Sparks Fly Over Flyover at MLK March

[kpete]

Published on Friday, January 13, 2006 by the San Antonio Express-News (Texas)
Sparks Fly Over Flyover at MLK March
by Lisa Marie Gómez

A bitter dispute over the planned military flyover at Monday's Martin Luther King march has split peace activists, longtime march supporters and East Side community members, and could result in a smaller turnout for what has been the nation's largest MLK march.

Some opponents of the flyover are calling for a boycott of the march, while others plan to attend with bandanas over their mouths and black and yellow ribbons around their arms in a show of protest.

Two fighter jets from the 99th Flying Training Squadron at Randolph AFB will zoom over Pittman-Sullivan Park at noon at the end of the nearly three-mile march from Martin Luther King Drive to Iowa Street.

While some say the flyover will provide a patriotic flair to the march during a time of war, others say it will represent support for the war — something King would not approve of.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0113-11.htm

[Atman]

1. Maybe a contingent of old busses should cruise past

Hmm? The flyover of military jets seems entirely inappropriate to honor MLK.

[oneoftheboys]

2. What a shame.

A military flyover is a tradition that is as old as flight itself.

Some people just have too much time on their hands.

[400Years]

5. Yeah, it's a shame some people are trying to militarize the MLK march

MLK was very much against the war machine.

[oneoftheboys]

12. Yeah, well this quote from the article says it all.

"The Rev. Herman Price, chairman of the city's MLK Commission, said the flyover was meant to honor King, and he is dismayed by the divisiveness it has caused."

Like Rev. Price, I too, am dismayed.

[400Years]

13. If you knew anything about MLK you wouldn't want military glorification

Haven't we wasted enough tax dollars.

[oneoftheboys]

20. You might consider honoring MLK a waste..

but I do not.

[Bridget Burke]

28. That's not what 400Years meant.

And you know it.

[oneoftheboys]

35. I take 400 years at his/her word.

[400Years]

36. you know exactly what I am saying

now you are just trying to play little games.

[oneoftheboys]

51. Yes, I do.

[400Years]

52. I know you hate him but MLK opposed glorification of the military as do I

MLK is a personal hero of mine.

[The Straight Story]

60. The military is there to defend us

Some interpret is as a war machine, that to me is a characterization best left for the commander in chief and congress. As a force they are their to defend our liberties, freedoms, etc and so on. Don't blame them for the sins of the elected politicians - both dem and rethugs.

[SaveElmer]

65. I agree...

I have alot of friends in the militray...a high school friend of mine became a fighter pilot in the Navy. I understand that this may be inappropriate. Though if you read below, this is the original squadron of the Tuskegee Airmen. Still, under other circumstances I think having the military honor certain people or holidays is entirely appropriate.


I haven't heard if King's family has made any comment about this. Whatever they feel comfortable with is fine by me.

[stepnw1f]

64. They Know That

It's a show of disrespect and ignorance to what the man stood for. To them, this is just a charade and they could care less if those who knew MLK for the man he really was get insulted.

Funny how our visitor gets so touchy that we point out the obvious. It's called reverse psychology, the kind all kids learn in grade school to deflect criticism.

[Posteritatis]

6. Agreed

Stuff like this is kind of silly; people need to start painting with narrower brushes.

This reminds me of that idiocy where SF rejected a WWII memorial last summer because they decided that was the same thing as glorifying the Iraq war. Ugh.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bridget Burke]

16. No.

It demonstrates that followers of the anti-war Dr King object to the parade being turned into a recruiting event.

[oneoftheboys]

18. Whatever you say, Bridget

I guess we are supposed to believe that the chairman of the city's MLK Commission is not a follower of MLK.

Whatever...

[Bridget Burke]

27. The chairmanship of the commission is not based on ideology.

I'm sure the reverend does a lot for the community.

But Dr King was non-violent.

[oneoftheboys]

34. Stretch and twist it any way you want, Bridget...

But what we have here are a few selfish losers trying to spoil the parade for everyone else.

[400Years]

38. Fact is MLK opposed militarization of society

as do I

[oneoftheboys]

50. If you consider an honorary flyover to be "the militarization of society"

you must abhor the military.

[400Years]

54. and?

