I was born on May 31st, the day after memorial day. Recently I have been reflecting on memorial day, the day to honor and remember those that have fought or died in battle. I believe that nothing will better honor our dead than to spend this time to try and actively circumvent the circumstance that lead to armed conflict. I find few benefits in publicly honoring those who have fought and died when it is obvious that very little is being done to avoid future conflicts, conflicts that end soldiers' lives. Why honor what a soldier fights for when you make no effort to settle such conflicts peacefully?

Question: Should we honor war dead/veterans not with memorials but by actively trying alternatives to war to save the living from the horrors they faced?

Should we honor war dead/veterans not with memorials but by actively trying alternatives to war to save the living from the horrors they faced?

I think everyone should be doing both. We should seeks ways to avoid war as a last resort, and we should pay our respects to those who made the ultimate sacrifice. Of course, if someone feels that they can only do one or the other, they have a real dilemma on their hands.

Yes, in this way and in others. But since the question was framed into an avoidance proposition, I'll take that angle.

There are fundamentally two kinds of war: short and long. Of these two types, there are declared and undeclared. Of the undeclared type, there are wars against governments and wars against non-governments.

The war on terror is against a non-government. Terror has no flag, no uniform, no country, no territory. It does have a place, time and leadership. It has followers.

Some people can stretch the war on terror into something similar to a declared war against a recognized nation. This gymnastic of logic does our service personnel a great disservice by pitting identifiable troops against unidentifiable terrorists. We'd do well by our troops to be more careful with what we label things, because this will avoid the construction of faulty assumptions and wishful thinking that leads to disasterous outcomes.

War is a very chaotic thing to begin with. To move into battle without clear thought and determined action is to invite failure. Our service personnel have voluntarily commited themselves to sacrifice their lives for country and Constitution. One of the best ways to honor both the living and the dead is to take the responsibilities very seriously, extremely seriously, when considering the use of our military branches in any conflict.

One of our generals from history commented that war is hell. It has always been hell. It will never be anything but hell. And this comment is an understatement of the realities that seldom get pushed forward of the thing called war.

Few but combat veterans can give full color and weight to war's realities. It's a Catch-22 that each generation has to learn from its own mistakes regarding war. In other words, war has to happen before combat veterans can attest to the war's true realities.

So, on this dawning of Memorial Day, 2004 (observed), let us be very careful what we call war, and let us remember and always hold out front what it means to serve in war. The best thing we can do to honor all the lives lost to war is to create a world in which war has become obsolete.

Impossible dream? Most definately if we are not courageous enough to dream it.

My Memorial Day thoughts,
War is the stupidest and most obscene, absurd and self defeating, vacant and testosterone embued endeavor that human-kind has ever gauged its ultimate worth upon. It is the epitome of a sick society. It is valueless since it is never-ending, and all those that sacrificed did nothing really but perpetate the continuation of the same. In glorifying it, we perpetuate it. There is no glory, only useless death in the most horrible fashion. There is NOTHING to glorify here.

Now you will say, Revolutionary war or Nazi Germany, the truth is, men fantasize about killing each other, taking anothers property or being superior, if not noone ever would have made any wars. Wars have been bull-crap (Id like to use stronger words) since the very beginning, governments using people and mens fantasies fitting right in with it, a way to prove ones machismo, be a man, play with good gear, until they got in the middle, then every one wished they were home. They werent about freedom, they werent about anything but conquest and power, and now they are only about profit.

I resent the continuing lies and glorification of war and those who died doing it, though it wasnt their fault. They were pawns of their government and other governments, leaders throughout history. We want to say they did something noble, because we have no other way to justify what they did, because they were our grandfathers, fathers, sons and now daughters. There is NO justification for our continued psychological illness in perpetuating wars over thousands of years and acting as if all those deaths changed anything at all in our human condition, but make it worse, bleed us economically and make a few richer and have us look at the pictures of family members that might have been a part of our lives, but were taken from us and died for ideals that change with each new year, hence each new war, which continually exact from us more human fodder.

I am sorry, but I do not buy it, and I certainly do not celebrate it.

Glorification of these wars is an illness that pervades a society that adores and accepts the killing of other parts of humanity and their own. Its necrofilia, a worship of death in society as a whole.

Should we honor war dead/veterans not with memorials but by actively trying alternatives to war to save the living from the horrors they faced?

Memorial Day is for the most part completely hypocritical, as everyone is having their backyard BBQ's and a day off from work. What it should be is a day of LAMENT A solemn day of thought and sadness, not glory and burgers.
It will be a great day when we look at each other and say that we will no longer accept bombing some other nation as a 'solution' to a problem. ( In this case, exactly what problems we have not proven but we sure didnt care about lots of innocents and those messy details.) Its ludicrous, if it werent so damn tragic.

I imagine I wont get any friends from this post, but my view is that war and the way americans jump to it so quickly, adore it, justify and glorify it is a really sick obsession.

It seems to me that when someone dies we mourn his/her passing. If death is on account of hostilities, the best way to honor the victim is to take measures to prevent it from happening to others.

