Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Domination
This weekend I have been playing Call of Duty:World at War and I haven't be able to leave the screen. I beat the WWII game and enjoyed every minute. Why did I enjoy it? Why do I feel great when I dominate my enemy? In a more realistic sense-why do we glorify war? I believe that behind the main justifications of war, there is a obscured reason that countries go to war with each other. Its the emotional drive of war. I am not talking about the adrenaline and thrill of fighting on the battlefield, I am talking about the intimidation and confidence boost that comes from a victory. I feel that superpowers like the United States enjoy waging wars because they are known for blowing out the enemy. Our country can look down at most countries and intimidate them because of our military strength. When I win a match on Call of Duty I get excited, sometimes scream at the screen or spike the controller down like a football (I have broken a controller already). I did not really win anything but the emotional gain from winning the battle was good enough to keep on playing. The U.S. isn't hesitant about war because they know they have the intimidation factor and it will be a giant morale boost across the nation after the victory.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
This made me laugh out loud. Seriously. You just compared America to a slightly overzealous teenage boy glued to a game controller. Let's hope we don't break ours?
Really, though... it does seem like the only difference is the fact that America (i use that term loosely, i know) is actually killing people. And i know from experience that it's really easy to get lost in killing spree computer games. They say video games are so bad because they remove consequences--has America arrived to the same situation? Are we so carefree about killing because we no longer suffer consequences?
I believe the connection between video games and the actual war itself is a great way to compare the way people perceive wars.
Going off of what Tess said I do not believe that the United States has reached the point where we fight wars without considering the consequences. In class we saw that the history of the United States has almost always included some kind of war, however I do not feel that the United States goes to war without considering the consequences of their actions. I feel that the majority of wars that the United States has gotten involved in have been deeply thought out by our government. Of course there are some exceptions but i believe the best example of this would be the Cold War. The United States knew that if a nuclear war were to erupt that the consequences would be devastating. These are just my feelings on the question imposed by Tess.
I can agree with PHL on his comparions between America and a new video game because I enjoy playing video games myself. The thrill of winning and "dominating" your enemy online can be quite fun especially because you don't suffer any actual consequences besides maybe some bad words shared between opponents. I can see how Tess compared killing people virtually can almost be the same as killing someone in real life, but I completely disagree on her comparison. America has definitely not become carefree about killing people as we are not waging war on all of Iraq or all of Afghanistan. We are not killing the people of a country and many soldiers suffer mind-altering diseases from what they have seen during war. These tangible consequences of death cannot be seen as the result of a "carefree kill"
Phillip, I can relate. I am an avid COD(fish)4 Modern Warfare player. While I am not here to argue that COD4 is better (and it is) than COD5: World at War, I know what your saying. It seems that, according to your post, you play the campaign version of the game. This is against a computer. I, however, play the online version of the game, against real people. Not to depreciate your gaming, but, there is more of a thrill playing against real people. This is not the point.
When I play, I get those same feelings though. I have not broken a controller, but I like to swing my body weight around when in hot pursuit of an enemy. Your right. There is no physical gain - just better controller skills. I get the emotional gain much more through online play. When I win, or "kill" an enemy, I feel like I am better. It is hard for me to put the controller down and quit.
In the U.S., we have a volunteer army. Soldiers have that emotional drive. But, they are not the ones that start the wars, they simply fight in them.
I think for some countries, war provides and emotional drive, but it in no way supplements a real viable cause for war. There has to be something to gain. For some, war is a drug. But I think in most cases, people fight in wars hoping to gain something personally (like honor for the warriors in The Iliad), to fight for their country, an idea, or their family. I don't believe nations would wage wars just to be deemed the victor. If they would, well that is foolish.
But I understand what you are saying about the game, call of duty. It is only a game though. You win sometimes and you lose sometimes, but you never actually die from playing this game. In war, this is not the case.
P.S.- try the online play sometime. More adrenaline.
I think as American's we have become so immune to violence that war is not treated with the same severity as it once was. I am sure that the video game you just described is played by thousands of children who grow up killing virtual people. It is also interesting to note that much of today's war is simulated and fought like a video game. The technology behind weapons has become so high tech that everything is done from a computer. Some might argue that violent video games are training the future soldiers of America.
I find it very scary that warfare can be treated as a video game and that one day a talented gamer child may be called upon the US Army.
Phil, when you talk about the US going to war simply to show dominance, it makes me think. I understand what you are saying. We like to look powerful in comparison to our enemies. However, I like to think that America does not wage wars simply to display strength and superiority.