[Cults4Bush]

57. I think you must abhor peace activists since you want to shove something

that they dont want and that MLK more than likely wouldn't have wadted there.

I love how you just constantly avoid that point, do you honestly belive MLK would have thought it was appropriate because "we are in a time of war", a dirty illegal war that is a crime against humanity? I really dont think so and nothing you say can change the fact that Dr. King was a pacifist! A pacifist! Pacfist pacifist pacifist!!! Do you get it? Of course you do but you dont care becuase you think a military hardware presence should be everywhere even at a march honoring a pacifist.

If you read the article no one said the military couldn't march with them. Just dont bring the hardware, but you dont like that apparently... not good enough for jingoistic faux pride, no no no.

[oneoftheboys]

63. This has nothing to do with Iraq,

so don't even try that.

MLK my or may not have been a pacifist. But one thing's for certain; the civil rights struggle was not won because of pacifism.

[Cults4Bush]

74. I will try that you insulting jingoistic ill informed flame setter.

You dont even know about MLK yet you come in here acting like you do.
You came in here to defend soemthing you dont understand (at least by the breadth of your lame one liner posts and inability to understand the non-violence at the core of MLKs teachinsg).

It is to about Iraq!!!!
from the article:While some say the flyover will provide a patriotic flair to the march during a time of war.

What fucking war do you think they are talking about! Do you honestly believe that Dr King would want to provide a patriotic flair to a peace rally in a time of war with fucking fighter jets? You either didn't even read teh whole post or you are just lieing because it was right there! You didnt even have to go read the whole article to get that little piece of info. So which one is it to lazy to read the whole thing are just blatant lieing.

Your post comes off as completly hypocritical considering what you tried with me in our other sub thread here.

Civil Rights struggle was not one because of pacifism! The struggle hasn't even been won yet! What freaking planet do you live on?

[oneoftheboys]

82. I supposed those Super Bowl flyovers are about the Iraq war too?

It is you who fails to understand the significance of a jet flyover.

[Cults4Bush]

91. LoL, yeah sure... and it is you that fails to understand anything outside

of you direct experience. You know next to nothing about Dr. King. I spent the first 22 years of my life as a fighter pilots son always around or on AFBs all over this world. I have several other family members who are pilots. I also have family members in other branches of the military. I also was in the army.

Now so far Ive seen nothing to indicate that you understand or respect non-violence, that you understand the appropriateness of when a flyover should be used to honor a specific person. It is jingo headed and irrational rah rahing like yours (no matter how unintentionally misplaced) that hurts the military.

I'd also love to see you behave this way with me or anyone in my family in person. I understand the significance here is to show patriotism in a time of an illegal and immoral invasion and occupation of a sovereign country that had done nothing to us. Im sure you are all for that though aren't ya? Its funny how much more you care about a tax wasteing flyover that is not wanted by the bulk of the non-violence community to honor their leader, than you do about the leader himself.

Come back when you know how to do more than write one liners and insults and for gods sake do a modicum of research before disrupting a whole thread with such useless drivel. there were legitimate questions and answers and a far more compassionate discussion down thread, maybe you can learn from it.

[chopper]

92. asdf

"MLK my or may not have been a pacifist."

there's no 'may' about it. he was a pacifist.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[oneoftheboys]

68. Oh Puhleeeeeeeze

Is this another poster with nothing to say?

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[oneoftheboys]

75. You are too funny...

How old are you? About three?

:rofl:

You are going to have to bring more intellectual firepower to the debate than that, son.

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[oneoftheboys]

88. Well, that's it, isn't it?

To you, it's about the military.

To me, it's about respect. You will never understand.

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bridget Burke]

76. No, he's just wondering when you're shipping out.

There are freedoms to protect!

[oneoftheboys]

78. Is there a new war beginning on Monday...?

I must have missed the news.

[Bridget Burke]

81. There's a war going on now.

Please go.

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[oneoftheboys]

86. Hell, I've already won.

See ya Monday.

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SidDithers]

15. They rejected it more because of the way the military...

treats gays and lesbians, which, in San Francisco, is an important issue to local residents.