To some, this means going and killing those who either caused the death or are in sympathy with the killers. Because of this, killing will go on indefinitely.

In the lives of some, e.g., in Belfast and other areas where vengeance killings have taken so many lives, young and old, there comes a realization that a commitment to peace and reconciliation is the only way to stop a vicious cycle. These people also put their lives on the line, for there are so many who do not share their feelings and still think that an eye for an eye is the only form of "justice."

Why are we killing each other? What is it that causes the anger and hatred to reach a point where we want to take away another human being's most basic possession, life? Honest and determined efforts to address the causes of anger, hatred and injustice are the answer to conflict, not killing and killing again. And yet, there is no Peacemakers Day on the calendar.

It's a good question: If we in our society honored the peacemakers more, would there be more peacemakers and a better chance to achieve a lasting peace? We don't know until we try.

Question: Should we honor war dead/veterans not with memorials but by actively trying alternatives to war to save the living from the horrors they faced?[B]

I agree with all that as been said above.

However, there is something I am concerned about. And that's called loss of memory. Our generation and the one of my parents have not known war, except in books or documentaries.

I think we often forget that the peace and happiness of today depend a lot of what happened in WW2. Our destiny was shaped by these events in a great part, but we've forgotten that.

Of course, we can't live in the past, or grieve constantly for those who died. Because if we did, we simply wouldn't be happy at all. But instead, maybe we could put a little more heart in the defense of what we hold dear, to honor the fallen.

Finally, I think that our times have shown the victory of selfishness and self-concern over duty and sacrifice. What happens to you is more important than what happens to your country. It's due to the very evolution of our societies and we can't prevent it.

In that perspective, I really wonder what the sacrifice of so many actually means today. Furthermore, if war was to happen again, would we all be ready to do the same again?

This is such a loaded question, I had to chime in. Could you please cite some examples of when the US just jumped into war without thinking through alternatives?

My guess is someone will cite the current Iraq war. The fact is - we DID try alternatives. Many were not satisfied with what we tried, but to act as if we didn't try any alternatives is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "LALALA" when presented the evidence. It does neither side any good, and it certainly isn't going to stop the fighting already started.



Illness?!? Sister, please. I adore you Artemise, but your reference to war as an illness is completely off base. I suspect to no sound medical journals would support your wording either. I'm curious, how would you explain revolutionaries who declare war on and violently overthrow an oppressive tyrant? Are they "ill" because they chose violence to stop their suffering?

Obviously, I'm not big fan of war. In fact, many of those in which we have been involved, probably could have been avoided had we followed Washington's advice and kept our noses out of foreign politics. I'm not willing to make or support blanket assertions, however, that our leaders always rush us into war without trying alternatives and that all war is wrong. The blanket simply won't cover all the corners.

Pursuing alternatives to war must always be a part of our existence. I think it is safe to say that not many people whose names are carved in granite, ever had some perverted fantasy of glorified bloodshed. Memorials to those who have fallen in war must remain. They are a part of our grieving process. They provide a tangible, material link to loved ones, acquaintances and neighbors who have fallen in battle. They give lessons in history and of values to strive for.

Like it or not, war sometimes brings out the best in mankind. War can quickly humble a braggart or break a retaining wall to let undaunted courage flow from a quiet, shy person. War has brought forth innumerable instances of unconditional love for fellow man. Courage, honor and integrity may just be words to some, some who would rather live under tyranny and see family and friends killed take up arms to stop it. Those people deserve their fate, but honorable ones do not.

War memorials provide memory that is far more hands on than a book or poem, though those are equally important.

There is no contradiction between BOTH honoring our fallen soldiers with memorials and pursuing peaceful alternatives to war. Peace is a luxury provided to us by those who suffered in battle. The freedom exercised by some in their vocal condemnation of all war was, likewise, paradoxically afforded to them by the sacrifice of those fallen.

Question: Should we honor war dead/veterans not with memorials but by actively trying alternatives to war to save the living from the horrors they faced?

This is a good question I think although I do think it may indicate something of a misconception about what a memorial is all about, at least to some people like me. I've had the chance to visit The Wall in Washington DC a number of times. I always go there when I'm in DC to visit some old friends, and I always go there alone. But, I am never alone there, even if I go late at night. In addition to my friends there is almost always someone else there making their own visit for their own reasons.

My family wants me to take them there with me sometime, and I don't know about that. I'll have to think on that one. The Wall is an intensely private and personal place for me. I don't like the memories it evokes in me for they are dark images of a dark time. Those are memories that a part of me would prefer to forget and pretend they never happened - except they did happen, and they can't be forgotten. They are not something one shares with anyone.

There is no glory there. Only names, over 58,000 names. Names of lives that were ended far too soon, of dreams that were dashed, of hopes that were shattered. The Wall is in a sense, an itemized invoice for what we enjoy today. Whether one agrees that Vietnam was a necessary war or not, or whether the 4000 stars on the WWII memorial representing the more than 400,000 who died were "worth it", the cost is undeniable. That's the price tag for what we have today. I think it's important we understand that.

