By Tim Stone on February 15th, 2009 at 3:29 pm.
In June 2006 PC Gamer UK replaced its long-running Devil’s Advocaat column (provocative analysis of egg-based liqueurs) with a Devil’s Advocate column (provocative analysis of game-related subjects). It was a popular move. What follows is one of my contributions. Military shooters had been getting some stick for trivialising war. I waded in, semi-seriously, in their defence.
War traumatises, brutalises, and destroys. War scars, steals innocence and takes life randomly. War is an ordeal, a nightmare, a necessary and unnecessary evil.
If you want blindingly obvious ‘insights’ like these go watch Platoon, Saving Private Ryan, Apocalypse Now, or the evening news. If, on the other hand, you’re after real revelations – genuine profundity – I recommend Call of Duty, Brothers In Arms, Day of Defeat or any other half-decent military shooter.
For decades now, directors, documentary makers and war correspondents have been busy filling our heads with safe, socially responsible representations of conflict. These representations are massively important in a world where governments are so ready to trade the lives of their citizens for power and profit, but they are, on the whole, worryingly incomplete. What’s missing? The most unpalatable, unfashionable truth of all:
War is fun.
Not always. Not often. Not when you’re picking pieces of your best pal’s skull out of your webbing, or listening to the girl you mistook for a foe crying for her mother through lips foamy with blood. Obviously it’s no fun then. But read memoirs, sift through unexpurgated reportage, catch veterans off-guard, and you will find the evidence. Soldiers and airmen admitting to feelings of elation, extraordinary exhilaration, glee even; warriors guiltily or shamelessly confessing that they sometimes enjoyed the experience of battle.
On the rare occasions when feelings like these find their way onto celluloid they are usually assigned to the safest of stereotypes. The private that takes pleasure in combat is a scary psychopath or a pitiful fellow unhinged by the fury of the fight. He’s a nutjob. We are shielded from the darker, more disquieting possibility that he may, in fact, be a bloke just like us. Games are much less squeamish, much more honest.
Nobody need explain to a gamer what Winston Churchill (a Boer War witness) meant by “the exhilaration of being shot at without effect” Similarly, deep-down we are probably less surprised than most when we read that level-headed Scots Guard Robert Lawrence shouted “Isn’t this fun!” during the bloody assault of Mount Tumbledown (Seconds later a sniper’s bullet destroyed 43% of his brain). The fact that Geoffrey Wellum, a strikingly sane, sensitive WW2 RAF pilot, experienced feelings of “savage delight” during a particular dogfight is not shocking to the aficionado of Battle Of Britain II or IL-2 : 1946. We understand because the recreations we revel in trigger very similar emotions.
However graphically sophisticated or gruesomely gory military shooters become in the future they will always struggle to communicate anything meaningful about the fear, pain, and grief that war generates so effortlessly. We shouldn’t criticize them too harshly for this. Other popular mediums are handling these aspects of the curriculum reasonably effectively already. We should be thankful instead, that games are providing insights that other war depictions can’t or won’t provide.
15/02/2009 at 15:35 Churchill says:
You mistook my words sir.
15/02/2009 at 15:57 A-Scale says:
War is generally regarded by those who have experienced it as one of those “horrible experiences that I wouldn’t give for the world”. All men enjoy the feeling of power that war can provide, but games give us a much safer medium to experience that pleasure. Additionally, after reading the modern realist text (JJ Mearsheimer’s The Tragedy of Great Power Politics) I’ve come to see war as a sort of beast that must be satisfied. It’s not that nations are evil entities that love to see their children chewed up by bullets, but rather that nations are in perpetual competition, and if one does not stand and defend oneself from all comers, they will be eaten alive. Provided that they follow the rules of war, all men who fight are heroes, as each risks his life to perpetuate his people.
15/02/2009 at 16:00 Dracko says:
Nah, he didn’t.
15/02/2009 at 17:10 Bonedancer says:
“Provided that they follow the rules of war, all men who fight are heroes, as each risks his life to perpetuate his people.”
That’s all very well when one’s country is threatened by an external invader and one steps up to defend hearth and home, but how does that apply to, say, Iraq? Our government, and that of the US, made a decision to spend their soldiers’ lives for a short-term political gain, rather than to protect their citizens or territory.
Now you could argue that it is our leaders’ right to do that, and I suppose you could argue that the soldiers signed up to be sacrificed – consciously or not – when they joined up. But when you’re in a foreign place killing foreign civilians – not through malice, for the most part, but by mistake or by sheer bad luck – as well as the foreign “heroes” who are trying to kill you, how does that make you a hero?
I’m not saying I’d do any better than the people who are out there – it’s an impossible situation – but anyone joining the Armed Forces these days has effectively decided that their 16K a year paycheck is more important than the lives of the people they may accidentally kill. It’s their decision to make, but it doesn’t seem very heroic to me.
I’m not even going to get started on the fact that your rose-tinted definitions would also make heroes out of suicide bombers and ethnic cleansers.
15/02/2009 at 17:10 MadTinkerer says:
Here’s an idea: We can either
1) All agree to abolish all war everywhere (because all war is bad) and not bother to defend ourselves against those who didn’t get the message (because that would be war). Also: let’s never ever help out another country via war, even if they’re getting slaughtered by someone else via war, because at least then we wouldn’t be involved in war.
2) Accept that war is part of the human condition and although it can be reduced via the major powers getting along, it can’t be can’t be eradicated 100% completely. Just like crime, injustice, disease, et cetera. Therefore, war movies that are entirely whiny and preachy and don’t show the benefits of war (like the ability to continue making preachy movies without fear of reprisal) are pointless.
3) At least agree that danger (or the illusion of danger) can be exhilarating for those experiencing it, and denying that it is so is stupid. Duh.
15/02/2009 at 17:39 Novack says:
This piece of crap is your defence for shooters?
I would be surprised if the War FPS get banned in 43 countries after reading this bullshit.
War is fun…? Are you out of your fucking mind…?
15/02/2009 at 17:43 Rich_P says:
Robert E. Lee said it best: “It is well that war is so terrible. We should grow too fond of it.”
In his fantastic book Why the Allies Won, Richard Overy describes how Churchill was like an excited schoolboy during his trip across the Atlantic to Newfoundland. He requested that his ship pass through the escort convoy so he could see the other ships in formation. He spent evenings reading about naval warfare and the age of sail. In later years, Roosevelt and Churchill would spend hours in the White House Map Room, seemingly enjoying the process of planning the entire war and looking at battle maps (much to the horror of Elenore Roosevelt). When a military aide informed Churchill that three German subs were sunk, the prime minister jumped up and shouted “We’ve got him! We’ve got him!”