In comparison to other societies, I think we are more hesitant to attack due to civilians. Take terrorists. They target civilians to instill fear. The US takes the opposite approach. In the-mid 1990's, President Bill Clinton had the intelligence as well as the weaponry to kill Osama Bin Laden while he was living in Sudan. However, the US government did not attack because of the surrounding civilians and the lives that would be lost by America. I think we value civilians from other countries more than we give credit for, especially in these comments.
PHL, I am sorry, I agree with Tess. To compare your conquering in Call of Duty, to the Imperalism of the USA is quite ridiculous. True, America has the ability to intimidate and destroy anything that it pleases. But to say that it wages war because of this luxury is cynical. America does not wage war simply because it can, it wages war for safety, land, money-because it needs to (usually). Call of Duty is cool, but its not the real world. Like Tess said, there are no consequences in a virtual world, and consequences and potential outcomes are the reasons people do and choose not to do certain things.
I like the cute Call of Duty comparison, but I completely disagree with your point. While America does have a strong military that can intimidate weaker militaries, last time I checked, we don't go around dropping nukes for the thrill of anihilation. Wars are fought to protect freedoms and people, not to feel good about oneself for winning.
I cannot believe you just compared war to a video game. In no way, shape, or form does a video game even slightly resemble a country at war. It may be easy for you to sit at your couch at home and shoot at fictional characters, but put down your x-box 360 controller and pick up a gun that can control someone else's destiny and you will see the immediate difference.
While it is true, to some degree, that America enjoys flexing its muscle over other countries, they do not do it to the extent of war. If you think Americans enjoy being at war I suggest you take another look. The Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have no become the longest American military campaign, yet have the fewest casualties. Even so, the majority of Americans disagree with these wars. People do not enjoy risking their lives on a daily basis just because their government feels like blowing something up.
For other people who continue to post... OBVIOUSLY the U.S. doesn't wage war for luxury - I believe the intimidation and other positive emotional gains from war victories removes most if not all hesitation for our country to wage war.
While I agree with Phillip that war games are fun, I think there's a rather large leap in logic in saying Phillip likes war games and is a US citizen, which is some sort of analogy to the US being warmongering. I think there have been very few times in US war history when the US desired to go to war without a good reason.
1) Revolutionary war - US fault, with good reason, to break out from oppression
2) War of 1812 - British came back, not US fault
3) Spanish American War - one war where Phillip's argument applies
4) Civil War - Inside of US, and Abe didn't want to go to war but had good reason
5) World War I - US chose to involve and it was dramatized ("Over There" and stuff like that)
6) World War II - US not choose, but it was justified in intervening
7) Korean War - US choice, protecting it's ally S.Korea
8) Vietnam - another time I agree with Phillip, but this one is controversial so I won't say anything else
9) Desert Storm - Justified
10) Afghanistan - Justified
11) Iraq - too controversial for a definite description.
bottom line: Just because the US has a lot of wars, doesn't mean it enjoys them. If the US enjoyed war, it would have attacked Russia in the Cold War, it would have attacked Iran already, and it would have likely dropped a ton of nukes. I must say I disagree with Phillips parallel that war being glorified in books and games means most nations want war. But I do agree that the Iliad glorifies war.
Really guys, are we really comparing killing someone on a VIDEO GAME to killing someone in real life? Just think about it, what if it was you and enemy in a gun fight, and you and that person made eye contact, and you just pulled the trigger and took that person's life. Are you still going to have a feel good feeling in your stomach? I have never been in war, but i bet that ACTUAL war compared to VIRTUAL warfare is physically different as well as emotionally.
While I think it is true that American have become desensitized to war because of video games and television, but I don't think a comparison can be made that compares waging a fake war for excitement and waging a real war. True - America does not hesitate as much in starting wars as many others countries because we have the most powerful military in the world. But we do not start war purely because of the fact that we can win them.
Perhaps your right when you say American is less hesitant to fight a war because of its military strength. But that's not the only reason. America will rush into a war quicker than most nations because America can. The United States has the industrial, economin, and yes, military capacity to do things that other countries can't. As far as doing it for the thrill of victory is concerned, I'm not so sure. We play sports and boardgames for the thrill of victory, but wage wars? We wage wars out of necesity (for defense, to help others (we think), but not for the simple joy of winning, at least not in the United States, I hope. War has more to offer than sheer thrill, be it economic reward or whatever.
I agree with Will. America hasn't really gotten to the point of carefree killing. I feel as though that many people say this but don't take into consideration that maybe our military itself is slightly confused about who the enemy is. Although there have been innocents killed by our soldiers in Iraq, I don't think it's because of being carefree.
Post a Comment