Remembrance Day Should Focus Less On Honouring Veterans

Rebuttals"I would like to clarify my point on this. It is not that I believe no cause is worth fighting for. I think that no cause is worth fighting and killing for. There is a difference. There are many ways to fight for a cause that don't involve killing. " I'm glad pro thinks there are some causes worth fighting for, however as i have previously shown there are certian causes that have to involve violence and there for soldiers. And I shall further disprove pors belief that every issuse or cause can be resolved peacefully."The Battle of Tours, to which if I am not mistaken you are referring, was yet another war of conquest. The Muslims had invaded Europe in order to claim more land and resources. When they were forced to retreat by King Charles, he ended up claiming more land and resources for France.Would I personally prefer for Europe to have been conquered by the Muslims? I don't know. There's no way to know for sure what our society would look like now had that been the case. And yes, my position still stands that even in this case, fighting and killing should have been rejected." I think we have a pretty good idea of what Europe would look like today if the Moors had been successful. take a look at the middle east, or read the Quran, and you'll be glad Europe progressed the way it did. However i do concede that there is really no true way of knowing what our society would have become. That being said my other two examples are a lot harder to refute."Do you honestly believe that there was no other option than to launch a civil war in this case? For example, those involved in the underground railroad were able to free slaves without fighting and killing." Yes, i honestly believe that the only moral option, in the case of America's practice of slavery was to fight a civil war to end it. Saying that the underground railroad could have been used as a alternative to war is very misguided notion. From 1810 to 1850 around 100,000 slaves were freed by the underground rail road[1], that sounds like a lot but remember the south had 4 million slaves. Also the Underground railroad was very dangerous[2], and many slaves were returned from the north to the south. And the south would have never giving up their slaves willingly, their entire economy was based on slavery[3], there for war was necessary for Americans of all color's to be free. And we should honor the men who freed them!"This is a widely debated topic. Many Americans do not believe that soldiers should have been sent to fight in the Korean War." I think that most south Koreans are happy that the U.S sent troops and intervened in their favor, as their nation is democratic and prosperous. Unlike north korea which is totalitarian and starving...So in the end millions of people are better off because are veterans were willing to fight and die for people they didn't even know. And those people deserve our respect!"You mention that 306 soldiers were shot for desertion in Great Britain (I assume you are referring to soldiers who deserted during WW1). And how many young men were killed in battle? A far higher number. If all of those soldiers had refused to fight, first of all it would have been impractical to kill all of them for desertion, and secondly the war would not have taken so many lives on either side." It would have been very nice if all the soldiers of WWI had thrown down their guns and embraced their fellow man, howerver that a idealist's dream and simply couldn't have happened. And as i've already said WWI was a near pointless war, which didn't solve anything or stop any terrible wrongdoing, so i wish it didn't happen, but it did, so let's honor the men who died in that conflict, and others. "As I've already asserted, I disagree. Young people fighting and killing each other is neither necessary or helpful in any way." As I've proved war is sometimes necessary, and can be very "helpful", with things like stoping slavery, the holocaust, totalitarian communism, that sort of stuff. And we should honor the soldiers who had to fight against those horrible things."Why are you under the impression that soldiers have to fight? It is up to each of us to work towards peace, including soldiers who can choose not to fight." Because some things have to be solved through war, and require the use of soldiers, (see above)and i'm not arguing that war is good we should try to work towards peace. But not at any price, like letting slavery exist or letting a dictator kill his own people, etc."As I mentioned before, there are many ways to fight for a cause. I would absolutely not have been okay with the extermination of the Jews, or any of the other groups you mentioned. However, I believe that in every situation there is always an option preferable to killing." So how would you have stoped the holocaust? By asking Hitler nicely to not kill the jews? WHAT OPTION IS MORE PREFERABLE? The only solution I see is too send in the Allies and the Russians to destroy Hitler's forces. And thats because that was the only solution, oh sure if we had a time machine we could go back and stop Hilters rise, but realistically speaking, sending in soldiers to liberate concentration camps, and occupied countries was the only feasible solution. And again i think we should honor those incredibly brave men (and women) who destroyed the axis."What I said was based on common sense. You say yourself that it would have been impossible for Hitler to personally kill all of those people on his own. In that case, it is necessarily true that without the soldiers who carried out Hitler's orders, the deaths would not have happened." Yes, but like i said Canada and Great Britain had soldiers but no holocaust, so there no correlation between soldiers and genocide. And sure hypothetically speaking, if Germany didn't have soldiers then the holocaust would not have happened. But consider this, what if we could go back in time, and warn everyone, and completely disarm Germany! But how would we do it? Most countries aren't so keen on completely disarming themselves...so maybe we should disarm them by force? They might fight back, and a few thousand people will die, but we could save millions of lives! oh wait a sec i just described a war didn't I? So i guss we'll have to let germany rearm... well they just invaded Poland but thats ok, we won't stop them because war is bad! Now They invaded france and are gassing jews but i'm sure we can find some sort of peaceful way to solve are little problem...no need for war....no need for soldiers to fight it... But what if we just killed Hitler? Then Germany won't rearm, and the'll be no holocaust! Maybe even no ww2! (if the russians play nice) So maybe, just maybe it was Hitlers falt all along? Meaning the fact that Germany had soldiers, would have not been a problem. So in the end its still Hitlers fault."Because Nazi soldiers were young men just like our allies. Their lives had just as much value." Yes their lifes did/do have value, but they were still fighting for a Genocidal maniac, and invading other countries, so lets not feel to bad for them."The reason that Germany's National Day of Mourning is relevant to my argument is that they seem to have a better understanding of the horrors of war." In your opinion, but mabye they don't want to honor people like Hermann Goering? Doesn't mean we can't honor our vetrans.Closing ThoughtsThis debate in some ways has turned into a discussion about pacifism, we must remember that not every issue is resolved peacefully, and there are men and women who have, and have to fight for the greater good, they risk their lifes, face physical and mental pain, and had to leave their loved ones behind. So honor your veterans for the sacrifices they've made!Sources[1] http://askville.amazon.com...[2] http://www.pbs.org...[3] http://www.articlemyriad.com...