And let’s not forget one of the great lines from Patton: “I love it. God help me I do love it so. I love it more than my life.”
Of course it’s easy for presidents, prime ministers, and generals to say that. They’re not the ones doing the fighting…
15/02/2009 at 17:43 Katsumoto (jvgp100) says:
Very funny Novack. I’m assuming that was ironic!
If not, look up “Devil’s Advocate” on wikipedia or something and then go and have some tea and a lie down.
15/02/2009 at 17:47 CannedLizard says:
15/02/2009 at 17:51 Pantsman says:
@MadTinkerer:
I prefer option 4, which is a modulation of 1, that being, everyone agrees that there is never a good reason to start a war, but once started, it’s better for those who don’t start wars to defend themselves, lest the world be given up to madmen.
15/02/2009 at 17:52 Novack says:
Katsumoto, that was my contribution to a “semi-seriously” comment on war and FPS’s.
Actually I was intended to write “I would NOT be surprised…” but got too exited about writing a comment on such an important piece of writing regarding war and games.
15/02/2009 at 17:57 Jockie says:
Theres always comments from people who obviously didnt read the basis of the article when one popped up on PCG/CVG website, of the “How dare you!” kind. The fun is in spotting the trolls from the truly outraged.
Fun or not though, the fact that violence has become such a central part of our cultural intake across all forms of media – people read war books (Factual and fictional), watch war films and play war games (FPS & Strategy), suggest that outside the ‘spectacle’ of violence and war there is something that draws us to it.
As for adrenaline of being actually involved in conflict, i have no doubt, it’s like high stakes gambling, the excitement of winning is heightened by what can be lost (in this case of war literally everything).
15/02/2009 at 17:59 Novack says:
Ok, to hell with sarcasm anyway.
My first thought when reading this post, was that trivializes a discussion that shoud not be trivialized.
Agree, hollywood made fun of war and human dispair since its very begining, but does dont mean that the videogames should follow the same path, or at least, not without a deep thinking of what it means.
Im not talking about cheap moral or double sided ethics, Im talking about not following the same path while hiding on the infantile argument: “But they are doing so as well…!“
15/02/2009 at 18:13 Foca Mais says:
It´s sadly our will to power. Most violent videogames, movies and Tv Shows have a message that the hero is always a badass who kills anything that doesn´t wear his uniform. Our manliness become measured by our strenth and fear we cause on others.
Maybe it´s time to look at what means to be a “Man”, it´s not about using our power to destroy but to offer help to those in need.
15/02/2009 at 18:18 Larington says:
Not one real world death could ever be worth a mere sense of fun which is probably why veterans and other witnesses to war, even though having experienced that sense of exhileration would wish upon anyone the injuries and psychological traumas that result from subjecting people to a war zone.
15/02/2009 at 18:18 scribbler says:
It seems the essence of Tim’s argument boils down to
‘Games are very good at capturing one aspect of war, which other forms aren’t’
I’d argue that the best depictions of war in film like Apocalypse Now, or Full Metal Jacket, attempt to convey both exhilaration of combat while attempting to explore other aspects too.
To excuse games for not trying to explore a greater number of aspects of war, just because they are good at one is a bit of a cop out.
15/02/2009 at 18:34 windlab says:
“A savage delight”
I always wondered how to describe the incredible sensation I get in True Combat: Elite – gunplay and revenge.
..and now that it’s declining in popularity, only the truly 1337 and Linux gamers still play it.
15/02/2009 at 18:58 Foca Mais says:
At Scribbler,
Metal Gear is a fine exception. It has always explored the politic and economic exploration of war. Witch is true. It seems that weapon commerce is the biggest business on Earth, even bigger than drug traffic.
15/02/2009 at 19:26 Nick says:
Do plastic (or.. earlier.. lead?) toy soldiers also trivialize war by making it a game for children?
15/02/2009 at 19:35 FuzzDad says:
All successful games, regardless of genre, are successful because at the core they are fun first. Games also mirror society like other forms of collective entertainment (movies, plays, etc). In this case I think the reason some of games mentioned all share the common trait of being team-based and shared responsibility and action is the only way to achieve success. To do so in an environment where the risk is removed (death) pushes those emotions that exists in both RL and games to the forefront…a collective and shared experience that bonds. These are common emotions and I’ve experienced them in both my military career and in my best gaming experiences.
Special props for mentioning Day of Defeat…I’ve been involved as either a developer or sponsor or “friend of DoD” since the very beginning (my son founded DOD) and it’s good to see that after eight years, the game in both pre and post-Source versions remains strong.
15/02/2009 at 19:53 Dreamhacker says:
War is fun.
Especially when you can get the supranational organization next door to clean up the mess you left.
15/02/2009 at 20:09 A-Scale says:
Because, if we buy realist principles (and if you’ve read much of it you probably believe in a lot of it) the invasion of Iraq was a power play to protect American security. America, being a regional hegemon, likes to be the world’s only world hegemon, as it keeps competition down for us and lets us perpetuate our survival. Britain did the same thing until post-ww2, at which point it no longer had to thanks to U.S. provided security in Europe.
I’d like to keep this going but I’ve got 3 mid terms in the next two days, so I gotta go study!
15/02/2009 at 20:12 A-Scale says:
Last thing, I promise.
G.S. Patton fought in the Mexican American war, World War One (led one of the first tank units in France and was wounded in action doing so) and was perpetually darting between the front and rear of the lines in order to keep up troop morale. Read a book on him before you put the guy down.
15/02/2009 at 20:43 Keule says:
If you want a interesting perspective, check out the HBO series Generation Kill. It gives a pretty good insight into the marine recon that were involved in Iraq.
15/02/2009 at 20:58 Nick says:
I think what this comment thread needs is some jingoistic chest beating with barely any relevance to the post in question.
15/02/2009 at 21:00 Chopperdave says:
My main concern with war games/ movies is that they subliminally reinforce stereotypes. It is not pro active for us to relive these events when animosities were at their peak. Especially when international relations are so fragile, and the success of anything depends on our ability to work as a larger community.
i am not screaming censorship here, i believe that all should be fair game (with regard to video games/ movies) but that the gamer has to take a more active role than just the person pulling the trigger. Its dangerous when the gamer doesn’t take active steps, to disassemble the stereotypes of cultures when playing these games.
ie: i used to play CS all the time, i was always aware that it was just a video game. but it wasn’t till i realize that if i were to see someone of mid-eastern descent wearing reflective aviators, the image of the Phoenix Faction( or whatever ) would pop up. The fact that this image was closely tied to this fictional “terrorist/bad guy” was deeply concerning to me.
