War memorials do more harm than good.

Throughout this debate, I have provided numerous instances and occasions that explain why constructing a war memorial in fact does more harm than good. In his rebuttal, my opponent has deemed my examples somewhat far-fetched. However in this final round, I will - as promised - cite numerous controversial war memorials and describe their effects on society and the globe. If I can demonstrate that their existance/celebration does more harm than good, then I have fulfilled my obligation to the resolution and therefore you should vote Pro. * In Japan, the Yasukuni Shrine has caused a great amount of political controversy. Chinese and Korean representatives have spoken out against the visit of Japanese politicians to the site which contains the bodies of several WWII war criminals. When Japan's Prime Minister visited the site, the result included severe diplomatic conflicts between the nations, as well as Japanese businesses being attacked in China. In this case, the result of one man's visitation to the memorial to "commemorate" the fallen soldiers (including criminals of war) led to diplomatic dispute which effected not just one man, but entire nations of people. The fighting amongst prominent Asian countries has an effect on the whole globe, politically and economically. I would like to also point out that this is a perfect example of "misusing" the intention of a war memorial. The PM of Japan was intentionally disregarding international opinion which led to extreme controversy that affected millions in a negative way. Not to mention that the blatant attacks on Chinese business in general are enough to make the shrine "not worth it." This successfully argues my point that regardless of what war memorials are intended to do, they can be exploited to fulfil a purpose that in the end causes more harm than good. * Another example of controversial war memorials include the Soviet structures that contain quotes from Stalin's texts. These memorials are specifically placed in city centers and therefore are often regarded as symbols for Soviet occupation. Because of this, these memorials are often removed which in turn leads to further conflict. It is easy to see why the destruction or removal of war memorials is so alarming and upsetting to the people who go there for reflection or to pay their respects. However it is also understandable as to why many people are in strong opposition of what the memorials reprsent. To them, the memorials are a symbol of tyrannical occupation and they do not want them displayed within city parameters. The location of the Bronze Soldier of Tallinn, for instance, caused riots for nights on end as well as the besieging of the Estonian embassy in Moscow for a week. Further, the events sparked international attention and caused a number of political reactions. * What about the war memorials regarding the Indigenous Australians who had died fighting against British invaders on their land? These tribes fought colinization and were consistently defeated. Yet they faced death without flinching to fight for their rights and their homes. War memorials dedicated to them have been frequently shot at and eventually blown up. My opponent writes, "The good of rememberance outweighs the offense of the few." How would that be applied in this particular situation? These war memorials DO serve as symbols of rememberance, however, the individuals they commnence and the people who celebrate them ARE "the few." Therefore his argument is void; it would only make sense if he said "The good of rememberance outweighs the offense of the MAJORITY." However, the offense of the majority would mean that the resolution is affirmed: that war memorials do more harm than good. Further, it would instigate a greater chance of opposition, such as the violent and damaging measures taken to destroy these memorials: gun shots and explosives. So what kind of message are we sending here? That war memorials are only intended/good if the majority of people support its presence? If not, it'll succumb to destruction which downplays the importance it has to the people who actually hold the memorial of significant importance. Either way, it is not only controversial but infringes upon people's rights and emotional well-being. * Finally I'd like to introduce the controversial matter regarding Christianity and Christian symbols in terms of war memorials being built around the country. Take the memorial in Lafayette, California for example. Some parents who lost children in the war (Iraq) have asked that their crosses be taken down off the memorial - even those who are Christian. This not only brings up the problems regarding secular memorials but also religious controversy as well. For instance, many Christians are against the war, and further, the Catholic Church itself has been in opposition with the Iraqi war since its inception (Pope John Paul II cited the Catechism's "Just War" theory which the war in Iraq does not fall under). This obviously creates an unnecessary political/religious tension. * In San Diego, a war memorial which proudly displays a Christian cross on top of the edifice (on PUBLIC LAND) has been under scrutiny for decades. An atheist Veteran has been fighting since the 80s to have the cross removed from the memorial site. This issue is not about his own personal religious beleifs, but rather the very important distinction between Church and State. The memorial is on public land and many feel that it promotes Christianity and/or associates Christianity with the veterans remembered via the memorial. The fact remains that there were a lot of non-Christians who fought and died in the war - why should they be subjected to a Cross mounted on top of their names? Isn't that sort of sacreligious? James McElroy, the lawyer for the veteran in opposition to the Cross states, "We're becoming more and more religiously diverse in this country. Our government should be saying to respect all religions, not, 'We care so much more about Christians that we'll put a 40-foot, 20-ton cross on the most beautiful land the city owns.' Government is sending a message to non-Christians that they're second-class citizens." And yes, this has in fact become a huge government issue. The fight over the memorial has made its way all the way up to the Supreme Court as well as President Bush who signed a bill in its defense. However that type of blatant disregard for the separation of Church and State is what makes our values hypocritical. Consider the reaction from President Bush if it had been a 20 ton Islamic symbol on top of the site (afterall Islam is the second most popular religion in the world). Surely that would have not been okay... My point is that war memorials bring other issues into play. What is legal? What is fair? What is just? Often the lines are blurred in terms of right and wrong when it comes to such a sensitive subject such as war/death. However despite the controversy, veterans deserve to be remembered and commended for their efforts. War memorials are not the best way to go about celebrating their honor. The controversy they evoke does more harm than good; people cannot enjoy or show reverence to these memorials/soldiers in peace. There are always questions about the legal, political, religious and economic (who's paying for it?) implications of the edifice and often negative consequences as well. Thus, alternatives to these monuments should and do exist. For the reasons I have stated (and have gone unrefuted to the final round) memorial services are NOT included in the definition of war memorials; however, they are a great alternative. They can be secular AND patriotic, and effectively commemorate our veterans the way they rightfully deserve. For something more permanent, individuals can own private edifices that do not infringe upon the rights of those who wish to honor/remember in a different way.