Muhammad Ali
 

Caught a bit of that Ali movie (with Will Smith, I was really bored)... Got me thinking. I'm not gonna pretend to have a wealth of knowledge about him, all I know/heard is he was a phenomenal athlete and perhaps the greatest champion of all time. I caught the part of the movie where he refused induction into the Army. How does this not make him a complete coward? From the brief search I did about it, he was basically let out of it on a technicality... from wiki "The decision was not based on, nor addressed, the merits of Clay's/Ali's claims per se; rather, the Government's failure to specify which claims were rejected and which were sustained, constituted the grounds upon which the Court reversed the conviction".

Was he considered a disgrace during the time of this? I don't doubt his ability as an athlete, but, personally, I don't see how he can be so admired and whatnot. Terrell Owens is a phenomenal athlete, but people hate him bc he's just an asshole. Different strokes for different folks, I suppose.

It was definitely a different time. Ali would be a hated "diva" if he was fighting today.

Ali was so popular, and the war was so unpopular, I think he just connected with the people on the army thing. He stood up against the government - that made him a hero at the time.

Refusing being drafted into the army doesn't necessarily make you a coward. Obviously going to Vietnam would be a good enough reason to be afraid but maybe he was just an objector.

Refusing to kill people does not make you a coward.

Refusing to do it for your country according to some makes you a coward. I think those people need to lead by example before anyone takes them seriously.

*This post is not serious and is meant to be taken in a sarcastic yet humorist tone.*

You think everyone else that was drafted wanted to go? My guess is no, but they did it anyway because, not only is it the law, it was what their country asked of them. Not saying it was the right decision at the time, but it's my humble opinion, that when your country calls on you in a time like that, you need to man up and do it.

Tens of thousands of people refused to be drafted, many were jailed for a short time but in the end only those that were bullied and threatened and then capitulated actually went. (out of those who objected) Most of the rest were simply released and passed over.

The draft was a necessity during WWII but after that it became a terrible black eye for the military and the government as a whole.

Well how about you lead by example because the Army and Marines are always looking for a few good men.

Instead of being taken out & shot as the majority of them should have been.

Been there, done that, my friend. I'm not saying Ali is the only one, I know many people took the same approach, I just don't see how he can be so admired. Molson pointed it out for me though, different times and circumstances.

If this nation, directly were under attack then perhaps I would agree with you. See my previous post. When OUR nation is threatened I don't think anyone will refuse to fight for it. The problem is that after WWII we stopped being threatened, EVER and went on holding "police actions" and other nefarious military campaigns that were viewed by millions as wrong and against everything this country actually stands for.

Patriotism is all well and good, but blind acceptance is not the same as patriotism.

Congrats and thank you for your service. I still disagree with what you though.

Ahh yes the voice of intolerance and stupidity rears its typical head. Nice to know you're still you Jon.

You should do the same before you judge as well.

And the world would likely stop turning on its axis entirely if you were ever to manage two consecutive threads without reverting to your usual worthless sack of shit self.

I'm sure there's a certain comfort in the consistency of it all for some gentle readers however.

You mean go fight for something I do not believe in? Going to another country and killing them because they have a resource my country does not? No thanks. If there is ever an invasion I will gladly pick up arms and fight....

Quick things before I head out. I suppose I take on a different look bc having served/deployed (and I understand these are different times, But I can only assume it was the same circumstances then), but it's one of the worst feelings in the world when your CO tells you that your deployment is being extended bc "we just don't have the numbers". Now, lets say we "had those numbers", the length of deployments on troops would be cut down considerably, IMO. So people who refuse to go, are essentially saying fuck you to the guys that did so, voluntarily, my time is worth more than yours.

Of course I'm going to treat you like a sack of shit when you act like one.

Jon, no matter how ignorant you may truly be at times, I like you, I've come to that admiration slowly and over a long period of time because I can trust that you will stick to your totalitarian fascist views of how you think AMERICA should be run. Its consistent and I truly appreciate that.

It doesn't stop me from believing you are a complete fucking waste of human flesh and should be "taken out and shot" as you so quaintly put it.

Unfortunately for you and those like you, life is not cut and dried, black and white, right and wrong. No matter how much you yearn for such a world it does not and WILL not ever exist. So please continue posting your insipid drivel and I'll go on reminding you what a piss poor excuse for a bad wet dream you really are.

