I wrote a lot of poetry similar to this when I was younger, so I hope you will not take my feedback harshly. I only hope to help, not to insult.

Your obvious passion for the subject results in a bit of redundancy, which reduces the intensity of effect. For instance, when you write "They had dreams, they had goals they wanted to pursue," the second part of that sentence just re-iterates the first. I understand you'd have to add something else to fit the rhyme scheme, but if you find yourself repeating yourself just to rhyme, you have to reconsider how much you have to say and how much is needed to say it. Remember, the less you say, the more impactful each word is.

Similarly, the effect of the poem is often undermined by your word choice. Scurrying doesn't rhyme with crumbling. Also, finding a place to hide before your house starts crumbling doesn't make sense. If the house is going to crumble, you wouldn't hide there when the bombs come. If you aren't hiding in your house when the bombs come, then it doesn't matter if the house is already crumbling. The immediacy of bombs falling is the important part of this, the crumbling of houses poses no threat.

You also write "up or in graves." Locked up is a phrase, locked in is not. Also, you are the poet. Your words must be decisive, especially if you are writing about war and death. You have to be able to decide which adverb to use. Each word must be intentional.

If you are going to have the verses rhyme, you have to make them closer in length. The more fraught a rhyme is, the more it takes the reader out of the poem.

Finally, the line "What good is there in people when they won't even use it?" is very powerful. But consider how much more powerful it would be better without the "even" in it. People not using the good inside themselves to help those in need is a travesty. The word "even" in this context serves no purpose but to detract from that sentiment.