Wars are never good.

First, I'll address the article my opponent posts at the end of their argument. This article starts by saying "in this bicentennial year". That quote right there already means that this article was written back in 1976 (24 years ago). This article, therefore, holds little proof because in the 24 years since it was written, new information could have arisen to change any number of points in that article. First of all, I didn't say the reason for world war 2 was that Hitler was after world conquest, I said it was to stop Hitler. I would also like my opponent to tell me who these "millions of human beings" were that the allies were "guilty of denying self-determination, freedom, and human rights" to. My opponent also talks about how the Allies never bombed the trains Auschwitz. There are multiple reasons to explain this other than that the Allies were imperialistic. First of all, I just talked to my grandparents(my grandfather was born in WW2 and my grandmother a year after him), and they said that the general public did NOT accept concentration camps because they didn't believe anything so terrible could happen. If the public wouldn't believe in the camps, then there could hardly be bombing on the train tracks. I would also like to direct focus to Elie Wiesel's book Night. Mr. Wiesel is a holocaust survivor. In the beginning chapters of his book he tells about how when the Fascist party took over in his country, he and his fellow jews believed that no harm would come to them because they knew the war was almost over. Even when the Gestapo came and helped deport immigrants, they still believed nothing would happen. Even after an immigrant faked death and came back they doubted it. Mr. Wiesel tells of this immigrants report. According to the immigrant, babies were thrown into the air and used as machine gun targets, people were made to dig their own graves, and and then murdered in mass. The immigrant who reported this escaped because he was shot in the leg and able to fake death. Even after this report, the jews didn't believe in concentration camps. This pattern continues for 2 or 3 chapters. The jews go into ghettoes(they still don't believe), they are deported(nope, still don't believe), finally they arrive at the gates of Auschwitz, and now they believe. If the jews didn't believe the concentration camps were there until they arrived at the gates, how were the allies to know they were there in order to bomb it? Next, for anyone who's seen Band of Brothers, you will know that the soldiers involved in the fighting only believed in concentration camps when they liberated one. This movie, and the book its based on, are reliable sources for accurate information because the soldiers featured in the movie/book comment on how accurate it is with their experiences. *Note: before each part there are interviews with different soldiers featured in the movie. My final point for the lack of ability to bomb the camps is a report from a GERMAN SOLDIER from WORLD WAR 2 that my dad knew. This soldier says that most Germans didn't like Hitler, but couldn't do anything. The only reason they even fought the war was for Germany, not the Nazis. Also, the genocide, while attempted, was never completed because the jews weren't totally wiped out, and that is required for a genocide. I'd also like to point out that this attempt at genocide still hasn't been "stopped" so to speak. If they could, the modern Nazis would pick up right were they left off, they just need a chance to gain unchallenged power again. As for my opponent's argument about the American Revolution, they state that we were taxed because of a debt to repay for defense of the colonies. I'd like to point out that this is a flat out lie. The taxes were to fill a hole in the British treasury that was made during the French and Indian war. This war fit the British Empire's agenda, not the colonists'. The colonists only fought because they weren't given much choice. I'd also like to point out that 40-45% in favor of revolution that my opponent speaks of is in fact a fallacy. 56 people signed the Declaration of Independence, and at least 51% had to support the declaration. If a majority had NOT wanted independence, then there would have been no war. My opponent has also stated that the revolution was just to increase American politicians' standings. If this is true then why did George Washington refuse to take more than two terms in office? If he had wanted power, he could have easily been president for life, but he refused to let this happen. Finally, my opponent says his reason for not responding to the Greco-Persian wars is that they don't have enough characters. I say that this is a poor reason to not respond because if my opponent had really had anything substantial to say that would even begin to prove this war was non-imperialistic, then they could have easily made room. A lot of what they said about the American Revolution holds no standing in this debate because it is the same idea said in different was. Therefore, this war holds true as a "good war" because my opponent has been unable to dispute it. The other to wars that I used in example also hold true because I have shown how my opponents points are fatally flawed. My opponent also states at the very end that their thesis was that wars are normally fought for imperialistic reasons. The truth of the matter is that my opponent was accusing ALL wars of being wicked, and in their revised thesis alone has started to show that they are realizing that there are "good" wars. Since I still have a lot of characters left, I would like to introduce another known war. This is the Civil War(American). This war can hardly be credited to "imperialistic" reasons. The whole reason this war was fought was because Lincoln refused to entirely honor a state's right to secede. When the Confederate states seceded, they wanted more rights, not land. That is not imperialistic. The Union started the war because the "rebels" fired on Fort Sumter. This fort was fired on because Lincoln bolstered his defenses there rather than remove them like he said he would. In this war, the Union was still not out to gain land, they were out to save the Union from dissolving further. This can be proven because Lincoln said that he would keep slavery, abolish it, or mix keeping and abolishing it in order TO SAVE THE UNION! I have shown how my opponent fails to prove any of the wars that I've listed were for mainly imperialistic reasons, and I've provided yet another war that wasn't imperialistic. I await a response.