People can play whatever they want, just don’t be a soft sponge and soak it all up. Learn to be critical and aware of the situations you playing in, and what the implications of that are…
ps sry for bad grammar…
15/02/2009 at 21:04 A-Scale says:
No, far better to forget the lessons of the past so that we can repeat them.
Whoops, back to studying!
15/02/2009 at 21:16 escooler says:
Generation Kill which is now running on FX captures that war is fun aspect very well and balances it.
i had a thought the other day…why not make a game where you pay 10 pounds in…once your in you only get one singel life…dont waste it. Sound like fun? maybe not but i bet you would be dam careful about your life. More so than we are in say planetside.
15/02/2009 at 21:28 Chopperdave says:
a-scale…
…
im not saying forget the past.. im saying that recounting ww2 ethnic cleansing through shooting @#$%ing Nazi’s probably isn’t the best way to do it.
15/02/2009 at 21:30 A-Scale says:
Again, why scrub the past? If I’m going to shoot anyone, I want it to be ethnic cleansers.
15/02/2009 at 21:36 Chopperdave says:
if i want to shoot anyone, i would like to shoot nincumpoops like you!
15/02/2009 at 22:36 scribbler says:
Just finished playing farcry 2 this evening, its a interesting take on the ‘war’ genre.
Also without giving to much away one of the final choices the game ask you to make during its story arc is about as close to getting some sort of idea of loss/regret and heroism as I’ve come across in film.
It doesn’t succeed 100% and I’m sure allot of people won’t get what i got from it but its a interesting attempt to do something interesting ubisoft made none the less.
15/02/2009 at 22:48 RealHorrorshow says:
I have to agree that it’s a slap in the face to historical fact and a great many men’s honor, the way every single man who served Germany in WW2 is characterized as a Nazi mass murderer, foaming at the mouth at the very thought of bayonetting a Jewish baby. And games don’t help this.
I can say, as a Socialist and ardent anti-racist, that there were many heroic men who served Germany in WW2 (the same with every other country in the war) who were just soldiers who did their duty to their country, with no knowledge of Dachau and Auschwitz, and fought with honor and chivalry.
Fuck the SS though.
15/02/2009 at 22:53 A-Scale says:
An ardent socialist? Do they still have those in Europe? Certainly the Germans felt that they were doing the right thing, but so did the Americans. The point of war is that it is two groups of people butting heads because each feels that they are on the side of right. WW2 games are simply made from an American perspective more often than not. I welcome German made WW2 games that depict the average German soldier as the hero, though I doubt the ending would be much fun (har har).
I am a slacker.
15/02/2009 at 23:00 RealHorrorshow says:
I’m an American ;)
15/02/2009 at 23:00 Bret says:
Germans try to pretend WWII didn’t happen, from what I’ve read.
Also, the fact that there were good men in the German army, men who actively opposed the Nazi extermination policies is true. Also true is the fact that, in overall goals, as a whole, the Nazi party was one of the most evil organizations in the history of mankind. One I feel totally justified in virtually shotgunning to death at every reasonable opportunity.
15/02/2009 at 23:02 A-Scale says:
An ever rarer bird! Be careful, someone might want to put you in a zoo for observation!
15/02/2009 at 23:02 RealHorrorshow says:
Actually it’s Japan who tries to pretend WWII didn’t happen. WWII dominates history class in Germany. They still carry a strong sense of national guilt.
15/02/2009 at 23:19 Shadrach says:
Great article, I’m opposed to war unless as the very last resort, but not war games, call it a contradiction or whatever. If someone really wants a game to show the grittiness and horror of war I’d recommend Red Orchestra, still by far the best war fps out there. There are no gung-ho heroes in RO, just constant looming death. Still its a fun game, but maybe for a small niche of war “enthusiasts” :)
15/02/2009 at 23:26 DBeaver says:
I came for the bangs, I stayed for the insight. Nice one, even though I’m a real-life soldier, I haven’t thought of it that way, yet.
15/02/2009 at 23:41 D says:
I would love to read a more complete version of this article, if Mr. Stone feels to elaborate on his analysis. It is a very interesting topic, and I thank him for writing about it, as it was not something that had crossed my mind otherwise.
That said, I disagree with the majority of it. I have not fought any wars, or even been in the army but I have been in self defense situations and even though my life was not at stake like a soldiers life is daily, I feel I must try to contribute.
First of all, the emotions during war that Mr. Stone talks about, I think is confusing a few issues: a) (As mentioned by a previous poster.) During quiet times, a bond of camaraderie between soldiers and emotions about being part of a greater plan, b) As in Churchills case (mentioned by another poster too), the feelings you get when you’re winning a tough game of chess, but most importantly c) The adrenal stress response that hits human beings under great duress.
I would think the stress response is enough to fully explain any feelings of elation from combat. “The purpose of ASR is to turn us from an organism focused on long term survival, into a machine built to survive the next two minutes, followed by crashing abysmally.” (I am paraphrasing because I lost the source of this wonderful quote.) I don’t know of any actual research in this area as it is not my field, but it makes sense to me that operating under ASR for longer periods of time (such as a soldier or a pilot will do), will naturally cause euphoric chemicals to be released into the brain, to keep the mental state of the human from crashing before the fight is decided. The abysmal crash happens after the war, and for the rest of life.
I don’t think at any level, that war is fun. Sometimes it is justifiable (even the Dalai Lama has condoned war of a self-defense nature). I think we humans are simply adaptable enough to survive it, without ending in the insane asylum.
Games however are nothing like war, there is no risk, no scars and indeed no adrenal stress response. I think playing soldiers is entertaining because it seeks to emulate situations of great risk, which are thought to be the most worthy of actions. In addition, multiplayer shooters are additionally fun because of the emotional reward from winning a game, a skirmish or a duel. Or getting that perfect MG42 setup on the Ruskies flank, mowing them down as they spawn into fresh lead. Or nailing that MG42 with an impossible bolt-action rifle shot from across the map. Hey, why wasen’t Red Orchestra namedropped!? You know, in which the war kills you?
Ah, Bless you Shadrach :)
15/02/2009 at 23:48 D says:
And another interesting namedrop: Falcon4
Actually, I guess fighter pilots may think that war is a genuinely enjoyable affair, y’know being 25.000 feet above the splotions and bodyparts.
16/02/2009 at 00:08 Quirk says:
The perception of war as fun, or glorious, long predates the FPS. The Victorian lads pushing around lead toy soldiers undoubtedly saw war as something thrilling; Kipling certainly didn’t give it much bad press. If anything, it’s had a larger share of writers for it than against it throughout a large chunk of history. Propaganda suits the needs of those who’re in charge, and those in charge have often needed soldiers. “War is fun” is an utterly banal take on the subject.