Having served and deployed numerous times I disagree with you. its not a matter of them saying "fuck you" to you at all. They're living THEI lives as THEY see fit. its not your, the governments, or anyone elses place or right to tell them how to do so.

You don't like it? tough shit. We volunteered to do a job. We don't have the right to be whiny pissy bitches when we stop enjoying our job.

This sense of entitlement you seem to have? You don't. Get over it.

Down Goes JS19! Down Goes JS19! Down Goes JS19!

sorry seemed funny at the time

I'm with larrymcg421 on this one. Refusing to kill because your country "said so" IMO makes you less of a coward than the person who doesn't believe in the cause but goes anyway. I say more power to Clay on that one. If the military ever re-instituted the draft and tried to take me, you'd better believe the only thing they'd be getting from me is the middle finger.

Quick, RendeR and JIMGA need to be boxed for throwing insults at each other.

It was a much simpler time 5 days ago when you could throw out a simple 'fuck you' and then move on.

Seeing as I refuse to kill someone for something I don't believe in, I'm sure as hell not going to kill someone so you can have a shorter deployment.

Oddly enough, I'm not all that comforted.

Did I miss a memo?

Wasn't he objecting due to racial issues? As in, why should I fight your battles overseas and risk death to myself when I can't come back and use the same water fountain or bathroom as a white person in some states. I'm not sure on the exact timelines, but I thought that was his objection (and not really a bad one).

“I ain’t got no quarrel with them Viet Cong… they never called me nigger.”

I think this is a pretty accurate summation.

Hey man I am usually the one who throws out race don't you be stepping in my zone man.

lol, just poking at the fact that Lathum got boxed in that Balloon Boy thread for insulting another member. I'm not reporting the posts and I don't care, just poking fun at a boxing.

That was part of it, but I think he did have genuine moral objections to the war. He did appropriately file for Consciencious Objector status, and it was summarily denied without the proper legal steps being taken to consider it. That's why the Supreme Court (in a 9-0 decision) overturned his conviction.

Ahh I didn't realize Lathum was boxed. interesting.

I think I have to +1 this.

Cowardly is using your money or connections to get out of the draft, not facing prison, ridicule, and loss of the ability to follow your chosen profession to make your point.

I think you should be allowed to refuse the draft unless Congress DECLARES war (since Congress represents the people, while the President still only reflects electors, and has way too much authority as it is to avoid dictatorship like abuses). In a declared war, well in theory you allowed the reps in there, and a majority of 'the people' think the war is necessary for the public defense, so at that point I would assume it comes down to more specific case by case objections.

Its hard to convince people to fight, and fight well, for your side, so I'd rather they not be sent if my life was on the line as a soldier (the 'trust my comrade to be somewhat competent' factor). Historically they handled this by threatening to shoot defectors, with mixed results. Regardless, I'm sure a volunteer force on average is more competent and more reliable, although I think the incentives for being a soldier should be greatly increased (and the benefits for being a lard ass abusing the government power significantly decreased).

I distinctly remember that you said that you wouldn't go to Afghanistan because "it had nothing to do with you", yet they actually attacked our country. Last I checked, there's not a lot of oil in that part of the world. :lol:

This is one of those areas where the Democrat/Republican split seems opposite of what it should be.

Shouldn't a Democrat (in general), be perfectly OK with a Democratically elected government imposing a requirement on you (even if you donh't agree with it)? And shouldn't a Republican have a problem with this kind of intrusion into someone's life?

Haha, not bad, not bad.

Back to RendeR's post (not bright enough to quote 2 things at once here), but, again, Vietnam is quite a bit before my time, so I'm not fully aware of the laws back then, but I'm almost certain it was the the government's right to tell them how to live their life, well, not so much their life, but when it came to the draft, they had a say in the matter. So, back to my point about Ali, was I think it was pretty cowardly that not only did he refuse, which was his right, but he pretty much faced zero consequences. As far as I know, he didn't serve any prison time for doing so.

And your right, in today's times, guys like you and I we volunteered and that's that, we knew what we were getting in to, but how about back then, what about all the other people who didn't want to go, he (along with everyone else who took this position) is definitely giving a big fuck you to those guys. I'm trying to tie all of this into Ali here, I really don't give a shit about people's opinions on the draft/military/and all that nonsense, although I should have figured it would turn to that, but back to Ali, I just don't see how this can be admired, especially w/o facing a bit of consequence for it.

