From Dr. King, a Reminder on Iraq

I thought this was a very interesting article that shows how MLK would respond to the War on Iraq.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...011201745.html

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

From Dr. King, a Reminder on Iraq

By Colbert I. King
Saturday, January 13, 2007; Page A19

Forty years ago, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., whom the nation will honor on Monday, took to the pulpit of Riverside Church in New York City at a meeting organized by Clergy and Laymen Concerned About Vietnam. The date was April 4, 1967, one year before his assassination in Memphis.

King said he was in New York because his conscience had left him no choice. In his speech, "Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence," King declared: "That time has come for us in relation to Vietnam."



» Colbert I. King | Speaking of Vietnam forty years ago at Riverside Church in New York City, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. declared: 'a time comes when silence is betrayal.'


King acknowledged the reluctance of some people to speak out on Vietnam -- the same hesitation some Americans may have today over voicing their concerns about Iraq. People, he explained, "do not easily assume the task of opposing their government's policy, especially in time of war."

But King concluded that too much was at stake. He and the other religious and lay leaders were moved by what the conflict in Vietnam was doing to the United States. Vietnam, King said, was consuming American troops and money like "some demonic, destructive suction tube" even as that war was laying waste to the Vietnamese people and to America's standing in the world.

And on this Martin Luther King Jr. Day, in 2007?

More than 3,000 Americans have been killed in Iraq, while 22,000 others have been wounded. Billions of dollars that could have been invested here at home have been spent there, a lot of it wasted, some of it stolen, plenty of it unaccounted for. And Iraqis in Baghdad, who cowered for decades under a brutal dictator, have been living in the midst of violence almost continuously since Saddam Hussein was deposed.

"We are creating enemies faster than we can kill them" read a bumper sticker in Washington this week.

Now enter George W. Bush -- the president who got America into this debacle through a series of misjudgments that would make Alfred E. Neuman look brilliant. This week Bush announced plans to plop down thousands of additional troops in the middle of a sectarian war and to shell out billions of additional dollars to pacify a war-weary Iraqi population that, truth be told, wants America gone.

Why trust this administration?

Contrary to what Bush and his allies said:


· There were no weapons of mass destruction poised to strike America and her allies.

· A quick defeat of Hussein did not lead to chocolates and flowers in the streets of Baghdad.

· An American invasion did not produce a unified, nonsectarian and Western-oriented Iraq or spark a desire for U.S.-style governance throughout the Arab world.

· De-Baathification and the imposition of a market economy at gunpoint did not usher in a period of tranquility or the flowering of capitalism.

The Bush administration struck first because it had the power to strike and the arrogance to think, foolishly, that it could win and dominate the conquered on the cheap.

King spoke in '67 about "the Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them." Witness the Bush team in Iraq.

Today they have a bloodbath on their hands to show for their labors, and Iran is on the verge of getting an Iraqi neighbor beyond its wildest dreams.

Yet even now, neoconservatives inside and outside of government are counseling Bush to remain in Iraq for years to prevent the Shiite-dominated regime from collapsing. They also are encouraging him to prepare for battle with Iran and Syria if those countries start meddling in Iraq -- as if they aren't now. With what exactly and for how long we are supposed to do battle with Tehran and Damascus, the militaristic neocon noncombatants in Washington don't say. But then again, they have a tolerance for risk and cost that exceeds that of those who actually do the fighting and dying.

Forty years ago at Riverside Church, people of conscience declared that "a time comes when silence is betrayal." They went beyond using their voices and votes when they agreed to break their silence. They responded, as King had urged, by matching their words with actions. "We are at the moment when our lives must be placed on the line if our nation is to survive its own folly. Every man of humane convictions must decide on the protest that best suits his convictions, but we must all protest," King preached that day.

Yes, this is a different time and a different world. Global terrorism is a sobering reality. And America is on the right side in that war. To not fight back is tantamount to indulging a death wish.

But the first blow in Iraq, which was not a battleground for terrorism, was struck by Bush. He now, stubbornly and in the face of legitimate opposition, proposes to make matters worse.

Remember King and the words: "A time comes when silence is betrayal."

Iraq is not Vietnam.

MLK was a plagiarist and a philanderer.

People who attempt to speak for the dead lack the deference to have their own words respected.

:yes:

Added to which Vietnam was, unlike Iraq, a completely justifiable war and the American abandonment of the South Vietnamesse should be a great cause of shame to anyone who considers that war "wrong." The problem in Vietnam was the failure to fight a war and to instead attept a Police Action.

Iraq is the opposite of Vietnam in every way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

Iraq is not Vietnam.

---

Close enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

Added to which Vietnam was, unlike Iraq, a completely justifiable war

---

In that case it stands to reason that MLK would have spoken out even harder against the War on Iraq than he did regarding Vietnam.

Quote:

---

Added to which Vietnam was, unlike Iraq, a completely justifiable war

---

If it was completely justifiable then why did they have to lie to get it approved ?

I suggest those who wonder what MLK would do in the modern post 2000 world to watch the Boondocks episode dealing with it.

"Return of the King" was brilliant. Ever seen MLK got dissed by a Rush Limbaugh-like figure, called traitor, and became a public pariah because he preached tolerance right after 9/11? Downright chilling on how true that could've been and who we are this day and age.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Navaros

Close enough.

---

Only in the eyes of those with an agenda. :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

MLK was [...] a philanderer.

---

This would be relevant ... how?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

Iraq is not Vietnam.

MLK was a plagiarist and a philanderer.

People who attempt to speak for the dead lack the deference to have their own words respected.

