Argument: For or Against History Essay Research Paper

Name:
Professor’s Name:
Course:
Due Date:
Argument: For or Against
America’s involvement in the Vietnam War led to numerous debates as the American public was torn between supporting their country’s involvement in the war and dissent. Influential figures like Martin Luther King Jr. found themselves in the thick of things as their speeches and comments regarding the war had a great impact on the American public. King believed that America had no moral ground to be involved in the war. So, he believed that American troops ought to leave Vietnam. However, others like America’s President Lyndon Johnson believed that America had a moral ground to be in the war. He believed that what was happening in Vietnam was laying the foundation for a much greater invasion and corruption of the entire region. Johnson rallied behind the points made by other world leaders at the time to help further his argument for America’s involvement in the war. Both speeches were quite persuasive as each sought to appeal to all the rhetorical strategies. However, it is King’s speech that appears more persuasive as it makes use of history to discredit America’s stance on the war. Additionally, it also showcases America’s involvement in Vietnam’s instability. Moreover, King also refers to the state of the country and how involvement in the war disregards the state of the poor. Even though Johnson’s speech does have some valid points, it falls short and pales in its persuasive power when juxtaposed against King’s.
One of the reasons that makes King’s speech more persuasive than Johnson’s is his attack of America’s morals even within its borders. Wars cost a lot of money, and the U.S.’s commitment to the war meant that some issues within its borders will be neglected. King makes it clear that problems at home are more pronounced and immediate for the people of America. However, the cries of the poor and destitute fall on deaf ears as the country shifts its focus on the Vietnam War. King writes that America’s involvement in the war meant that it would “never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money like some demonic destructive suction tube.” The poor and destitute who ought to be an immediate problem for the United States are, therefore, left poorer as the country considers its involvement in Vietnam as a more weighty problem. This attack by King calls to question America’s involvement in Vietnam by showing that the country ought to deal with problems within its borders first before it extends a helping hand to the rest of the world.
Secondly, King attack America’s moral and ethical grounds for involvement in the war. This is a major point and one that discounts any of Johnson’s moral reasons for America’s involvement in the war. Johnson makes it clear that the threat in Vietnam is indeed a major threat “not only to the immediate victim – but to the United States of America and to the peace and security of the entire world of which we in America are a very vital part.” The above point is ind...