Viddler

Brilliant and compelling discussion worth every minute of the watch. I agree there is very little that is inspiring about the anti-war movement. It is defeatist, opportunistic, and ultimately confused. Looking at it more carefully, it is not even anti war. When you call on the UN to intervene, as the anti-war movement often does, how can you claim to be anti-war when the UN was born on BOMBING the hell out of Japanese cities (among its many other problems), huh?

Folks, it is not just the government, UN or NATO - it is us! we are so comfy in our life-shells that we pass people who lie in the street (who knows, are they drunk or having a heart attack?) as we genuinely need to feel safe aka undisturbed by anything unpleasant or threatening. In our perfectly normal desire for safety, however, we slided down towards just being passive and afraid. THAT is why even our anti-war movements proliferate personal detachment for the sake of personal safety, which in the end FEEDS wrongful doings of NATO and the rest. So, lets get to principles and have an adult discussion to find solution, it is time

Great discussion, really got a lot out of it. Sadly the anti war movement props up the West's pointless wars overseas. They offer no argument in favour of the people in Afghanistan being handed over the resources they need and left alone to run their own affairs for example, they lean instead on "our" soldiers that are being killed. So anti war movements may claim they are challenging our governments but they actually do the very opposite. The West go from war and intervention overseas to another without any real politics behind it and the anti war movement does nothing to challenge this.

So, what now? We have this pseudo anti war movement, we have war supporters, we have those in between the chairs and some who simply don’t care. Brendon O’Neill wants to discuss it like adults. We need a new awareness to rise. Some productive clash of ideas and convictions.
How do we do that? I guess, the publication of this discussion is the first step towards that. But of course we cannot be content with only that.

At the Battle of Ideas, which took place at the Royal College of Arts in London last weekend, both academics and average citizens debated about when it is right to go to war. Unfortunately, I could not attend it, so I do not know about the results, or the prevalent opinions. However, it’s certainly a sign that people want to talk about the issue.
Both pro war and (pseudo) anti war movement get a lot of attention from the media, while opinions like Brendon O’Neills still are unknown to large parts of the population. More people need to be told about it, especially those in the movements who may not even be aware of what they are really doing. This way, change can happen.

An interesting discussion. It seems that most of the people who claim to be anti war are not general pacifists or anti imperialists, instead, they are 'anti war' only as it applies to a particular conflict i.e. Iraq or Afghanistan. As such in using such a broad term (anti war) to refer to one particular context (Iraq or Afghanistan), the anti war movement has gained virtual control of the argument which in turn allows them to dictate on what it means to be anti war.

That was a pretty thought-provoking discussion. I'm moved to comment upon the role that the mainstream media plays in quelling critical analysis general. It is refreshing to see accepted paradigms challenged in the way that this film seeks to. As an example, I've become used to so-called 'objective' mainstream media outlets (the BBC and the Guardian spring to mind) perpetuating lazy analysis about countries such as Zimbabwe, in which Mugabe is ceaselessly demonised and Western Governments lionised for their attempts to bring about an 'acceptable democratic solution' there. The issues that O’Neill raises, such as British colonisation (and the continued benefits reaped by the West), or the ways in which the appropriation of land continues to perpetuate inequality, are rarely analysed by the mainstream media to provide context for the current political landscape. What we get instead is a discourse that only heightens the perceived legitimacy for Western intervention (military or otherwise).

On a personal level, this also causes me to consider my own disengagement with political processes as represented in the media. It is often claimed that people are experiencing an increasing cynicism and dislocation with politics in this country, and I would suggest that the ways in which the media stifles and manipulates political debate is a primary cause. In many ways, it seems as though the agenda of the anti-war movement that O'Neill criticises is a logical conclusion to the experience of living in a society where media dissipates dissent and critical thinking. For all the (sometimes valid) arguments against user-generated online content, I feel films such as this provide an important counterbalance to prevailing ideas in mainstream media outlets.