In a century where much has been written about the devastation of war, where it some would see it as almost the ultimate of crimes, murder on a cataclysmic scale sanctioned by nations, we’ve begun to see equally trite examinations coming from the other end of the spectrum, the “War is hell” brigade. These examinations fail to acknowledge that all violence is not equal, that we do not live in a world in which every human is suspectible to the effects of being offered a stiff cup of tea and a reasoned argument. Even so, while they may be fluffy-headed about practical morality for the real world, they’re not making that most elementary of mistakes: dehumanising the enemy.
Now, I don’t play a lot of World War II era shooters. I would hope that some of them must to some extent force on the player the realisation that the people being shot are people much like himself, with families and friends and aspirations and ideals. I don’t believe the entire genre is filled with this kind of nuanced consideration though, and your defence of it reads to me rather more like a damnation, as though the games in question have never moved on from Victorian-era propaganda and lead toy soldiers. I hope you’re being unfair.
16/02/2009 at 00:09 A-Scale says:
I guess your ability to see war as fun is based on the amount of violence you see and your willingness to shoot “bad” men. I’m personally all for shooting invaders/slaughterers/oppressors, so I can very easily see how war could be fun. Nothing like a bit of camaraderie, duty and shooting some krauts to make you grow up and give you good lifelong friends. And there are less Germans! Everyone wins!
16/02/2009 at 00:12 lumpi says:
Only those that survive can tell the story.
“Dude, I almost got KILLED, lol!” is of course a feeling of thrill and excitement. Dying from a stomach wound in some lonely field while you think of the bastard politicians who started this war for nothing and nothing again… not so exciting… just purely depressing. Especially if you are an 8-year old (yea, in the real world, many victims aren’t soldiers).
War is depressing.
16/02/2009 at 01:03 Rich_P says:
The perception of war as fun, or glorious, long predates the FPS. The Victorian lads pushing around lead toy soldiers undoubtedly saw war as something thrilling
I wonder what H.G. Wells would think of the Total War series, having created “Little Wars,” a Victorian Era wargame.
If shooting people with projectiles was boring, the paintball industry wouldn’t exist, either. Hell, paintball enthusiasts recreate D-Day in Oklahoma each year, replete with paintball tanks. (I used to live in Missouri but never got around to going!)
And many live action RPGs (Darkon) are about war and fighting as much as anything, right?
People have been wargaming for years: in real life, in board games, and now in videogames.
Anyway, I’ve always enjoyed how many PC games are natural successors to games people have played for years and years. (Little Wars —> Total War)
PS: Was it Time Stone who wrote a feature on hardcore PC wargamers?
16/02/2009 at 01:53 MadTinkerer says:
Interesting fact: Little Wars is also the ancestor of the modern miniatures wargame (like Warhammer), which means it’s also an ancestor of Chainmail, D&D, and World of Warcraft.
The real question is: does WoW PvP trivialize war too much? (Or Half Life 2? Halo? How about Disgaea?) If you’re one of those who say “yes”, perhaps the subject matter is being taken too seriously.
But what’s the substantial difference? It’s all fiction, whether it’s fantastic fiction, historical fiction, or modern war thriller. Should people be ashamed for enjoying murder mystery books? Should movies like Friday the 13th be banned?
16/02/2009 at 02:03 Adventurous Putty says:
A-Scale has entered the thread. The thread is officially over.
I kid, I kid.
____________________
I dunno — I can’t help but think that disregarding all war video games as depicting war games childishly kind of does a disservice to the medium. Weren’t we all set aflutter by COD4 a year or so ago because it set a new standard for realism in its depiction of the human tragedy of war, as opposed to the gung-ho WWII-ness of its predecessors? Hell, it even had us Yankees muck everything up and made you die slowly of radiation poisoning at one point; surely that’s not a “videogamey” depiction of war, but it’s still in a video game.
So, you know, maybe THAT should be our justification for war games, not “war is fun.” Just sayin’.
16/02/2009 at 02:16 A-Scale says:
It’s also fun to die, if done properly. The difference is that real war can be fun because neither you nor your buddies have to get hurt. Real death however, does necessitate your… dying.
I like to think of myself as a gadfly. I am also an ass.
16/02/2009 at 03:03 Dorian Cornelius Jasper says:
@Chopperdave:
We call that a double-standard. You’re more willing to kill people with the nerve to openly disagree with you than other killers?
It makes a twisted kind of sense. After all, everything is only about you and your beliefs, no other human life or perspective matters.
@A-Scale:
Also, I found your involvement in this comment thread something of a foregone conclusion.
16/02/2009 at 03:14 John says:
War is fun?
War is only fun to those who haven’t seen it. If you think war is “fun”, sign up and go off to one. If you don’t have the balls, go to a PTSS meeting at the VA and talk to those who did.
“But read memoirs, sift through unexpurgated reportage, catch veterans off-guard, and you will find the evidence.” The operative word here is sift. The misused word here is evidence. If you “sifted” out everything but the anecdotal, you tend to come to silly conclusions like “war is fun”.
You know the funniest, hands on slap-happy, laugh-till-you cry, come-to-Jesus part about war? Coming home with all your limbs. Damn, that was fun. Of course, what’s rattling around in your brain after the experience isn’t very much fun.
You know who likes war in my opinion? Children who don’t know any better, the emotionally retarded, and psychopaths. You know who doesn’t like war? Anybody in the area where the bullets are flying around.
I’m not saying “war is fun” is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever read on the internet, but it makes Casey Kasem’s Top 40 list for me. It holds a place in my heart with the “Moran” sign guy.
- John
Sergeant, USMC
Veteran Gulf War I, and other miscellaneous stupidities under Reagan/Bush the Elder
Subject matter expert: War
16/02/2009 at 03:18 A-Scale says:
That’s your experience. You can hardly judge that anyone who enjoys battle a child, idiot or maniac. There have been plenty of happy soldiers throughout the ages, you just don’t seem to be one of them. Also, considering the way the first Gulf War worked out I’m surprised you had any bullets flying around you at all. The Marines generally do get the short end of the stick, though.
16/02/2009 at 03:18 Doc MacRae says:
Rich_P almost touched on this, but what about RTS’s? They largely have war as the main subject matter, often on a much greater scale than FPS’s. I recently played CoD: World at War. I was a little unnerved by the blown off limbs – especially the part where you move through Japanese lines after a heavy bombardment. I don’t think I’ve gotten a kind of visceral “war is nasty” moment in a strategy game. Couldn’t it be argued that RTS (or some of them) trivialize war moreso than FPS’s may glorify combat?
