MLK: was he referring to Vietnam...or Iraq?

Afraid

Folks are afraid of the core ideas of King, which apply right now, a main one being that it is to be possessed of a supreme level of courage the gun-toting will never reach, appreciate or understand to submit "I come to conflict hoping to resolve it, having only myself to give."

Non-violent resolutions...Americans claim to be so Christian, yet given the example of a non-violent Christ who taught non-violence, who went non-violently to the Cross, and who spawned a religion whose number two tenet, "love your neighbor as yourself" (number one being "love God with all your heart soul and mind) is that upon which ALL the Christian law and prophets must rest, the "Chirst-like" (what a joke that term is) STILL find a way to justify killing and murder, often in the very NAME of that same Christ, when really its murder in the name of settling their own fear, and justifying their own world-view-system.

I'm not Christian, but MLK was...and his witnessing of America's interpretation of "God Bless(ing) America" must have made him vomit...regularly.

Who among you would have had the courage to stand on Ohama Beach, or in Vietnam's jungles, not with a rifle, but with a Word (not necessarily the Christian "Word," but any words of non-violent resolution)? I would submit none, and its because of that LACK of evolution among humanity at large, because of that inability to live fearlessly that we will never know whether thousands of regular people (NOT troops) landing upon the shores of Normandy in '44 saying in one voice "NO LONGER!" might have led to the loss of less lives than the route we took. For its not "Hitler" pulling those triggers and fighting those battles, it would have been regular human men with mothers and fathers facing the prospect of hundreds of thousands, (millions?) of the Committed saying "I am here to be opposition to this violence." Would they have continued to pull those triggers? We will never know. But its in choices like that one, the ones in vietnam, and the one before us regarding Iraq that lead us, continuously, down a path we've seen beforem and will see again, NOT because of the boogeyman "out there" in the harsh uncivilized world, but because the real boogeyman is in us. We don't raise that kind of world-changing courage anymore, if we ever really did; there's no cheat manual for that, and our video-game culture can't handle no cheat manual, no way to get around everything left doing in this world that is HARD....IMHO, MLK, and people like him, are better off dead than to see this country, and this world, continue on the revolving military merry-go-round, acting as if there is no other way...embracers of this approach are INCAPABLE of seeing the simple truth that if they can't see another way to be, its a failure of them, not a failure of "the times," as they are always what we make them, everyday...

Let go of your fear.

 

Re: This fear thing...

Preaching to the choir, though; the "moral majority" around here will dodge this analysis like the Bush/Gore uni-party dodged Nader...

 

Re: Afraid

Wow, someone is living in a fantasy world. Let us know when the spaceship leaves Utopia headed for Planet Earth.

 

Re: Afraid

You think he would have a problem with the idea of killing some brown people for Jesus? Maybe if they threw in some oil everything would be OK.

 

No Iraqui ever called me a sp!c!

 

Re: This fear thing...

If it makes you feel any better, the Church I attend has almost weekly diatribes in its bulletin against the Bush regime.

 

Re: Re: Re: This fear thing...

Glad to see somebody picked up on my use of that word so quickly I say regime, because they are supposed to represent the people and they are going off totally on their own on this one.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This fear thing...

i know "birds of a feather flock together," but i have hardly spoken to a soul that agrees with this thing.

regarding the media thing, that's pretty much the way i feel, and pretty much the way my wife feels, who is quitting her newspaper job for exactly that reason.

 

MLK was a very wise man, I heard he got TONS of tail too.

Thumbs up for MLK.

 

How do I begin to enter this debate without quickly falling into the clever trap that has been prepared for the argument I am about to make? Those on the left are so quick to condemn and demonize those who disagree with their self styled claim to intellectual superiority, yet they reserve their most vitriolic hatred for individuals and organizations that are willing to take up arms for any cause. Interestingly enough, the “intellectual elite”, as they name themselves, are more threatened by those who would take up arms in noble causes than by those who do so for greed, hatred, or love of murder. Why, you may ask? For the simple reason that the base murderer who delights in carnage and material gain by force provides a simple proof to the argument that the “use of force” is an anachronism not worthy of an enlightened people. Peaceful debate and non-violent resolution of conflicts are always the goal of normal, rational people. No one desires this more than the soldiers who fight our wars and the political leaders who commit them to those wars and by consequence must live with that decision for the rest of their lives. I firmly believe this to be true having been a soldier for much of my life and a man who has had occasion to be around political leaders when they have had to make decisions about the use of force. Martin Luther King and Gandhi were both incredibly courageous men who were able to bring about sweeping change in their countries through non-violent means. But let us not delude ourselves, the only reason they were able to do so was because they lived in countries that afforded them the right to present their ideas and demonstrate against the injustices they sought to change. Those rights were bought with the blood of those who took up arms to bring about changes for the greater good. Had those who died had the opportunity to purchase those rights through non-violent means they would have certainly done that. But given the choice, they made the ultimate sacrifice to accomplish something greater than themselves. People like Martin Luther King and Gandhi are a direct result of that sacrifice. In our lifetimes, our countries will face many conflicts of ideas, resources, ideologies, religions and national interests. The large majority of those conflicts can and must be resolved through diplomacy and rational reasoned debate. But there are now and always will be conflicts that necessitate the judicial use of force by professional soldiers in arms. Courageous men such as King and Gandhi would have been slaughtered at Omaha Beach, Gettysburg, Austerlitz, and countless other nameless battlefields; their words and ideas lost to us forever. As long as mankind exists there will be evil men who delight in rapine and murder. They must be opposed and conquered by force.