What you need to do is go research the situation before making blanket statements about someone.

Ali did what he had to do, which was file for conscientious objector status, his case was summarily denied without the proper due process or validation that was required, which as someone else pointed out was why his conviction was overturned. he did nothing wrong, which is why he never served any time.

As many others did as well I might add.

BrianD: You trying to join Jon's army over there? Since when do people who have the right to contest their drafting suddenly become cannon fodder for your firing squads? Talk about un-American.


As for the rest of the discussion regarding the draft in general. My personal view is that unless our mainland is under attack (EG Pearl harbor) then a draft is unethical and unconstitutional. It was done away with for the betterment of our mIlitary overall.

If we fell under attack for whatever reason then a draft makes sense to protect our actual borders and repel the invaders. I trust that enough people would flood the services to do so that those few who "choose" not to serve would be best left to their own lives and not forced into service. I would like to think our nation is strong enough and moral enough to be able to deal with that without turning all "Mccarthy-ist" on things.

Wouldn't the cowards be the ones that call for us to go to war but are not man enough to fight in it themselves?

I was really young when this all happened, but I do seem to remember that there was a backlash against Clay for the situation.

I can get behind that opinion. Indeed.


And just to be clear that I do support and believe in the Military, I served for 8 years and in the first Gulf war, and I believe wholeheartedly that everyone should serve at least a minimal 2yr term in the services. Freely pick and choose which one you want, but I really think military service teaches kids a lot of real and powerful lessons that help them in everyday life.

Err... last time I checked Pearl Harbor isn't on the mainland, and Hawai'i wasn't a state in 1941. So under the terms you just stated, the WWII draft was both unethical and unconstitutional.

Huh.

At the time, the draft was not declared unethical or unconstitutional. I'm not sad that the draft is now gone, but at that time it was law. Those who dodged the draft by whatever means refused a legal call by their country. I believe that is un-patriotic and a slap in the face of anyone who did their duty and answered their call.

BrianD: THe government had a Conscientious Objector clause built into the system for theat reason. I don't see why someone should be punished for doing it. Or are we going to ridicule the AMish and other such peace groups as well, because they did not fight either?

That's why I can't consider him a coward. He doesn't believe in the war and thus not fighting in it shouldn't turn him into a coward. Just as someone who has a strong social belief that sex should not come before marriage should not be considered a loser.

The mandatory military is an interesting concept. A lot of countries of all types do this. You could make the argument that besides strengthening the military, it would also give us more resources to do things like humanitarian missions. It would also teach a generation of kids some important lessons on responsibility and respect (not to compare the two, but I think every parent should encourage their kid to play football at some point in life for the same reason).

The main reason I like it is because it avoid unnecessary wars. We wouldn't have gone into Iraq if kids from Laguna Beach and Newport, Rhode Island were dying. Our current system preys upon poverty stricken kids who have no other option but going into the military. Even the draft system was flawed as wealthier kids could avoid it through student deferments.

Essentially what I'm saying is that the system should probably be one where anyone can be called and anyone can die in service. Not one that is essentially rich folks sending poor folks off to die. It would change our views dramatically on war and what is necessary.

McKinley signed the Newlands Resolution which provided for the official annexation of Hawaiʻi on July 7, 1898 and the islands officially became Hawaiʻi Territory, a United States territory, on February 22, 1900.

Try reading up a bit.

Then again, I think you're just trying to be an asshat at this point. If not then you're just not willing to actually understand someone's statement. Yes I said Mainland, but I do include our territories, islands, commonwealth's etc etc. Nothing that we did after WWII was caused by, due to or affecting any actual attack on US held lands properties or territories. The Draft should have been shelved after WWII ended and we should never have been involved in Korea or Vietnam. In my opinion.

Yes if someone invaded Puerto Rico I would be happy to enroll and defend it.

I'm not being an asshat. Your statement was "My personal view is that unless our mainland is under attack (EG Pearl harbor) then a draft is unethical and unconstitutional."

If you want to change the terms of your original statement, that's fine by me, but there's no reason to call me a name just because you fucked up and didn't state your premise clearly.

That opens up a whole can of worms though. That would be calling Rosa Parks or any blacks who participated in sit-ins unpatriotic.

