Dr. Martin Luther King 's Speech

Racism has always been a major problem in America. However, it was known to be the most problematic in the late 1950s. On August 28 1963, Dr. Martin Luther King delivered his infamous speech “I Have a Dream” to America. His dream highlighted the injustices of segregation and discrimination of African Americans that took place in this nation every single day. Dr. King inspired thousands despite the color of their skin, to take a stance against racism, with his powerful way with words. In his speech MLK efficaciously uses, Ethos, Pathos, and Logos by using allusions, developing credibility, in his speech to persuade all Americans to be aware of the problems with racism.

The growing perceived ineffectiveness and illegitimacy of America’s role in Vietnam was the product of what was viewed as little more than an anti-communist crusade in which neither logistical concerns nor the nationalist motivations of a people who had yearned for sovereignty over centuries carried significant weight. Less and less Americans were willing to bankroll, much less have their sons paying “any price” or bearing “any burden” for what was becoming a quagmire. Bodybag after bodybag was being filled with American boys on a daily basis, not to mention that every dollar of damage incurred by the Communist enemy in Hanoi cost the United States ten dollars , helping to quickly bring an end to an era of unprecedented American prosperity.

Dr. Martin Luther King’s historic “I Have a Dream” speech was delivered at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C on August 28, 1963. The speech is one in which has gained much recognition over the years and virtually won Dr. King the Nobel Peace Prize for his non-violent approach towards racism. Mahatma Gandhi was one of King’s prominent inspirations for his nonviolent movement. Gandhi, decades before Dr. King, practiced non-violence acts and civil disobedience. The will and strength that Gandhi possessed while advocating for peace and non-violence during the terrible events that had taken place in India moved Dr. King to find the path he had to take during his own strides to create a better America, primarily for African Americans. Although

King's response to the unjustness of America's participation in the Vietnam is first capitalized by the claim that the importance of winning and paying for the war, was far more important to the Government during this time than any other discriminations, protests, or acts of unjustness that should have been paid a close eye to. King begins by proclaiming that through all of the work put into the efforts of equality, have disintegrated through the precedence of the the War. Through the usage of metaphors and extreme diction, King was able to set the tone of outrage and disappointment he sees within the current events. By saying that the Vietnam War was a "demonic destructive suction tube" in terms of how much attention and money was put into it, King effectively encourages the audience to take into consideration the mangled society and the drainage of the funds.

“Vietnam divided America more deeply and painfully than any event since the Civil War.” (Readings 9, To Avoid a Defeat, 231). The steady stream of American casualties suffered at the hands of the NVA made a difficult situation intolerable as American support for the war diminished with each soldier laid to rest. President Lyndon B. Johnson made a dire mistake in approving General Westmoreland’s request on to put combat troops on the ground in Vietnam, as the threat to American security had not been triggered to the point where it was worth the lives of American soldiers. The American military was severely underprepared for war, and the eventual withdrawal of troops would become a global embarrassment that continues to haunt the United States decades later. Further, President Johnson sought to put an end to the conflict in Vietnam for questionable reasons, driven more by political expediency than thoughtful consideration for the lives entrusted to him as Commander in Chief.

Both Robert Buzzano and Randall Woods present excellent interpretations of American foreign policy in Vietnam. What we need to look at closely is the goals that are set by the U.S., as well as their expected goals. When starting our comparison we are forced to realize that John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson had two very different approaches to Vietnam. Many attribute LBJ as the reason we even went into Vietnam. However what remains is another instance of America trying to protect the world from communism. Woods tells us that, “Johnson was an unbelievably intelligent person. His capacity to absorb information and analyze it was amazing. He was a very earthy and profane man, but he also was very much a liberal Christian.” This becomes a more popular argument however that Wood expands on.

The Vietnam War birthed the majority of the problems that Americans faced during the decade, and was itself a product of America’s intense abhorrence of Communism coupled with the nation’s desire to impose its will on countries that it thought needed help. The war, simply put, was a disaster. Those who insist that America has never lost a war are putting too much faith in the fact that we didn’t technically surrender, instead choosing to abandon the war effort and leave the South Vietnamese to their fate. Their fate was the Communism that America went to war to prevent in the first place. Needless to say, the Vietnam War left a bad taste in the mouth of the American majority. “America’s failed war in Vietnam,” Farber writes, “had, obviously, done much to break the ideological spell of anti-communism (16).” The loss in Vietnam was humiliating; citizens who had grown used to America being a world superpower watched in abject horror as the U.S. was sent running home by a third world country. America’s sense of superiority vanished, and the “victory culture” that emerged due to World War II was “largely discredited (16).” A fear that was born out of the Vietnam War came to life during the hostage crisis—the United States was no longer a formidable opponent in the eyes of many nations. The Iranian hostage crisis was “an obvious symbol, an easily understood example of the nation’s inability to control its own fate,