/goes to listen to War Pigs
//maybe
16/02/2009 at 04:22 John says:
Ah, but you’re wrong. I can, and I do. That’s one of the benefits of having extended first hand observational experience instead of having to rely on second hand anecdotal reports and/or stories from biographers/autobiographers more interested in how their subject looks then reality. I can make direct observations and then come to conclusions based on them. I may be wrong, but I certainly am in a position to make the call.
I’ve seen rookie soldiers piss themselves when not even under direct fire – just when the sound of combat starts up. I saw a veteran soldier get up after a T-72/LOB put a round through his Hvee shaking so bad he couldn’t hold the radio button down to make a report for the better part of 20 minutes. Never once did I see anyone give the thumbs up and talk about how fun it was to be shelled, shot at, etc, etc, etc.
I have yet to run into anyone who is in love with war who doesn’t fit into one of the aforementioned categories. Actually, that’s not true: there are two other categories that I would add – the liars and the forgetful. The former need no further discussion, and the latter are those who have forgotten most of the bad and only remember the good. IMHO, they have earned that right, so I’m not going to call someone out on that.
For example: Anyone who ever had a bullet pass by their ear isn’t going to turn to their chum and discuss “the exhilaration of being shot at without effect.*” No sir. He’s going to be asking himself if he happens to have extra clean underwear stowed away in his pack.
* Unless he happens to be Winston Churchill. In which case he knocks back another bottle of gin, and whips out this one liner. Hell, he probably shamed the Boer who took the shot away with another (unrecorded) one-liner. The man was a quote machine. Ridiculous. The man would rule the forum/blog-space if he was still alive today. He’d already have cut me to shreds with some biting comment on my manhood.
Or our friend Scots Guard Robert Lawrence, who is quoted here as shouting “Isn’t this fun!” while charging up the hill. If anyone here thinks he wasn’t being sarcastic, I’ve got a bridge to sell to you. Only slightly used of course. The Scot’s are hard people, but I believe fun for them is the same as it is for me: knocking back a drink at the pub and doing your best to get laid.
I’m not saying that people talking about how fun war is has never happened in the long sad stupid history of war, but I believe they fall into one of the five previously mentioned categories. If I had to guess the fun:not run ratio of all soldiers who have ever been in war, I’m guessing the ratio is somewhere around a million to one (conservatively, probably higher). This ratio doesn’t count the REMF’s, profiteers, politicians, spectators, and other riff-raff not associated with the actual fighting end of things.
Perhaps that’s who your happy soldiers are – the ones who spend the war anywhere and everywhere but where the bullet goes bang. Damn, that would make me happy too. I could write a memoir about how I pushed a bunch of counters across a map and won a war. Happy fun time!
I think scribbler got much closer to the target with his statement “I’d argue that the best depictions of war in film like Apocalypse Now, or Full Metal Jacket**, attempt to convey both exhilaration of combat while attempting to explore other aspects too.”
Exhilaration is the word I would use, not fun. The “oh my god I’m still alive” moment is, for the sane, the former, and not the latter. Again, with the limb/ genitalia check after something goes bang, I’ve only felt the former.
I could get on board with “War is exhilarating”. “War is Fun” is still standing next to “Moran” guy for just plain ridiculous for me.
** Full metal Jacket is spot on for USMC Boot camp. It really hits the highlights of the process. I can’t speak directly to the Vietnam war part, as that wasn’t my war, but if you don’t mind me speaking for a friend who was there for three tours, he felt it really captured the spirit of craziness that went on at the Tet Offensive.
PS: Lots and lots and lots of bullets went bang in GWI (and the other various minor sundries of that age). I’ve got a enough shell frag in me to have trouble with the hand wands at the airport. Not sure what GWI you were in, but it obviously wasn’t the one I and my men went to.
- John
/rantoff
16/02/2009 at 04:27 sinister agent says:
I live with a man who grew up in one of the most hideous wars of the last thirty years. Every week people he knew died, and every day he lived with the fear that a grenade could crash through his window and kill his family at any moment. He has no time for warmongerers and shakes his head in despair at the thought of how absolutely nothing was gained by the whole thing but a load of death and destruction, and he acknowledges how lucky he was to survive it, especially after he was conscripted.
He spent much of last night playing Far Cry 2, gleefully gunning down soldiers, and takes as much delight in a hideously violent grenade kill in a good FPS as any one of us. He’s looking forward to the next Call of Duty. Because playing games is fun. People who pretend to be offended on someone else’s behalf should just shut the hell up and let them speak for themselves.
And anyone who tries to deny that there’s a visceral thrill in surviving a dangerous situation is frankly embarassing themself.
16/02/2009 at 04:31 A-Scale says:
No, you’re not. You had one experience, and you’re in no position to judge how other people should feel about it. You’re judgment is no more relevant than a games journalist stating that “no one but idiots or maniacs should like X game”. You’ve got experience in the field, but you can’t tell me what other people should feel on that basis alone.
16/02/2009 at 04:40 John says:
If not me, then who? Isn’t all second hand knowledge ultimately derived from the experience of others? If a person with extensive first hand knowledge about a subject isn’t in a position to put forward his conclusions for others to examine, then who is?
You obviously disagree with the witnesses conclusions, your honor, but does not the witness have the right to them?
16/02/2009 at 04:50 John says:
You’ve attempted to tie the reality and consequences of combat and the fantasy constructs of a computer game together to make your argument.
It’s easy enough to validate: ask the man you know if he was “gleeful” while gunning down real people, and did he have a sense of “delight” when he achieved a real “violent grenade kill”.
Your own statements about the man make it pretty clear he would not. Thus, your friend/relative obviously can separate the real from fantasy. Again, from your statements, the man did not have a “fun war”, but can have fun playing a game without consequences.
I haven’t seen a single post from anyone do that yet. We were talking about war is fun, not that the experiences of war can give you a visceral thrill. Visceral thrill covers pretty much the entire spectrum of crude emotion, does it not?
16/02/2009 at 04:51 Buckermann says:
Germans try to pretend WWII didn’t happen, from what I’ve read.
Than you have read the wrong books (or tabloids). WWII is still, and will be for a long time, a important topic in Germany. No sane person is pretending that it never happened.
I don’t know where you live, but I would like to advice you to diversify your sources of information.
16/02/2009 at 04:52 A-scale says:
You can tell is how it made you feel, but not how others should feel. Enjoying battle doesn’t usually qualify one for the nut house, and you’d have quite a task on your hands if you sought to prove that Patton was a raving lunatic, a liar, emotionally retarded or a child.
Now for the requisite bit about how you would beat me up if we ever met, I presume.