Sid

[Cults4Bush]

17. That is not the only reason why and Im willing to bet you know it.

That particular ship was an insult to gays, go and google a lot more articles and learn a lot more if you wish to be better informed on the subject. It had less to do with Iraq than you seem to believe.

As far as having expensive military hardware burning up expensive fuel for a parade honoring a pacifist who would more than likely be insulted by such, (especially since this was probably foisted upon the org comittee by PR interests from the local base), as far as this display is to garner support for the illegal and immoral invasion and occupation of Iraq (another thing that Doctor King would have more than likely abhorred)... yeah as far as all thats concerned yeah very silly indeed. It is so silly to insult this man of peace with instruments of warfare that have no place there these days and in these conditions.

Too me that is idiocy and insult incarnate.

[Posteritatis]

22. The entire US military during WWII was an insult to gays

Should we eliminate all war memorials because of that fact?

And I'm unconvinced that every single display of military anything is a direct recruitment tool for the war in Iraq, sorry. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

[Cults4Bush]

25. Sure sure... except this isnt WW2 now is it?

You didnt do the research did you? You almost dont seem to know about the incident in question because it has nothing whatsoever to do with WW2.

Yes these days everything is a recruitment tool for Iraq, sometimes a cigar isnt a cigar. Or haven't you been paying attention? Why else do they spy on anti-recruitment efforts> Why are they busting nuts left right and center and lowering every standard to get more people in.

It is not insulting to the military to ask there not be military hardware at a Civil Rights and Peace activists memorial. Yet if you think it is pefectlty acceptable in this day and age to shove the military down our collective throats at even the most sacred of Peace celebrations go on with tooting your horn. Im sure having some fighter jets overfly a peace rally back in the 60s would be just as fine with you and wouldn't indicate any type of intimidation...

look just forget it, Im wasting my time with you.

[Cooley Hurd]

24. SF is the WRONG place for the USS Iowa!

After the bullshit the US Navy pulled following the explosion in turret 2, it would be insensitive to the GLBT population in SF. For those not familiar with the story:

The Navy's Scapegoats

<snip>
Within days of its commencement, the N.I.S. investigation was stymied. Making little headway in its newfound conspiracy theory, the Navy tried the case in the national media. "Raw intelligence data," otherwise known as unsupported gossip, was leaked to the press.

On Friday night, May 19, the Iowa's executive officer, Commander Morse, telephoned Truitt and warned him that The Washington Post would be reporting that he was a homosexual and had contributed to the explosion. "1 was furious," Truitt recalls. "1 mean, suddenly they were trying to make me into this homosexual, mass murderer, homicidal freak." Truitt, still without the benefit of a lawyer, telephoned the newspaper and threatened to sue if they printed his name. The telephone call was only partly effective. The newspaper decided to run the story but mask his identity. At 1:00 A.M. the Newport News Daily Press and Times Herald arrived at Truitt's apartment and questioned him about the breaking story. According to the Truitts, they also promised not to print his name, a representation the newspaper disputes. The next day his name was in the paper's article, tied to the investigation as a suspect.

<snip>
Under close analysis, the case against Hartwig falls apart. The Navy could never explain how Hartwig could have premeditated such a complex action, since he was not even on the job list for the fatal exercise--he was only a last-minute replacement. Are we to believe that he was desperately suicidal but was waiting for his next assignment to the turret to take his life, rather than doing so beforehand? Hartwig's psychological profile doesn't fit that of either a suicidal individual or a mass murderer. Independent psychiatrists who analyzed his background found no signs of psychosis, paranoia, or clinical depression. Instead, the therapists concluded that Hartwig was content with his job, anticipating his next assignment in a security role in London, and that the great weight of the evidence ran counter to suicide. The Navy ignored these findings.

Kendall Truitt is embittered over the report: "They owe me an apology at the very least. Their leaks have really left the public with a lot of doubts about me, and none of it is true or fair."
</snip>

I DO want to see the USS Iowa preserved as a memorial to all who have served and died on her. But, SF doesn't want it, and I can't say I blame them.

Stockton, CA also wants the Iowa - I say that's a better place for her.:thumbsup:

On edit: I meant to this as a reply to post #6.

[Cults4Bush]

30. I know you did, and your post is right on the money.

Stockton would be a much better place for her, I totally agree.

