<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Nugent</title>
	<atom:link href="http://essays.ssrc.org/minerva/2008/10/20/nugent/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://essays.ssrc.org/minerva/2008/10/20/nugent/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 Jan 2009 16:59:17 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>By: Sean</title>
		<link>http://essays.ssrc.org/minerva/2008/10/20/nugent/#comment-90</link>
		<dc:creator>Sean</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Dec 2008 09:33:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://essays.ssrc.org/minerva/?p=110#comment-90</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Dylan,
How was our response to aid and rescue the victims of the tsunami in 2004 an example of neo-colonialism and cultural hegemony? And what is the alternative? Would you rather they have died? The U.S. does not exactly have alternative institutions capable of carrying out operations involving such logistical complexities.

And what of our weapons? I will admit that there are often far better options than the use of force but there are parts of this world where we could not effectively operate without the protection those weapons provide. There are parts of central Africa where Doctors Without Borders will not go - cannot go - to provide medical care because it is &quot;too dangerous.&quot; But we can. We go with our weapons not to threaten or to force but to establish some semblance of security so that we can provide sufficient care.

Your assumptions about the military and what it does are reductive and overly simplistic.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dylan,<br />
How was our response to aid and rescue the victims of the tsunami in 2004 an example of neo-colonialism and cultural hegemony? And what is the alternative? Would you rather they have died? The U.S. does not exactly have alternative institutions capable of carrying out operations involving such logistical complexities.</p>
<p>And what of our weapons? I will admit that there are often far better options than the use of force but there are parts of this world where we could not effectively operate without the protection those weapons provide. There are parts of central Africa where Doctors Without Borders will not go &#8211; cannot go &#8211; to provide medical care because it is &#8220;too dangerous.&#8221; But we can. We go with our weapons not to threaten or to force but to establish some semblance of security so that we can provide sufficient care.</p>
<p>Your assumptions about the military and what it does are reductive and overly simplistic.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dylan</title>
		<link>http://essays.ssrc.org/minerva/2008/10/20/nugent/#comment-89</link>
		<dc:creator>Dylan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Oct 2008 02:27:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://essays.ssrc.org/minerva/?p=110#comment-89</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;The US military has changed profoundly since WW II&quot; - please clarify &#039;profoundly&#039;, still seems like a huge entity designed for imperial gain and expanding markets.

You seem to be saying it does many benevolent deeds when im reading in those same deeds neo-colonialism and cultural hegemony, maybe not by the barrel of a gun, but certainly with threats of some sort be they legal, social, political, economic, that all ultimately can be backed up by the barrel of a gun.

You also seem to be saying there is much overlap between the research interests of civilian operations and military ones. The militarisation of society, or rather the encouragement of both civil and military society in my humble opinion is a huge red flag warning of danger on the road ahead. The culture turn pursued by the military via minerva is a way to increase the relationship between private contractors and the military, it is the privatization of the research community at the behest of military command.

I wish people were less accepting of the status quo and more ready to demonstrate against it. Have we given up on the idea of fundamental societal change for good? Are we just going to accept the reach of the military into our universities and research agendas? The funding circuit is already skewed to the interests of the powerful lobbyist groups, why are we adding the most powerful economic lobbyist group itself?

Your defense that the connections are already there is one i fail to agree with, even if you can prove it with data. In my opinion we should draw the line somewhere, and if not, well then we should just admit were all soldiers of some sort now anyway and stop pretending we&#039;re not.

thanks for your time...]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;The US military has changed profoundly since WW II&#8221; &#8211; please clarify &#8216;profoundly&#8217;, still seems like a huge entity designed for imperial gain and expanding markets.</p>
<p>You seem to be saying it does many benevolent deeds when im reading in those same deeds neo-colonialism and cultural hegemony, maybe not by the barrel of a gun, but certainly with threats of some sort be they legal, social, political, economic, that all ultimately can be backed up by the barrel of a gun.</p>
<p>You also seem to be saying there is much overlap between the research interests of civilian operations and military ones. The militarisation of society, or rather the encouragement of both civil and military society in my humble opinion is a huge red flag warning of danger on the road ahead. The culture turn pursued by the military via minerva is a way to increase the relationship between private contractors and the military, it is the privatization of the research community at the behest of military command.</p>
<p>I wish people were less accepting of the status quo and more ready to demonstrate against it. Have we given up on the idea of fundamental societal change for good? Are we just going to accept the reach of the military into our universities and research agendas? The funding circuit is already skewed to the interests of the powerful lobbyist groups, why are we adding the most powerful economic lobbyist group itself?</p>
<p>Your defense that the connections are already there is one i fail to agree with, even if you can prove it with data. In my opinion we should draw the line somewhere, and if not, well then we should just admit were all soldiers of some sort now anyway and stop pretending we&#8217;re not.</p>
<p>thanks for your time&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