16/02/2009 at 05:00 sinister agent says:
That’s precisely the point – it’s a game. It simulates the thrilling parts without all the shitey parts. And something that gives one a thrill is a pretty good definition of ‘fun’, is it not?
16/02/2009 at 05:02 John says:
I won’t deny the man was in love with war. His entire life was devoted to it. I don’t believe he ever said “war is fun”.
The closest I can think of is “Compared to war all other forms of human endeavor shrink to insignificance. God, I do love it so!”
Don’t see the word fun in there, so not sure how this applies to the position I’ve put forward, which is, in simplest terms: war is not fun for those directly involved.
PS: The Ad hominem argument at the end of your post was amusing. Not sure what my physical prowess has to do with this conversation. Besides wowing the ladies on this thread, if any.
16/02/2009 at 05:04 John says:
I think we’re both on the same page here. Game:fun, real war: !fun
16/02/2009 at 05:25 Richard says:
John,
Thanks for your insightful comments, and for your service.
cheers,
Richard
ENS, USN
16/02/2009 at 06:28 SofS says:
I have only mild experience with military shooters and none with real war. That said, I doubt that even the most immersive of the former conjure up the experience of the latter for most players. I loved playing through COD4 and enjoyed the story, but it was basically really awesome paintball with even less lasting effect on reality than that sport (due to lack of bruises or pine needles everywhere after a full hour’s worth of hiding in a forest).
I think that the “war is fun” tagline does little justice to this article. It is likely true that war is only fun to children, psychopaths, and those who don’t understand what is happening around them. I believe that the article’s point is partially predicated on this assumption. If enjoying war is a function of a lack of understanding or empathy, why then is its simulation so popular? Why do military shooters do so well when the insectoid alien menace genre thrives as well? You could go off and kill space roaches with a laser, but sometimes you choose Nazis and terrorists and assault rifles instead. These games are not true simulations of war by any stretch, but that doesn’t prevent other connections to real conflicts. They strive to present reasonably accurate iconography in the most compelling fashion they can muster. They aren’t war, but I think they might hit part of the mind as being close enough.
I’d love to see some first-hand research on this issue. Give groups of players free access to rotating selections of FPSs from various genres and see if trends develop. Perhaps I’m wrong and the popularity of military shooters is due to other factors (quality of play, media presence, etc.). I’d wager (but not much, because I’m not getting paid for weeks) that the opportunity to play soldier in a relatively contemporary setting is a big draw for many. If that’s so, perhaps there’s a little more child or psychopath in us than we thought.
16/02/2009 at 07:17 Bret says:
Right, right.
I remember now. Germany is just really touchy about stuff having the Swastika in it, etc. And violence. But that’s the opposite position entirely, remembering so much you’re really touchy about the subject. I probably have that wrong too, but now I’m wrong in a way that’s more consistent with what I’ve read.
Dumb of me. I apologize to all Germans reading this.
16/02/2009 at 08:34 Muzman says:
This is interesting. We talk, though, as if this male thing of needing extreme adventure and to be tested in the face of death or something is just human nature. Well, given all the things that have been called human nature we wouldn’t want to be too hasty there. But at this end of history it’s fairly safe to say that the question of being a soldier or warrior sits in the back of a lot of people’s minds. And if circumstances provide, they’ll find reasons to answer it (or at least investigate it). They’re not killers, often not even patriots, but they weight of myth (or something) means they want to find out and war is the only space to do it (a psycho-social space that conveniently and temporarily reconfigures everything they believed about being a caring individual human being. Legally and socially proscribed absolution for murder. Plenty will tell you it’s the true essence of life experienced first hand but that’s baloney. Extremes are not essences. You might as well say life on earth is a facade and to really understand it we have to go live in a volcano).
Anyway, I swear I had a point here somewhere.
I would split a hair at ‘war is fun’ and say war is exciting and excitement and the potential for it are fun. War is fun to play with, for all the reasons (well, not sure that’s a good word since reason doesn’t much come into it) that it is appealing and intruiging in reality.
It’s hard to say if games are significantly different to the warrior mythmaking and glorification of the past. Taken seriously they can provide serious food for thought (as per that guilt article of …Walker’s(?) a while back), in ways other media cannot. But I doubt they’ll particularly alter things that much. Just as the most violent, harrowing and off-putting service account (from some weeping old man who damns war and governments with every word and shouts “Never again! Under no circumstances!” at the end.) still has boys enthralled and saying to themselves “That’s so cool!” or “You’re the finest person in the world; I want to be just like you and do all the things you’ve done” regardless of the message.
16/02/2009 at 09:09 Lobotomist says:
I have pleasure of experiencing war first hand. And i can tell you one thing
War is as fun as sitting in cold puddle of your urine while shitting yourself.
There is no glory in war nor fun. It is painfull experience of pointless killing other people for nothing that could not and will not be resolved with diplomatic means.
People that fought in war usually end up in mental institutions or as drug or alcohol addicts with ruined lives.
Games are fun though…but those are only pixels
16/02/2009 at 09:21 Al3xand3r says:
I don’t like the devil’s advocate idea at all. Writers either get the green light to write BS with a ready excuse like “look, it was just to promote discussions, it doesn’t mean I believe this” or they’re forbidden from stating what they honestly believe because the article’s tone dictates something else, with the same excuse (even if it was their own choice). I don’t know under which category this piece falls, but it’s pretty good :P
On the other hand, I’ll keep it simple and say I don’t think the thrills you get from a game are related to the thrills of actual warfare, and the thrills of actual warfare shouldn’t just be dismissed as some sort of sick “glee”. It doesn’t mean they were gleeful because they just fucking shot someone’s brains out, they may simply be gleeful because they got to live, and their partners got to live, and they had a part in that. The joy of offering life if you will, rather than the joy of taking life. Though I’m sure a few individuals also feel the latter, but I doubt it’s the rule, otherwise it would be in every interview, and not just in a few, and people wouldn’t be so afraid to admit it.
So, yeah, the thrills you get from a game. If it’s multi player, it’s just the whole competitive thing, beating others, or in my case managing to not die twice as many times as you kill, or whatever. It can be the same as sports, or the same in games that aren’t about wars, or violence. It’s just a competition.
For single player, it’s similar to the thrills you get in a movie. You’re constantly aware it’s not real, the most a game deisgner can do is spook you with sudden events or with use of music and sounds, much like movies. Except you’re in perceived control. You can also be competitive with the AI, though on different terms than with players. The AI is only created to challenge you and you take up that challenge and have fun with it. Again, it can be the same with games that aren’t about warfare.
So, yeah, I guess I don’t have a point after all. Tough weekend, haven’t slept, c ya.
