Even as of today, thousands of years since the first war, people still argue on the morality of war. As such a controversial topic, it is destined to be written about, including in the form of poems. This paper will compare the different outlooks society has on wars by comparing two poems, "Dulce et Decorum Est" and " Who's for the Game?". "Dulce et Decorum Est" was written by Wilfred Owen and "Who's for the Game?" was written by Jessie Pope.After reading each poem it is clear that the authors have very different but strong opinions on war.

In the poem "Dulce et Decorum Est", it addresses all the negative aspects of war. For example, one phrase is "Many had lost their boots, But limped on, blood-shod.". If a young citizen reads this it will indubitably make them second guess about enlisting in the military. The entirety of the poem is about all the possible injuries, both mental and physical, that can go along with war. Owen then ended the poem stating it is a lie when people say it is right to die for your nation. "Dulce et Decorum Est" is meant to make the reader view war negatively and persuade them to think about all the dangerous injuries that can can result from it. …show more content…
Author, Pope, even goes as far as comparing war to a game, similar to football. This speaks out to the younger citizens who ultimately make their own choice in whether or not they wish to enlist. With the knowledge of this, Pope wrote the the poem to make the citizens who enlist in the war better than the others by comparison. An example of this is when author Jessie Pope writes "Who would much rather come back with a crutch than lie low and be out of the fun?", which is a line from the poem. Author, Jessie Pope, makes war sound fun and feels that although it may be dangerous that it is necessary and worth it. The poem was written to persuade young adults to become interested in fighting for their