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.
Quote from: kaysixteen on April 23, 2024, 08:12:05 PMAnyone see 'Civil War' yet? Worth seeing?
Quote from: downer on April 25, 2024, 09:18:33 AMMaybe they could allow food trucks to come to campus.Post-pandemic, my university used food trucks, as a short-term solution to losing our on-campus food services (which was contracted out to some loser company who couldn't live up to their end of the agreement). We lost some significant parking spaces, but it solved our 1+ year problem of inadequate on-campus food options after the pandemic.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on April 25, 2024, 10:06:19 AMQuote from: marshwiggle on April 25, 2024, 08:53:11 AMQuote from: Parasaurolophus on April 25, 2024, 08:10:32 AMQuote from: marshwiggle on April 25, 2024, 08:04:13 AMIt's fine for students to "denounce" oppression; what they need to be made to understand that history is a long game. Whatever they do right now is unlikely to have any visible impact, but the concerted actions of people with influence and authority, over time, will change things for the better.
So is the idea that they should just wait until they have influence and authority, and then they should work for incremental change?
They have very little power right now, but they're hoping to influence some of the people with more power to start changing things for the better. What's wrong with trying to exert some influence, even if they're not successful? Is that not part of long-term incremental change for the better?
Remember the truckers in Ottawa, and blockading bridges to the U.S.? The idea that anyone who thinks they can support a righteous cause by engaging in illegal activity undermines the whole idea of what a democratic society is about. Legitimate protest is an opportunity to get people to hear your message, so that you have the chance to win them over to it. Extorting them into doing what you want in order to get on with their lives makes winning them over to your cause irrelevant.
Indeed, I do remember. And I remember being just fine with them demonstrating and even blocking traffic. I was not okay with their setting open fires, because that is a significant public safety risk. I was also not okay with their blaring air horns (which cause permanent hearing damage) in residential neighbourhoods, especially at all times of the day and night (clearly an attempt to inflict sleep deprivation on residents). You'll recall I also opposed the invocation of the War Measures Act.
As for the bridge blockade, I have no problem with a bridge blockade in principle, save that those assholes were armed with firearms. That's absolutely not okay, and a serious danger to public safety.