What was un-patriotic is a system that sends poor kids off to fight in a war that rich old white men wanted. Bucking a system that was horribly unfair doesn't seem un-patriotic in any way to me.

Then Brian I simply think you're wrong. The only people who have a "duty" to serve are the ones who choose to do so or agree to do so of their own free will(or as an alternative to a worse situation such as incarceration). As Fozzie states the objector clauses were put in specifically to protect those who truly felt they could not serve in a war they did not believe in.

Those who used the system as designed I have no issue with at all. The ones who simply bought their way out, hid somewhere safe or ran to another country to avoid service. Well i have some issues with them but in the end, its really better that they didn't serve as they would probably have done a piss poor job and gotten better people killed.

You're being an asshhat because you're bright enough to understand the scope of my statement. if you want to be a pedantic idealog who requires everyone to be perfectly literal in their statements, then yes, you are in fact an asshat, and more that I won't bother typing out here.

In other words stop trying to cause problems simply because you want to try belittling someone's post. Thats all you were actually trying to do to begin with, you failed because you were to lazy to actually look up Hawaii's status at the time, but that just further proves my point.

I don't see any way these two things are related. A person doesn't have to agree with everything their leaders say or do. I have no problem with protests. Deciding to just not follow a law is something different.


I don't recall claims of the draft preying on the poor. I had plenty of family members, who were not poor, drafted. These people weren't bucking a system, they were ignoring a federal law...in a time of war. I'm not defending the law, but at the time it was a law...and we do have ways of combating laws we disagree with.

So based on this you're fine with those who used the conscientious objector process? Because they were following the letter of the law.

As Cam's smart ass remarks have shown, clarity is apparently very important in our posts ;)

This has got to be about the dumbest argument that get trotted out every time a discussion of war comes up. Wars are declared by the President and Congress...which by age restriction contains people too old for most of the fighting and which tends to be peopled by some non-trivial amount of military veterans.

Isn't that what Rosa Parks did by refusing to sit in the back of the bus? What about Susan B. Anthony?

I haven't read the whole thread yet, but God before country. I would not kill in an unjust war for my country.

I don't understand this, as a Christian, you clearly are supposed to put God before country. If you believe a war would go against God, it would be far worse to participate.

And I'm sorry, you can call me unpatriotic all you want, but I refuse to end someone's life for something I don't believe in. It's a deeply held personal belief. If you want to take that as me saying "fuck you" to someone who is serving or me bring unpatriotic, that's fine. It's not going change how important that belief is to me.

I fully respect anyone who serves their country because it is what they believe in. But the government is not who I am going to listen to regarding what is ethical or not.

So based on this you're fine with those who used the conscientious objector process? Because they were following the letter of the law.

As Cam's smart ass remarks have shown, clarity is apparently very important in our posts ;)

This is kind of funny actually.

And this, as Cam's statement is about as obviously oblivious to the meaning of the statement as anything else.

For god's sake people read with a tiny bit of context comprehension here.


Edited to add: This post of yours is exactly what a woman does to her BF/husband/whatever when she is clueless as to how to really defend her argument and simply throws out some stupid extreme to somehow prove her point.

You stated that it's unpatriotic to break the law. That is what people like Rosa Parks did. And by your definition, this country was founded by a bunch of "un-patriotic" people.

Simply put, in that era of time, a college degree was much more difficult to acquire if you were poor. Rich kids went to school, poor kids worked in factories. We allowed kids in school to defer which was a huge benefit for wealthier individuals. Estimates have it that 80% of casualties in Vietnam came from poor or working-class families.

For reasons like this, I am glad the we now have an all-volunteer military. You have the right to not enlist based on any reasons...not just moral objections. This was a different situation when the draft was around.

I may not agree with that part of the law, but it was part of the law....for those who are objectors to all wars, and not just a particular law...and for those who were objectors before they got their draft notice. Those who suddenly became objectors because their name was called get no such pass.

My post was in reply to the comment that it is unpatriotic to send people to war if you aren't willing to fight it yourself. It is a crap argument until we give people 18-25 the right to declare a war. Now, if you want to call it unpatriotic to declare a war while not being willing to have your kids involved, that might be a real discussion.

Again, the draft had stipulations for objectors to apply for exemption. I don't see where your argument is going here. There was no difference back then, the CO clauses were part of the draft laws to begin with. What is it you're trying to argue here?

