War memorials do more harm than good.

Greetings to my opponent and welcome to Round 2 -- Good luck! For the purpose of this debate, a war memorial will be defined as a building, monument, statue or other edifice to celebrate a war or victory, or (predominating in modern times) to commemorate those who died or were injured in war (Source: Wikipedia). If my opponent disagrees with the definition, I ask that he provide another relavent to the resolution as soon as possible. So without further ado (or is it adieu?), let's begin! -- Jimmy Carter once said, "War may sometimes be a necessary evil. But no matter how necessary, it is always an evil, never a good." The word war itself is practically synonomous with violence and death, or at least severe conflict. Since when are these things that are to be celebrated or glorified? Surely my opponent will note that war memorials are meant to REMEMBER the lives lost during times of war and not celebrate them. However that is not necesarilly the case. For instance, consider the obelisks that are scattered around the cities of Rome. Each of them tells a story, usually one regarding an important battle or victory for the Romans. Do you think the stories were illustrated to depict the heroism embraced by soldiers on both sides of the battle? Or were they glorified tales of destruction and conquer on Rome's behalf? Obviously they were the latter; the very concept of the obelisk as a war memorial was stolen from Alexandria (the Greeks) in 30 BC after Rome had defeated them in battle. This example proves that some war memorials do in fact glorify and celebrate war itself. Obviously the applause for such an atrocity would be harmful toward society (promoting violence, ignoring the magnitude of war's consequence, etc.). We know the effects that war memorials can have on individuals. Many of us become emotional and experience intense feelings of patriotism and in turn nationalism. But nationalism is not always a good thing. Ironically, history shows us how nationalism could even be attributed to the cause of a major war (i.e. WWI). It can also promote racism and xenophobia (fear of foreigners). In this day and age, we should be embracing diversity and rejecting notions of superiority over other nations. It is those types of feelings that emulate a negative impression of us throughout the world, and can even make us a target of terror. "For three decades the twin towers of New York's World Trade Center stood as the symbol of American economic might, as powerful an icon for capitalism as the Statue of Liberty is for freedom" (Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com...). Thus we can see how a symbol that is supposed to be celebrated can actually lead to turmoil and destruction. If such a tragedy could be imposed upon tall office buildings, think of what people could do to a symbol of war -- war is always controversial. From the time we are impressionable children, society teaches us that war memorials are things to be embraced and shown reverence to. Often they stand tall and architecturally sound right in the town square or in a prominent city relavent to the memorial's purpose. We are told that we should appreciate what those monuments stand for and the achievements or courage exemplified by the soliders who fought for a purpose. But speaking of those very soldiers, what type of say do they have in all this? Little to none. Many memorials are constructed and dedicated to fallen military personnel. But what if these fallen patriots do not wish to celebrate their own deaths? What if their families don't? What if these former soldiers do not deem it respectful to celebrate something that caused others (the opposing side) sorrow, heartbreak, bankruptcy and/or death? Truly there is never a 'winner' in any war. Why honor something so destructive, especially if those honored do not deem it appropriate? Indeed not all veterans support the construction of certain war memorials, especially when they infringe upon the environment or aim to disturb an already tranquil setting. This CNN source cites an example of veterans themselves in opposition -- "'I think I have as much right to talk about things like this as most of the people who are advocating destroying this Mall,' Navy veteran John Floberg told Reuters. 'I'd like to think I did a good job ... but I'm not arrogant enough to think that any one of us has the same right to be memorialized on this Mall as George Washington or Abraham Lincoln.'" Another veteran notes, "'I protest what is being done in my name. I am so sorry that my legacy may include the desecration of the Mall" (Source: http://archives.cnn.com...). Additionally, many soldiers unfortunately suffer from PTSD or Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Certain prominent symbols - especially war memorials - are bound to trigger an array of emotions from soldiers who have fought in a war and are still haunted by its effects. Thus rather then making a solider feel proud, war memorials have the capacity to negatively effect and even harm veterans who do not wish to be reminded of their endeavors. This is further instigated by celebrations at or around these memorials, such as events that feature military bands playing war-era songs like the one in my previous example (regarding the Mall). Moving on, I think I have already proved how and why war memorials can be very disrespectful to both the living and deceased on both sides of the conflict. However let's assume for a second that a war memorial was built to honor those lives lost and was very much appreciated and celebrated by soldiers and their families alike. Naturally *someone* is going to be offended by its presence and ultimately seek a way to destroy it or its grandeur. For that reason, people may choose to negatively utilize the area surrounding the memorial, say by using it as a focal point for rallies or other disruption, or more significantly, some people may choose to damage or deface the memorial that was so important and special to others. This would cause great emotional damage to those who placed a certain amount of significance on the memorial. To solve this potential problem, I forsee my opponent opting for one of two strategies. One, he can point out that people construct fences around their homes which also get defaced (maybe I'm just used to that because I'm from NY)... should we cease to stop building fences? Of course not. But obviously a fence does not represent something of such magnitude such as a war, nor does it draw about such intense emotions. Two, it could be suggested we make the memorial 'impossible' to destroy either by hiring guards or building some sort of protective shield. To counter this, I bring up another good point: Who's paying? It is true that many war memorials are a result of contributions from veterans and other private donors. However most war memorials are in fact government funded. Why should tax payers have to spend money towards something so frivolous (I use the word frivolous due to our current economic crisis) when money could be better spent elsewhere? I understand the thinking behind the promotion of war memorials. Obviously many brave people have made tremendous sacrifices including their own lives and deserve to be recognized for their contribution. However war memorials simply do more harm than good. There are other ways of attributing proper gratitude and respect for veterans of war without them. Unfortuntately for this round I have run out of characters, however, within the next two I will 1) suggest sufficient alternatives to war memorials, and 2) discuss the various levels of controversy that currently surround them. I welcome the opportunity for my opponent to touch upon these subject matters first if he so chooses. Again, good luck -- I look forward to Con's rebuttal.