[democracyindanger]

41. Speaking of broad brushes

There was more than one reason the city supes rejected the Iowa, and concern that it was "the same thing as glorifying the Iraq war" wasn't nearly the biggest one, if one at all.

And the Iowa isn't a WWII memorial. It's a historical artifact; a floating museum. 'Course, referring to it as a memorial allows some people to shake their fists and say, "Damn hippie pacifists hate the troops! They're dishonoring the sacrifices they made!"

[Cults4Bush]

11. Who is this for? Not for King that is for sure. It is to hijack the memory

of a man of peace with instruments of war. I was in the miliatry my entire family is military and made up of mostly fighter jocks, I grew up with them and even they wouldn't understand what the hell they were needed there for.

This reeks of in your face jingoism and intimidation.

MLK was a pragmatic pacifist and a man devoted to peace and progress, what the hell would burning another $50,000 dollars of taxpayer money just so some dick jawed general can have his boys repped at a large and well known memorial parade accomplish?

The military deserves respect and this shows none to them or to Doctor King, they are both being used for the saticfaction of rah rah military types that probably support bush over Jesus.

The insult of your last line in that post is an insult to all peace activists and those that worked so tirelessly for civil liberties. Thanks for that.

[oneoftheboys]

43. Yes, and I assume you feel the same way about...

Super Bowl flyovers.

[400Years]

55. Did the superbowl protest the Viet Nam war?

Shouldn't you be in Iraq right now.

[Cults4Bush]

56. Actually I dont.

My entire family is military, so dont even try to paint me inot that corner.

Also football is violent, teams locked in a physical struggle for victory... no in fact I'd say that they are pretty damn appropriate.

Ive also attended and worked at dozens of airshows both here and abroad. I am not anti military I am just not so small minded as to know that there are some evenst where military hardware is innapropriate. Especially when one of the lead protestors of this flyover says they can march, and they should but to strut our hardware at such an event is tactless. Maybe when they march they can carry some 16's and show em off to all the peaceniks! How about that? No frekin' diff here, those are war machines ( if they are fighters that is, I think they might be t-38s and that might make it a little less tacky but not by much).

Do not try another backhanded insult like that with me I spent more time dealing with military issues than you probably spent asleep.

[oneoftheboys]

59. Why, that's marvelous! But I don't understand.

<<Especially when one of the lead protestors of this flyover says they can march, and they should but to strut our hardware at such an event is tactless.>>


What exactly, are you trying to say?

[Cults4Bush]

67. This... not that it will matter the slightest to you since you have alread

broad brushed some insults to him and his kind earlier up thread.

Tommy Calvert Jr., an East Side activist, said when he tried to rescind the flyover decision at an MLK commission meeting Monday, Price would not allow it.
"I think I'm going to wear a gag bandana in my mouth since I was not allowed to call a vote on the floor in solidarity with the dozens of people who were there to overturn the vote," Calvert said. "If you're going to honor Dr. King, you have to honor the nonviolent point. It's fundamental."
He added that no one in the peace movement wants to keep the military from marching.
"But a fighter jet is not a soldier," he said. "Dr. King said that you lay down your arms at the table of brotherhood. A fighter jet is an arm."

The pilots can march, hell they can even march in uniform (or flight suit ) and no one is going to spit on them or make them feel shitty.
Should we have a tank platoon march with the peace activsts as well? Of course they should be inside the tanks.

Maybe the problem here is that you dont believe in the table of brotherhood or believe in much of Dr. Kings non-violent philosophy anyways. Especially if all you can come up with is sarcasm, one liners and insults.

Do you understand exactly what I am trying to say now?

[G_j]

37. If you think this disgusting 'fly-over' appropraite, READ THIS!

then come back & tell us MLK wouldn't be upset with this.

http://www.africanamericans.com/MLKjrBeyondVietnam.htm

Martin Luther King Jr.

"Beyond Vietnam,"

Address delivered to the Clergy and Laymen Concerned
about Vietnam, at Riverside Church
4 April 1967
New York City

[oneoftheboys]

45. Okay. He would not be upset with this.

[G_j]

49. my money says you didn't read it

EOM

[Cults4Bush]

58. of course they didnt, its not about MLK to them its about military

hardware being put on display at a peace and civil rights event. They haven't answered a question back to any of the MLK peace activist pacifist queries.