16/02/2009 at 09:48 Thirith says:
About the “enjoyment” of war: wouldn’t large levels of adrenaline and whatever other hormones your body produces in a situation of intense “ohfuckohshitohbuggerimgonnadieeeeaaarrrghhh!!!!” pretty much deactivate your higher brain functions so you wouldn’t be thinking “War is hell, alas!” during those moments but rather a vague but intense feeling of exhilaration? I can imagine the excitement of warfare falling under this category.
16/02/2009 at 10:11 Andrew says:
“It was exciting; no other word for it, and no explanation needed, for honest folk. We all have kindly impulses, fostered by two thousand years of Christian teaching, gentle Jesus, and love thy neighbour, but we have the killer instinct, too, the murderous impulse of the hunter… but one must not say so. The young men going out to the Gulf felt obliged to tell the cameras that they felt nothing personal against the Iraqis, and wished them no harm – but I know, for I have felt it, that when an Iraqi came in their sights, the blood-lust would take them hot and strong. Never mind the excuse that this is what a soldier is trained for, that it is his duty, that like 007 he is licensed to kill; the truth is that he gets a kick out of it – which may be one reason why, when he is asked later: “Did you ever kill a Jap (or a German or an Iraqi)?” he will often dodge the question. Other reasons include a decent reticence, an understandable wish not to dwell on unpleasant memories, a reluctance to be thought a line-shooter or a psychopath, and a sense that the question is in doubtful taste. (The best answer, incidentally, is “Why do you want to know?” That makes them think.)
Such considerations don’t arise when the human target appears in the V of the backsight. You’re just thankful for the chance and concentrate on keeping the aim steady – which is not easy when you’re excited, and fearful that they’ll get away.”
George MacDonald Fraser, Lance Corporal of the Border Regiment in Burma in 1945, writing in Quartered Safe Out Here, his excellent war memoir. I’ve no personal experience of war, and God help me I hope I never do, but I would agree with the late Mr Fraser that to deny the excitement that can come from warfare would be dishonest. Obviously war as a whole is despicable, but it runs the whole gamut of human experience, from the very worst to the very best (courage and sacrifice and all that good stuff). It makes sense that enjoyment would be one of the factors in that.
16/02/2009 at 10:27 Gap Gen says:
I think one thing that games get right is how easy it is to die. In films, you can’t kill the main character at random, but in games you can, with the proviso that they just come back to life. Regenerating health, quicksave, checkpoints all serve to remind us of how easy it is to get shot – and when games mostly remove these – like Operation Flashpoint, Raven Shield or whatever, it becomes terrifying just to exist anywhere near an enemy with a gun.
16/02/2009 at 11:26 gulag says:
War games, aren’t they fun!
16/02/2009 at 13:12 D says:
Exactly, games about war are enormously fun. But there is a huge disconnect between the experience of the game, and the experience of the real thing. No matter how ‘nervous’ you get when playing competetively, the lizard brain easily knows when it is in any actual danger. And some comments here leads me to believe those people have never felt such danger. Or they’re playing devils advocate.
“Obviously war as a whole is despicable, but it runs the whole gamut of human experience, from the very worst to the very best (courage and sacrifice and all that good stuff)”
I don’t think “courage”, “sacrifice” and the “exilaration of surviving” counts as the very best of human experience. “Courage” means the experience of fear, except years later when you tell your story to your son, carefully omitting the fact that the guy you were saving had just lost a leg. “Sacrifice” means what exactly? Certainly not comparable to another “best experience” like, say, love.
We mimic war in games, movies and play, because the situations with the most danger are the situations thought of as the most worthy to experience. But that feeling of “worth” of the experience, is completely lost when theres actual danger around.
Many thanks to John the marine for his views and insights, they were very much fun to read :)
16/02/2009 at 14:07 clive dunn says:
My great great grandfather was a mercenary and i’m afraid to say, he genuinely liked fighting. Later in life he was a bare-knuckle prize fighter but would often fight on a sunday morning with ‘friends’, just for fun. So i guess he was an idiot – or maybe just a very tough guy who was perfectly equipped to take on the shitty jobs nobody likes: Killing and fighting. He was by all accounts a lucky s.o.b and when he was an old man he was terribly sad, not through post traumatic stress but because he missed the death and destruction because it made him feel alive. So he found war to be ‘fun’ but fun in those days wasn’t really a happy-smiling type of fun, more a feeling of completeness and usefulness and maybe just the quiet satisfaction that can be gleened by ‘being good at what you do’.
16/02/2009 at 15:46 TK says:
I had a friend who was a vet of the modern conflict in Afghanistan and he told this one story about a certain mission that he saw a squad of the Delta Force go out on.
Basically, he was staged just outside the town that Delta had a mission in. They went in with civilian clothes and behaved more like they were going to a social gathering than a fight. Every once in a while, my friend would hear laughter after some gunshots. The Delta squad’s conversation after returning to base was as if they’d seen some action-comedy movie.
Granted, these people have lives that revolve around killing people with ease. But it just goes to show that war can easily be enjoyable after one gets over the fear of death.
I’ve read somewhere that it only takes 2 kills before a human is no longer emotionally affected by killing. It takes a lot more experience with your friends dying but those emotions can also be all but eradicated.
Even before that experience, earlier posts make a good point. The exhilaration of being in danger can easily replace feelings of fear in most situations. Go do something “extreme” for the first time and you’ll see what I mean. First times on roller coasters, playing paintball, skydiving, and anything else where the fear of pain or discomfort or death exists will show you how fear can turn into euphoria for the brief period that it happens in. The fear (on no matter what level it exists) will return immediately after the end of the event. After enough experience is gained, the fear response subsides for most people and often the level of exhilaration does too.
16/02/2009 at 16:08 Al3xand3r says:
Clive, you’re Snake’s son?! Wow!
16/02/2009 at 16:08 Al3xand3r says:
Er, I meant great great grandson or whatever you call it in english :P
16/02/2009 at 16:20 Bonedancer says:
I think we might all be guilty of reducing this to a simple yes/no question.
Quite obviously war, taken as a whole, is not fun. I’d go so far as to say – based purely on second and third hand sources – that it’s far more miserable than not.
However that doesn’t mean that – at specific times and in specific ways – some of the people involved in the war have not experienced strong positive emotions; perhaps relief at surviving, pride in their fellow soldiers or the sheer temporary exhilaration of being “in the zone”.
So might we say that war is not fun, but some people have nonetheless had fun for a time during a war?
16/02/2009 at 16:51 scribbler says:
I think what alot of people take issue with here is the word ‘fun’.
