO and BoD of Shell, Exxon et alia to change their business model and go to renewables in order to win back our holdings. That seems like a fanciful expectation. More so when you realize that our holdings represented several minutes of trading in those securities on the NYSE, so even if they got dumped in a single market order, it wouldn't even blip the share price. There would be nothing for the CEO to notice.
QuoteSince the video's release, Invisible Children has come under criticism for oversimplification of events in the region and has been accused of engaging in "slacktivism", in which a person donates or takes actions that have little to no effect beyond making said person feel as if they contributed to a positive cause.
Quote from: spork on April 25, 2024, 02:41:09 PMI find it amusing that college students have taken up divestment as a cause. Divestment from what? The U.S. military-industrial complex? If they want to strike an economic blow against universities, they should spend their tuition money somewhere else -- other universities that are presumably less prestigious -- and convince others to do the same. Calls for divestment are either clueless or virtue signaling.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on April 25, 2024, 08:07:38 AMI'll start writing my second referee report today, then work on T1.
Quote from: dismalist on April 25, 2024, 08:05:24 AMQuote from: ciao_yall on April 24, 2024, 07:23:19 PMQuote from: dismalist on April 24, 2024, 11:12:48 AMQuoteI can't think of any example where a superior military power was actually able to dislodge a rag tag militia that can hide among the populace, take a few pot shots, and disappear back into the crowd.
It is forgotten that the French military won the Battle of Algiers and, indeed, controlled Algeria. Algeria gained independence because of support from outside. This was called "the internationalization of the conflict". This strategy has been imitated by the PLO, and now Hamas. Placing armed fighters among the civilian population is intended to cause lots of civilian casualties, which are then thought to stimulate outside support.
I don't think it will be successful because the Battle for Gaza is being fought by a neighboring, independent country with an existential interest in complete victory, something that metropolitan France never had -- French soil was not seriously threatened by the NLF.
Less dramatic historical memory surrounds the Malayan Emergency [1948 - 1960] because the British defeated the insurgents.
^ This.
Viet Nam is a great example.
The US Civil War was a classic example. On paper, the North should have won in 20 minutes. They had all the industry, weapons, wealth. What did they have to do to the South, and how long did it take, for them to finally get the South to surrender?
It is also overlooked that the Viet Cong were destroyed upon their Tet offensive. But the war didn't end because North Vietnamese regulars got involved. What Hamas has learned from the Vietnam War is that to defeat the United States, or affect its policy, one has to get at the US home front propagandistically. This is what is unfolding now. But there is so little at stake for US voters, I doubt it will make any difference.
The US Civil War was a conventional war. It is an example of something else: The attempt to internationalize the conflict, as the NLF did successfully. The South initially embargoed cotton, hoping to starve British factories of inputs and thus getting Britain to declare war on the North. This failed miserably. It did what the North could not do the first year of the war -- blockade the South.