[WhereThereIsFire]

3. Does NOT seen to fit with Martin's beliefs

I'm personally hooked on the grandeur of flyovers, despite the warlike nature of them. As a NASCAR fan, I've noticed that flyovers in general have lost some of their flair ... fewer military aircraft "available" in the U.S. area to fly-over anything. But, I'd guess it isn't particularly something MLK would enjoy having done in his honor. It would almost be like having a flank of army tanks accompanying the march. NOT a good idea.

[htuttle]

4. We're still a LONG, LONG way from that 'true revolution of values'...

...Martin spoke about.

A LONG, LONG way...

[Cults4Bush]

7. how about a Field Marshall and a tank platoon, maybe some mobile SAM

vehicles.... this utterly innapropriate. Weapons of war have no place at a parade to honor a real man of peace.

[DemoTex]

8. Non-violence.

Fighter jets. Does not compute.

[bpilgrim]

9. the DLC probably think this is a wonderful idea

and that those damn ungrateful liberal lefties should get with the PROGRAM!

peace

[Anita Garcia]

10. Who approved it?

The article implies that the vote to approve was not taken appropriately and when a council member attempted to rescind the action, the council member was stopped from doing so.
Why not allow open discussion about whether a flyover should be allowed.
I'm interested in the cost involved and the real purpose.
Is it to honor the dead or excite the living?

[Jara sang]

19. That is disgusting and inappropriate.

Republicans have been trying to destroy MLK day since it's inception. In Virginia it was merged with a day to honor General Lee and Stonewall Jackson, I don't know if it still is or not.

[Fenris]

21. A military flyover seems out of place at a King memorial.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

23. Will there also be a KKK contingent to "honor" him?

Whoever got the military involved is certainly unfamiliar with Dr. King.

[400Years]

39. good one!

[Cooley Hurd]

26. Actually, in this case, it might be appropriate...

99th Flying Training Squadron History

Constituted as the 99th Pursuit Squadron on 19 March 1941, and activated on 22 March 1941, the unit was redesignated as the 99th Fighter Squadron on 15 May 1942. Known as the "Tuskegee Airmen," the squadron was the first all-black unit in the U.S. Army Air Corps. The unit received its initial training at Tuskegee, Alabama and eventually flew aircraft such as the P-39, P-40, P-47, and P-51. Originally intended to provide air defense operations for Liberia, the 99th was instead sent to the Mediterranean Theater where it began operations on 2 June 1943. The 99th was assigned to the Twelfth Air Force, flying P-40s. Its mission was to assist in the reduction of enemy fortifications on Pantellaria Island and in Tunisia. For its performance in those operations, the 99th shared the Distinguished Unit Citation with the 324th Fighter Group.

During the later part of 1943, the squadron carried out a variety of missions in support of the invasion of Sicily and Italy. By October 1944, the unit was in Italy protecting allied shipping and providing close air support to the U.S. 5th Army in its assaults on Foggia and Anzio. The 99th received a second Distinguished Unit Citation for its close air support missions in support of the French and Polish Armies while they attacked Monastery Hill near Cassino. Transferring to the Fifteenth Air Force, the squadron undertook a new mission of escorting heavy bombers.

The 99th fought air battles over Rumania, Southern France, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Yugoslavia and Greece. During one especially long and dangerous mission on 24 March 1944, the squadron successfully challenged German jet aircraft. The 99th received its third Distinguished Unit Citation for this operation. Following the War, the unit moved to Godman Field, Kentucky and later to Lockbourne Air Force Base (AFB), Ohio, were it flew training missions until it inactivation on 1 July 1949.

More at link

Given what the Tuskegee Airmen did for African-Americans, in and out of the military, their presence is not disrespectful, imho.

[SaveElmer]

29. Nice piece of digging...

If this is truly why they picked this squadron, it does seem appropriate...

[Cooley Hurd]

31. This is a tough call. Although Dr King was all about non-violence...

...I'd be willing to bet his heart swelled with pride knowing how "The Fighting 99th" overcame entrenched, institutionalized racism in the US Army by proving themselves to be as good and, in some cases, better than white pilots.

