I found this poem to be rather a disappointment, actually. By your warning, I expected something shocking, something that I've never heard before, that would make me sit up straighter and pay attention.
This poem didn't come close to doing any of those things. Instead, it rehashed centuries of over-used phrases about the tragedy of war that read like someone trying to ignorantly preach.
Why is this so ineffective? Because everything is so general. Take, for example, the lines "causing wars that go on eternally. Famlillies destroyed. Separated, for life. Hearts broken. Tears shed. Lives lost, and blood spilt" (also, please check spelling before you post. Especially when there is a Spell Check button right next to the Submit button). If you were to walk up to me on the street and say "see that boy over there? He just had his heart broken" I would probably shrug, say "too bad for him" and keep walking.
The same kind of indifference is generated from the line "hearts broken". There isn't enough there to make me feel anything. That in itself could be the topic for an entire poem. But if that same person on the street told me about the girl said boy had been pining for since kindergarten and she had just dumped him, then there'd be a story to relate to.
This same concept applies to everything that was probably mean to have grand impact, such as the last few lines in particular, and the whole poem in general. But all that really happens is that I get the feeling I should shrug and keep walking. It would probably be a big help to read some poetry and analyze it to see what works and what doesn't. Let me know if you need any recommendations; I'm sure I could find some for you