To use the allmighty wiki
“Recreation or fun is the expenditure of time in a manner designed for therapeutic refreshment of one’s body or mind. ”
Words like “Thrill” or “exhilarating” feel correct because they still have a ‘edge’ to them. “Fun” however seems to be a word which implies no negatives.
If Tim had said
‘War is thrilling’
i doubt there would have been half the debate there has been (which kinda means hes done his job well hehe).
16/02/2009 at 19:21 John says:
Wait, is that a Snake Plissken reference?
16/02/2009 at 19:35 A-Scale says:
I agree with bonedancer. According to the testimonies of my family that fought in WW2, war is a lot of uncomfortable waiting, some being worried, and occasional action. My uncle George fought with Patton’s army, and it took quite a toll on him. His hair went gray and he refused to talk about it. My uncle Dave was a Marne who fought in every major conflict of the Pacific as a BAR man. He hated much of it, but it made him who he was, and he always loved the Marines. He told me a story of waiting in the darkness in a foxhole while the Japanese snuck up on their bellies. He couldn’t fire because it’s hard to tell who is doing the shooting at night, and he would have been shot. So he waited for the Jap with his knife ready, shitting his pants. That’s not fun.
But war is not all bad. Winning is fun. Beating the enemy is fun. Killing the Huns is fun. War is a proving ground as old as man, and it has helped to define people and entire generations. Perhaps I feel that war can be fun simply because I bear a lot of hate in my heart. I am Armenian (half) and my Great Grandmother was a victim of the Genocide (perpetrated by the Turks). She saw her entire family killed, and she was only spared because she hid in a pile of bodies. She was later pulled out by a Turkish soldier who let her go, and she worked her way across Turkey as a servant girl, where she was treated badly. I would have absolutely no problem exacting vengeance on the Turks, and I can very easily see how that would be fun. Perhaps catharsis is fun.
If we start from the belief that war is fun, we can work backwards regarding what is not fun about it.
1. War is not fun when you die/get maimed.
2. War is not fun when your friends die/get maimed.
3. War is not fun when you sympathize with the people you are shooting.
4. War is not fun when you are afraid of explosions.
5. War is not fun when you disagree with the goal of said war.
6. War is not fun when you disagree with killing.
7. War is not fun when you are squeamish about gore.
Perhaps I’ve left something out, but it seems that provided those conditions are not met, war can be fun. There has been enough war through the ages that many a person has satisfied these conditions, and thus has had fun.
16/02/2009 at 19:43 John says:
These seems to be a rather specious argument. It’s easy enough to confirm – validate the opposite, which in this case would be “If we start from the belief that war is NOT fun, we can work backwards regarding what IS fun about it.”
What’s fun about it?
16/02/2009 at 20:18 A-Scale says:
Destroying an evil can be fun.
Guns ARE fun (confirmed it myself).
Camaraderie under fire is fun.
Winning things (even a battle) can be fun.
16/02/2009 at 21:10 John says:
To be clear, your premise is, war is fun because:
In war, destroying an evil can be fun
In war, guns ARE fun (confirmed it myself).
In war, camaraderie under fire is fun.
In war, winning things (even a battle) can be fun
16/02/2009 at 21:17 A-Scale says:
That’s correct.
16/02/2009 at 21:19 A-Scale says:
Actually, those things are fun, so if war has those properties, but not the properties that I listed that would make it not fun, then yes, it would be fun.
16/02/2009 at 21:21 John says:
It’s an interesting theory. Let me know if you ever get to test your hypothesis.
16/02/2009 at 21:23 A-Scale says:
I doubt I will. I don’t think the U.S. will start drafting any time soon, and I’m certainly not going to join. I’m not suggesting that war IS fun, just that it CAN BE fun under the right circumstances. Your argument from the getgo was that anyone who enjoyed war must be a loon, a child, or a retard. I’m simply suggesting how someone might enjoy a war, not that it is fun for most people or most of the time.
16/02/2009 at 22:19 Jeremy says:
I’d like to point out the contrast between Fallout 3 and Cormac McCarthy’s After reading the book, I’m surprised that anyone ever talks to you in Fallout.
16/02/2009 at 22:20 Jeremy says:
Bah, link fail! It’s Cormac McCarthy’s The Road.
16/02/2009 at 23:07 thefanciestofpants says:
@Jeremy; To be fair, the fallout world is something of a bountiful garden compared to the state of everything in The Road.
But yeah, it IS an interesting contrast. Great book, highly, highly recommended.
17/02/2009 at 02:57 D says:
@A-Scale
I argue that 3-7 (excepting 4 perhaps) on that list of yours is reserved for idiots and loons, sociopathic people who would end up mass murderers if there were no tangible consequences of it.
Killing is only ever a “need to do” response, never a “want,” despite however calmly you are trained to do it.
–
And oh yes theres no question that war is thrilling, and that winning is thrilling. But I think of fun as ‘something I’d prefer to do to pass my time,’ and I don’t think war satisfies that requirement for anyone.
17/02/2009 at 12:31 cullnean says:
Put your hand up if you have been to war or a warzone
i have and when you talk about it with hindsight yes those scrapes and near misses were fun when retold, heck i find job interviews worse then crossing the kuwait/iraq border, in fact the former was a rush.
17/02/2009 at 12:36 cullnean says:
er i may have got that the wrong way round lol
17/02/2009 at 16:35 D says:
With most respect to you, I completely understand why it’s fun to look back at, but what some people are arguing here is that being shot at is an entertaining passtime. (For instance, It can also be fun to look back at a job interview.)
While I can easily see that dangerous situations, or situations where you have to kill, are extremely exilarating, I think it’s a huge disconnect from reality to call it “fun.” I have never been in war and have said so in these comments, but I do know a little about what happens to the brain in stress situations. If you prefer to talk about real experiences, I’ll gladly shut up and listen :)
17/02/2009 at 20:28 Fumarole says:
My girlfriend’s grandfather served in the Pacific and has related to me many of his experiences there. Not once has he said anything in detail about being in combat, though he did show me his two Purple Hearts. Somehow I very much doubt he’d use the word fun to describe what happened there.
17/02/2009 at 23:00 A-Scale says:
So if you don’t mind killing someone evil, or if you don’t sympathize with a member of the SS, or if you agree with the cause of a war, or if you are not squeamish about gore, you are a sociopathic murderer? I’m no fan of gore, but I’ll shoot someone guilty of genocide any day of the week. And twice on Sunday!
18/02/2009 at 19:07 Kong says:
“Don’t mention the war” Fawlty Towers
18/02/2009 at 19:09 Kong says:
Damn I am still too stupid to figure out how to quote right. My post above should have contained qoutes from RealHorrorshow.