Maybe, as the question posed suggests, there is a better way, a "cheaper" way. Maybe these various memorials to our fallen and the "sticker shock" they provide to the living will serve to encourage us to find that better way. Maybe if we can find that way we won't need to build any more memorials. That would be a very good thing and a truly fitting tribute to those who have gone before us.

I agree with two points which Artemise made: war should not be glorified and Memorial Day has become, to too many Americans, simply another vacation day.

I think it is fitting that we honor and revere those who have died in war, whether we support or oppose war in general or support or oppose the specific wars in which they fought. Very few soldiers have died fighting for what they believed was an unjust cause. While we may disagree with the rationale for having got involved in various conflicts, especially since the end of WWII, that does not diminish the sacrifice which our fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, sons and daughters have made - often in the belief that they were fighting for the defense of their country or the betterment of mankind, whether we believed the same or not.

This is why I feel that Memorial Day should not be a day of picnics and barbecues, trips to the beach or the mountains. As I was growing up, the only family outing we ever made on Memorial Day was to the cemetery to lay flowers and wreaths and to replace the faded and tattered American flags which adorned the graves of veterans.

Memorial Day should be a day of remembrance, of silent contemplation, of fasting and prayer, of memorial services. For me, today was a day of silence and fasting. This may be highly personal, but anything else would have struck me as dishonoring the lives of those who believed they were doing the right thing for their country, their comrades, and their loved ones, misguided or not.

Should we honor war dead/veterans not with memorials but by actively trying alternatives to war to save the living from the horrors they faced?

Memorial Day has never been a glorification of war. I think it would be misplaced to use Memorial Day as an avenue to either promote or decry war, for that is not its purpose and any such attempt would be misplaced.

I would actually be mildly supportive of the concept of a "Peace Day" (although my employer and many more might be, for reasons unrelated to the actual reasons behind such a day...). There seems to be the beginnings of such an effort... http://www.peaceday.org/.

I honestly would be adamantly opposed to any attempt to redefine Memorial Day, regardless of its recent connotations.

First I'd like to apologize for the loaded question. I don't try and hide my personal beliefs when it comes to posing questions but this time I did take it farther than intended. Allow me to rephrase: What should we place more emphasis on, building memorials or actively seeking alternatives to war?

Like everyone else here, I have no fondness for war or killing, but wars happen. Does that make any sense? It's not OK to kill, but when the government tells us too, it's fine. Let me state this now, I think there are only two types of justified war: revolutions and wars of defense. Let me clarify that, until another country attacks your citizens have no right to attack them. Territorial disputes, the cause of many conflicts (India/pakistan, Israel/Palestine, France/Germany going to war over the alsace lorraine region for centuries) are pathetic. Someone thinks they have a claim to land, someone else thinks they have a claim, so you kill each other? Do you know what happens when two neighbors claim the same land? They go a third party, AKA a judge or mediator and accept the judgement. The UN should declare all borders permanent unless willfully changed then enforce the declaration with trade embargos against any violating country.

Why do countries go to war then? Because the governments are out of touch with the average citizen. The average person doesn't try to get killed or kill someone in their lifetime, no, they try to get a good paying job and have some fun. Sadly, the average person trusts the government, when the government announces that countries X, Y & Z constitute and "Axis of Evil" (emphasis on the Axis to remind folks about Good ole WWII, let's not forget the famous propaganda technique called Fear) people start to remember all the bad things they've heard about X, Y and Z then suddenly we're at war because in Bush we trusted. (a bit of an aside, why does our justification for war keep changing? First it's WMD, then it's the threat of iraq, then it's "well, look at the atrocities this man committed" [pardon me, ahem, not our country, and we did PULL our support from the last revolution in iraq], now after a single sarin gas cannister it's back to WMDs)

War will end when people start caring about what is done to some unsuspecting schmuck half a world away when their elected leader sends troops in the name of disarmament and peace. When they care, they will vote. They aren't voting. Voter apathy is about 50% Sad. Get off your lazy butts and end pointless wars. Teach governments they have to respect the views of the average I-don't-kill-anyone-Joe.

If everyone in the world were sane, practical, peace-loving we would have no
cause or need for war. But, that is not the state of the world today, nor has it
ever been. There are forces that have destruction as the primary goal. WW2
is the best example of a war that had to be fought. Brave men and women
(from all over the world) put their lives on the line for their fellow-human beings.
You can sit in your cozy home and criticize the motives of war. That will not
change the reality that men and women before you have fought to protect
your rights. In essence, they have given you the freedom to speak
your mind, without fear of punishment.



I do not believe that the majority of men and women who have gone to battle
were doing so under some sick, necrofeliac desire. It is unfair for you to judge
others, whom you have never met, in such a way.

As an aside: The situation in Iraq may not be a good example of fighting the
good war. But, to treat every battle in the history of civilization, as something
unnecessary and wrong, is unfair and extremely disrespectful.



I'm an American, and almost everyone I associate with is American. I have yet
to meet another who has "jumped" at the idea of war. Perhaps you are confusing
the deeds of our administration with the desires of our people.