Many lives were lost during the Vietnam War with “the number of killed, wounded, and missing announced each week on the nightly television news, along with the “body count” of alleged VC dead” (Tindall and Shi, 1035). This war would be the first to be publically televised, and families would listen to the growing number of Americans losing their lives simply because they were not prepared for the fighting conditions in Vietnam. Vietnam’s climate was extremely hot and disease ran rampant in the jungle. The Viet Cong knew how to fight in these conditions and had the upper hand. George Ball, Undersecretary of State, wrote in a memo that “the South Vietnamese are losing the war to the Viet Cong” and “no one can assure you that we can beat the Viet Cong or even force them to the conference table on our terms, no matter how many hundred thousand white, foreign (U.S.) troops we deploy” (Supplemental Source: George Ball's Dissenting Opinion on Vietnam 1965).

Nixon stated, “In the previous administration, we Americanized the war in Vietnam. In this administration, we are Vietnamizing the search for peace.”

“The Vietnam War was arguably the most traumatic experience for the United States in the twentieth century.” (Donald M. Goldstein). Many times in America, our leaders have made impulsive decisions that, though persuaded by the correct intentions, resulted in even greater turmoil. The quoted source reflects the feelings of some citizens that view the United States as falling short when trying to lend a hand in the fulfillment of South Vietnam’s desire to become a democracy. In the case of the Vietnam War, the results of the decision to aid South Vietnam in its efforts to exclude itself from communism were not as triumphant as the United States had expected. The United States willingly sent its troops into a foreign country to help fight for its freedom; however, only some Americans were able to view this as loyalty to one of its allies. Many different opinions on the United States’ involvement in the war is questioned, and sometimes even condemned, by our society today.

The Vietnam War was the most controversial war in American history. Costing more than 47,000 U.S. lives and $140,000,000, the war had momentous impact on the country, politically, economically, and socially. More significantly, the United States failed to achieve its stated war aims, for the first time in history. The goal was to preserve an independent, noncommunist government in South Vietnam, but by the war’s end in 1975, all of Vietnam was under the communist rule of Ho Chi Minh’s Democratic Republic of Vietnam. The U.S. emerged from the war disgraced: a global superpower had been bested by the nearly third-world nation of North Vietnam. But how? Antiwar sentiment among the civilian population contributed to the American defeat, but

In the past years the discussion of Vietnam War, is one that still is every more common among scholars of American Society, common not without controversy. The controversy surrounding the Vietnam War often is centered in U.S. mentality of playing “savior “ and appearing to be only great, while not owning up or recognizing their faults. There is a common belief among many people that the remembering the vietnam war is no longer important. Those who hold this belief, also believe that the there is no reason to harp on a war that doesn’t matter to the united states and its people. This paper strives to challenge this belief that the war is no longer important and demonstrate why it is vital we remember the Vietnam war. First, this paper will examine a document from Modern History Sourcebook, entitled, Program of the People’s Revolutionary Party of Vietnam, dating back to January 1962. We will examine to see how this document from the Vietnamese still provides value or information to our understanding of what is happening in today’s society. Then the paper will examine a Speech delivered in April 1967, by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., entitled Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence Declaration of Independence from the War in Vietnam.

The immorality of the United States action in Vietnam War is when they intervene to protect communism in South Vietnam. It violates the right of American people. United States take consideration that if Vietnam fell into communism, neighboring country will be involved and affected. In reference to the article In Beyond Vietnam: A time to Break Silence by Martin Luther King Jr., he discusses his standpoint against the Vietnam War on April 4, 1967 at Riverside Church in New York, New York. For King the Vietnam War affects the people and the country; that war is the enemy of the poor; that it destroys every people's hope.

With increased access to what goes on around and the need for the next big story to bump up the networks ratings the need to take action has become necessary. Now this in itself is not necessarily a downfall of peace operations but the call for immediate action and even faster resolution often is. The 10 minute segment we see on the news channel on our way to work shows us the most gritty and violent piece of information and we take our demands to the government in an effort to stop the violence. “Weak actors will want to "socialize" the conflict—that is, to enlist allies in their cause against a greater power and to increase the perception of suffering” (Bajraktari and Parajon 2007, par. 5). With this motivation the third-party must now gather the advisors and top personnel to devise a plan that fixes all atrocities taking place on the nightly news. “The international community would do well to recognize the danger of calibrating its responses to the substance and timing of the information it receives from media reports” (Bajraktari and Parajon 2007, par. 6). There is no mistake that action should be taken as quickly as possible to diffuse the conflict as much as possible but the overall goal that seems to be

The United States needs a new approach, one that starts with a more diplomatic solution aimed at pushing all sides to the negotiating table. The only way the U.S can resolve this crisis is by working together with the Syrian government and getting other countries to exert their influence and persuade the Syrian government to turn in their enormous stockpile of chemical weapons.