Remember freedom is worth fighting for, or we will become slaves.

I hereby express an opposing point of view.
My opinion is that anzac day should cease.
I cannot see that it serves any useful purpose.
All the pomp and ceremony of dawn services is really just that: pomp and ceremony?
And it all glorifies war, which is not good.

Both world wars were a long time ago.
How long should we continue to 'remember' those who took part?
Just how far back in history need we go with our devotions?
And recent skirmishes: do we really need to dwell on them so much?
Having said that, I am profoundly grateful to the men and women who fight to protect us in any war.

They front up, and do what is necessary.
That, to me, is profoundly selfless of them.
I have known many who did not return.
I am saddened by the loss of those good men and women.
But that is a private matter.

I still see no need to remember them publicly, as is done on a yearly basis.
Continuing with a tradition, purely for tradition's sake, seems pointless.
Memories of those lost belong to their families and personal friends?
Not to the population at large?
So anzac services should cease forthwith?

Hi Ipso Fatso,

Australia is not the only country around the
world that has a national memorial day for its
fallen. Armistice Day, Rememberance Day is
also marked by countries like the UK, France,
Belgium, Netherlands, Norway, Germany to name
just a few.

I think it is important to honour those who made
the ultimate sacrifice for their countries.
Have you ever stood in silence and watched the sun rise at a
dawn service - in the cold? It is very powerful.
And it really sends a clear and insightful message to all
who attend. Some things are worth remembering if only to
try to ensure that they don't happen again.

Foxy,
When it comes to war poems I think Wilfred Owen's ironic "Dulce et Decorum Est" sums it up pretty well when it describes the reality of war versus the limits of patriotism and propaganda.

However Buffy Sainte-Marie's song "The Universal Soldier" puts responsibility for war on the individual, regardless of the demands of rulers.

In the end, war is simply about resources which translates as being about profit.
When there's a financial advantage elsewhere that's better than trade, things "happen". The businesses follow the money and the soldiers follow the flag.

I mentioned Smedley Butler earlier and in the end he saw his actions as a soldier being just a paid gangster doing work for businessmen. Although a bit dated, his original thesis still applies -
https://ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.pdf

Is it really "sweet and fitting to die for one's country” or do they die for the bottom line on a balance sheet?.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1518708161846202368

Rache said- "war is simply about resources which translates as being about profit"

Answer- If war is about resources- it still doesn't necessarily imply it's about profit- it could be about survival.