 

I'm certainly not setting any traps. I welcome any and all to the table.

I couldn't agree with you more here. I always think there's nothing more intolerant that a liberal whose opinion yours differs from.

Once again I agree with you. My uncle was a Vietnam POW for several years.

This is where I disagree with you. African-Americans were second class citizens during MLK's time, and Indians were colonial subjects. These two had virtually no rights in their societies.

Thank goodness for that. I understand we don't live in Utopia and I know people are going to go to war sometimes, but I just don't see what this one is going to change. We've been messing around for 12 years with Iraq and have accomplished little more than pissing off the rest of the world.

 

By no means would I disagree with that statement. The point I was trying to make was despite the fact that African-Americans were second class citizens and Indians were colonial subjects those individuals were still able to give voice to their views. For all that was wrong with the policies of those governments, the system did something right. I'm sure there were many in the government who did not want MLK to say the things he did. I'm even sure there were those who attempted to dissuade him with illicit threats and veiled hints at "Official Government Action" But in the end, our system of government had no means to silence him because our system of government implicitly protects the very acts he was performing. MLK forced us (the United States as a whole) to face ourselves and either change or be labeled for all time hypocrites. We changed and moved closer to the goal that the constitution lays out for us. That is a good thing. I am confident that MLK's voice would never have been heard in Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, or dare I say Hussein's Iraq.

 

I can agree with that. I didn't realize that you were talking more about the idealogy of the government technically guaranteeing their freedom to do so rather than the reality of what they were subjected to.

 

I disagree with you in turn though I will concede to you that it is possible that MLK and Gandhi would have felt as you do. While it would be wonderful for mankind to reach the ideal that you describe, I feel it is unrealistic and unattainable. There are many people who are more than willing to follow demagogues and dictators for the promise of wealth, power, prestige, and personal satisfaction. These people have always existed and always will exist. There will always be groups of people who find themselves dissatisfied with their lives, envious of their neighbors, intolerant of differing religions, intolerant of differing races, and hateful of those who are foreign to themselves. When history finds itself at a nexus; when the demagogue and his followers can prey upon the envies, intolerances, and hatreds of their countrymen; you will find that the seed of war has been planted. To that demagogue, his devoted followers, and the people under his sway there can be no discourse. The demagogue is convinced of his superiority and secure in the surety of his victory. His followers are blinded by the promise or realization of their greed, vainglory, or conceit. Initially their countrymen will hear only the sweet seductive words that promise them the easy road forward, a soothing path that will eliminate the problems that plague them. In time, the common people may realize they have been duped but by then the demagogue and his followers are too firmly entrenched. It is one of life’s great paradoxes that for so violent a species as we are, most human beings are incapable of actually committing violence even against those who oppress them. That is why the demagogues and dictators can hold onto power as in Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia. As I stated previously I disagree with you though I highly respect your opinion. Perhaps I will be proven wrong someday and I would be the first to congratulate you and shake your hand. Until that day though, I think it wise to always be prepared for conflict.

 

I'm torn on this war because I can think of reaons that we should fight and reasons that we shouldn't. I'm not naive enough to believe that at all times decisions made by nation states are not value maximizing for that nation's interests. The Iraq situation is no different. The question here is, what national interest are we fulfilling? Since I am not privy to whatever intelligence we have that shows Iraq as threat I can not say for certain what we should do. Through some knowledgeable friends of mine I've been led to believe that Iraq's involvement with Al Qaeda and their subsequent threat to us are much more than what is being told to the public but at this point that is still hearsay. If I had to bet, I would bet that the Bush administration has detailed information on Sadaam and wants to go in but they are hoping that the UN can provide the impetus for action they need so that they do not compromise their source of information. The other possibility is that our source of information is one that much of the world would not find credible such as the Iraqi National Congress. That is very possible.

 

How do I begin to enter this debate without quickly falling into the clever trap that has been prepared for the argument I am about to make? Those on the left are so quick to condemn and demonize those who disagree with their self styled claim to intellectual superiority, yet they reserve their most vitriolic hatred for individuals and organizations that are willing to take up arms for any cause.

Outstanding. Better words couldn't be expressed....
people might have more sympathy towards liberals if they weren't so $%*%ing self-righteous about themselves.

 

Re: Re: Re: Afraid

In case you missed it, MLK ended up shot dead. Gandhi would've ended up in even worse condition had he been facing Nazi regime, as the Allies were when Normandy beach was stormed. My gosh, you guys are seriously devoid of common sense.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Afraid

...because they were killed that erased everything they accomplished?