[SaveElmer]

33. I am a History student...

Though my area of study is Revolution through Jackson, I am fairly familiar with King's views on non-violence as a means of protest. And I know he was an opponent of the Vietnam War. But was he truly pacifist in that he would have opposed all war. Would he have opposed US entry into WWII for example?

[Cooley Hurd]

42. The story of the Tuskegee Airmen is much bigger...

...than just its involvement in WW2. It was more about changing views on African-Americans. The Army, backed by racist Dixiecrats in Congress, was opposed to training African-American pilots because they believed them to be less intelligent and lacking the stamina and bravery of white pilots. The Tuskegee Airmen proved them wrong and opened the door to the integration of the entire military in 1947.

I don't know what Dr King thought about WW2, but I do know how he felt about the advancement of African-Americans.:thumbsup:

[SaveElmer]

44. Any comment from his family...

Except that whacked out niece of his?

[Cooley Hurd]

46. If they were against it, I'd side with them...

[SaveElmer]

48. Yep me too...

If they are not offended than I think it's fine...otherwise it is probably not a good idea

[Cults4Bush]

47. Hmmm still not sure though as some did say it was because

we are in a time of war...

I actually believe he would have said that that was the specific reason if it was.

I still don't believe having military firepower to honor a pacifist is the way to go, not with Iraq being a reason as to why the Reverend wanted them there. I am quite sure if that was the one true reason why they were wanted there the rest of the comittee wouldn't have seen it as controversial.

Thinsg like this comment must also be considered...
"But City Councilwoman Patti Radle, who objected to the flyover in a letter to the editor in Wednesday's Express-News, doesn't see it that way.

"War is a different system working for peace. Martin Luther King was not part of that system," she said."

and this...

"San Antonio's MLK march, one of the largest in the nation, is absolutely the wrong event for a military flyover," P.C. McKinnon wrote in an e-mail to the Express-News. "Would it have been appropriate to have a flyover at Dr. King's funeral? I think not."

and most importantly this troubling bit of the article...

"Tommy Calvert Jr., an East Side activist, said when he tried to rescind the flyover decision at an MLK commission meeting Monday, Price would not allow it.
"I think I'm going to wear a gag bandana in my mouth since I was not allowed to call a vote on the floor in solidarity with the dozens of people who were there to overturn the vote," Calvert said. "If you're going to honor Dr. King, you have to honor the nonviolent point. It's fundamental."
He added that no one in the peace movement wants to keep the military from marching.
"But a fighter jet is not a soldier," he said. "Dr. King said that you lay down your arms at the table of brotherhood. A fighter jet is an arm."


... That last bit is really just about as logical and plain spoken as you can get. Even taking into account that our military is ostensibly there to protect our freedoms and peace that is not true these days in the face of the spectacle that is Iraq ( albeit through mostly political undoings). Im sorry but it smells like the local PR guys at Randolph convinced a few people on the comittee to do this and it got ram rodded through another thing I think Dr. king would have been dissapointed in.

Any way you cut this in my book it would always be better to error on the side of pacifism regarding Dr. King. As you can note by the dates of your post above, Dr. King wasn't fighting so blacks could fly fighters. He was fighting for their equal and ethical treatment in our society which is sometimes still sorely lacking in todays military for a variety of reasons. Also no one was saying military couldn't be there or even march in uniform, its the idea of bringing military hardware (and the financial waste.. heres an idea next year why not take the monies that it cost in total to fly those birds over the march and donate it to inner city schools hell they could even have black pilots deliver it and do a little Q&A with the kids) to an event of, for and about peace. There have been precious few conflicts since his passing where these weapons were used in a dignified and just manner. So the line about how these weapons also mean peace to some is a nearly complete misalignment with Dr. Kings stated beliefs...

Anyways I dont want to seem like I am attacking you or anything I just wanted to reason the other sides contentions and how they appear to me to be more valid.

Peace.





edited chairman out of title.

[Cooley Hurd]

53. Dr King was fighting for the rights of all African-Americans..

...in and out of the military.

I agree, whomever put this together fucked up if they didn't say specifically WHY the 99th was going to perform a flyover. And, if Dr King's family feels it's inappropriate, then I would side with them.