:yes:

---

This somehow lessens what the man did? He was a great leader, and a great rhetorician. Almost all great rhetorical works plagiarise others, it is neccessary to evoke meaning through speach to use other's works as examples.

He was the moses of his time, leading the blacks from second class citizens to full citizens. He did it through peaceful means and did not use violence like Malcom X. If only he could be alive today.:shame:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

This would be relevant ... how?

---

When his name is envoked to try to add weight to an argument, its important to note what kind of man he really was.

Quote:

---

This somehow lessens what the man did?

---

Yes. The man envoked religion and morals, yet did not live up to them himself.

Quote:

---

Almost all great rhetorical works plagiarise others, it is neccessary to evoke meaning through speach to use other's works as examples.

---

What about their college dissertations? Do all great men plagiarize those?

Don't believe all the civil rights crap they teach you at school.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

Only in the eyes of those with an agenda. :yes:

---

Like you're one to talk.
"Pot, meet kettle."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

People who attempt to speak for the dead lack the deference to have their own words respected.

:yes:

---

The article does not purport to speak for MLK. It quotes what he said about Vietnam and draws parallels with the situation in Iraq. The views expressed are clearly those of the author and he does not seek to put words in MLK's mouth although you might be forgiven for thinking he does from Navros introduction. Given that Martin Luther King day approaches, it seems a perfectly legitimate piece to me.

Quote:

---

Iraq is not Vietnam.

---

The author does enough to draw parallels and point out differences between Iraq and Vietnam to make this comment redundant.

Quote:

---

MLK was a plagiarist and a philanderer.

---

The fact that the man was not perfect can be used to undermine him, but should it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

When his name is envoked to try to add weight to an argument, its important to note what kind of man he really was.

Yes. The man envoked religion and morals, yet did not live up to them himself.

---

Do morals and religion come as a package? Which package do we choose? If we go a bit further back, if we apply Victorian morals and religion to the world today, said Victorian could be guaranteed to produce a dysfunctional family. If we go further back and apply Spartan morals and religion to the world today, said Spartan would be termed a sociopath, best kept from normal society.

I prefer the liberal definition of freedom - one can do whatever one likes, as long as one doesn't interfere with others. What other people do or think is none of my business, as long as they don't try to impose it on others. That principle is part of the foundation of the United States, and prior to that, a common understanding of the English people. With your different background, you probably won't understand why people refuse to make windows into men's souls.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

What about their college dissertations? Do all great men plagiarize those?

---

One of the justifications for the Iraq war was a plagiarised college essay, so perhaps they do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

If it was completely justifiable then why did they have to lie to get it approved ?

---

I have no idea, probably because no one wanted to stop the NVA from completing their invasion.

Quote:

---

Don't believe all the civil rights crap they teach you at school.

---

Yeah, and don't believe all the crap they tell you at martinlutherking.org either ... Or at Stormfront for that matter.

What sort of man are you saying that he really was? Please go deeper, I don't think there's more wrong with him than with any other human.

There are no doubt many "plagiarists and philanderers" in the world. Most, however, didn't do the things King did, presuming he now counts as one anyway.

Sort of like how Orwell may have been an ass, but at least he wrote damn good books. That's far more than most jerks ever manage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Randarkmaan

Yeah, and don't believe all the crap they tell you at martinlutherking.org either ... Or at Stormfront for that matter.

What sort of man are you saying that he really was? Please go deeper, I don't think there's more wrong with him than with any other human.

---

True...but stormfront is kind of funny though....some of the stuff there is just so far out and outrageous that you have to laugh, it's like watching borat just meaner and creepier.



But I would like to hear more from panzer (I am not ganging up on ya' panzer, I agree with you here MLK was a great guy but he wasn't a saint.)

After making this thread I did a websearch about MLK and I came up with some very disturbing results that he was in fact a pervert, an adulterer, and a counterfeit Christian. Much like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are nowadays.

In hindsight, I regret making this thread for that reason. I had believed "the hype" I had learned that MLK was a Christian and a good man. His wife even had FBI tapes (ie: rock solid evidence) of his perversions and adulteries from his bugged hotel rooms and offices sealed for 50 years so that "it doesn't ruin his repuation". Well, he is what he is even if the public doesn't get to hear all grueome details. If the public in general had any intelligence whatsoever, then his reputation would have been ruined the moment the gist of the content of the tapes was made public.

I used to think that Canada should have an MLK day too, but now after learning all this I don't know why a pervert and adulterer was given a national Holiday in the USA - that is shameful.

I'm embarrassed that I used the name of such a shameful man in a respectful way in the original post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Do morals and religion come as a package? Which package do we choose? If we go a bit further back, if we apply Victorian morals and religion to the world today, said Victorian could be guaranteed to produce a dysfunctional family. If we go further back and apply Spartan morals and religion to the world today, said Spartan would be termed a sociopath, best kept from normal society.

---

You're broadening the discussion more than is necessary.

Whether morals and religion coincide really makes no difference in this case.

King, a "religious" leader, did not follow his religion or the morals he purported to uphold.

He was a liar, a cheater(in more ways than one), and a conman, as are most of the "spiritual leaders" of that particular movement. He had quite a dream - cheating his way through college! Now thats a role model for ya. :laugh4:

But he was black, so none of that matters. Lets just sweep it under the rug, shall we? (before the accusations of racism start)

Oh no, he was a real person with real vices. Navaros, I'd have thought you'd be ashamed of yourself for the idolization in the first place.

Well, the thread originator has abandoned his premise, and we've turned to King-bashing, so I guess we've squeezed every last bit of righteousness possible out of this subject.

Therefore: closed.

Thanks for all contributions. Please feel free to start another thread, if you like, about the human frailties of people elevated to hero-dom.