I guess the point of my post was that the accomplishments of the Tuskegee Airmen in regards to civil rights shouldn't be overlooked or shunned.

Dr King and the Tuskegee Airmen were fighting for the same thing.:thumbsup:

[Cults4Bush]

61. I can get behind that...

but I'd much rather see them march on the street rather than bring "the arms" overhead so to speak.

The Tuskegee Airmen deserve their own holiday and the entire AF should be made to celebrate it. I cant believe some of the racist attitudes that are still around today in the service... then again I should just look outside the military to indeed believe.

:thumbsup: back atcha!

[Cooley Hurd]

73. I like the marching idea better...

...because it's more dignified and quiet. Low flying airplanes, while a hoot to see flying at air shows and sporting events, are extremely loud and detracts from the dignity of a memorial event such as this.

[Cults4Bush]

77. Me too...

though flyovers do lend something to certain military funerals as well.

My dad is one of several fighter jocks in the family and he hated doing airshows in England, you have to stand next to the static display for hours and answer questions but the worst was all the damn autograph hounds. Brits have an almost unhelathy obsession with aircarft (just ribbing, I do to;) ) , and the hotter the jet you fly the more of a rockstar you are at these shows. All the young jocks loved it for the first couple of hours after going through 4 or 5 ballpoints they hated it to. I loved it when he was doing static though because my JROTC buds (we usually got to run faux security with British cadet) and I would go by and hang out and talk with him, sorta bragging by introduction. I actually picked up a short term girlfriend because of him. lol... thanks for the memories.

[Cooley Hurd]

85. Chicks dig planes!

:D

I'm a licenced pilot and an aviation nut, also.:freak:

[ContraBass Black]

66. Damn. So much for the open and shut.

I'd still say no, though.

[BoneDaddy]

32. Not unreasonable

This is not an issue of good or bad it is an issue of appropriateness and timing.

A military flyover would be appropriate for memorial day, 4th of July, Veterens Day etc... I got a bit of a thrill when an Apache helicopter flew over Giant stadium at the playoff disaster... it was pretty wild.

It is not, however, appropriate, to celebrate a man who was against all war, spoke out vehemently against Vietnam (and would too for Iraq) and who was a pacifist. To use an instrument of war to honor him would be like roasting a cow to honor Ghandi. It simply shows no thought, stylistically, on how to honor this great man in a way that would be consistent with his message and legacy.

[G_j]

40. roasting a cow to honor Ghandi

that is funny, but also right on the money!
That is how utterly absurd and insulting this is.

[Bethany Rockafella]

69. I must be among the minority.

I don't see a problem with it.

[Ron Green]

72. Haven't we had enough flag-waving, gun-toting, chest-thumping,

arms-presenting, tradition-following, plane-flying jingoism to last us for a while? Martin King's efforts are still only about 50% realized, and he was all about non-violence. As a disabled US Army vet, I vote to give it a rest.

[theboss]

70. Forgive me, but was King a total pacifist?

Yes, he was in favor of non-violent civil disobedience. But I don't recall a position that made him akin to a Quaker.

As someone else said, would he have opposed WWII?

[Bridget Burke]

79. Clue: WWII has been over a long time.

Reverend King was totally against the Vietnam adventure. I doubt he'd support Bush's illegal war. But the flyover is a recruiting tool for THAT WAR & not suitable in this setting.

The military will be marching in the parade, if it's anything like Houston's MLK day parades.

[Cults4Bush]

83. Would he have opposed Iraq?

His entire message was about non violence not just civil disobedience though I personally believe that he thought it was most important in regards to civil disobedience. He was 100% against Vietnam.

A poster up thread explained it very well from a lot of our points of view.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=130397&mesg_id=131287

I dont think anyone on this thread called him a Quaker either. Funny thing about ww2 it was one of the last times we all pretty much agreed that the military was used properly in most regards considering domestic political brinksmanship and its nearly constant use with the military since then.

[Marleyb]

89. God I wish we had this man to guide our country right now!

Of course, Martin Luther King Jr would rather have us focusing our efforts on bringing down the Bush regime right now, before it's too late...as he said in his day
"Come Home America,Tommorow may be too late!"

http://benfrank.net/impeach/