You agree with Jon that people who objected should be shot, why? they were not breaking the law, they were FOLLOWING IT. So what is your actual issue with them?

Nad as I said, if you're pulling a Cam and requiring perfectly literal statements because you're too obtuse to read the statement within the context of the discussion then you really ought to just stop now.

The statement related not to those who can declare war, but those "patriotic" masses out there who scream for war but sit back and let your sons and daughters fight it for them.

I ask again, WTF is your beef with conscientious objectors?

I seem to recall referring to a federal law and during a time of war. If I didn't make that reference often enough, I should have.

And yes, our country was founded by a bunch of un-patriotic people. It was founded by people who were traitors to their crowns. I would have to say that by definition, being involved in regime change is un-patriotic. That doesn't mean that I'm not benefiting because of the traitors, but I don't see the point in not being willing to admit that is what they were.


So the argument has changed from the poor were being screwed by the draft to the poor and working (middle) class were being screwed by the draft? I have less argument with that.

As long as those people applied following the letter of the law there is NO difference.

Love to continue this but I need to go out and grill some steaks for the family I am happy will have the choice whether to serve or not during their lifetimes ;)

Because he commented that he refused to end someone's life for something he doesn't believe in. I read that as him disagreeing with particular wars of aggression, not all wars in general. The conscientious objector clause was for people who object to "all wars", not just a particular war. That is my objection. If he meant that his belief was for all wars, even ones that might take place within our borders, then I will back off as that is what the clause is for.

Wrong, people were not granted objector status if the suddenly became objectors when their name was called...Witmer v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://openjurist.org/348/us/375/witmer-v-united-states

Edited to add link with actual information. I'll leave my bad link in and take my lumps.

Can you expand on that? ;)

I'm happy for that too. I never served, and I never wanted to. But if I had been around during the time of the draft, I'd have sucked it up and done my duty.

Would you perform a non-combat duty for a cause you don't believe in? Say if you were drafted to perform map work or something?

Crap, give me a moment. That is what I get for not checking the link. :D

Was this an option? I actually have no idea. Could you refuse combat duty for a non-combat role?

Remind me again when you were in the military...

In early U.S. wars that was case, I don't think it was an option in vietnam.

I'm just trying to get a sense of where the boundaries are here. For example, if it's OK to refuse a non-combat role, than is it OK for one to refuse to pay taxes if they don't "believe in the cause"?

The government makes us do all kinds of things we don't want to do. I'm curious about people's varying willingness to do those things anyway, especially if it comes with a hardship.

possble death does not equal taxes, try again

I'm talking mainly about supporters. Those who are of military age who demand we go to war with a country but feel they don't want to fight in it.

But if you want to use the people who pushed the Iraq war, you can. Almost all those people were of military age during the Vietnam War. Bush, Rove, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, Delay, McConnell, Frist, Lott, Chambliss, the list goes on and on. All people who could have fought but sought deferments or had other excuses not to fight. You have a long list of pundits who love talking about how we need these wars but found ways to avoid them. Hannitty, O'Reilly, Savage, Buchanan, Kristol, and Coulter. Even the great Rush Limbaugh was able to get out because of a cyst on his butt or maybe it was a "trick" knee.

I'm not trying to start an argument on the merits of serving. But I do find it ridiculous to call a guy like Ali a coward for not fighting in a war he vehemently opposed in a country that treated him like a second-class citizen. Then give a pass to a guy like Ted Nugent who loves the wars but when it came down to serving, pussed out.

That's why I said non-combat. I'm curious where the line is.

to me non-combat = protecting your fellow americans so I don't have a problem with it

Depends. Mapmaking probably not, because I'm basically telling them where to go kill people. But sure, I'd be willing to work in a hospital for wounded veterans or something like that.

Proud to come from a family of draft dodgers. Grandpa dodged WW2, and dad dodged Vietnam (he would've been over there during the Tet Offensive)

Now before anybody calls them cowards, instead of fighting they chose the patriotic duty of feeding our country as farmers.

People were allowed to APPLY for objector status and were granted hearings to determine whether it was valid or not. I never said they immediately received it. They got their due process, something Ali was denied and then afterward cleared of all charges about.

And you were calling me an asshat? For cryin' out loud... you made an idiotic statement and I was amused by it. You get this butthurt over something that happens approximately 13,698,233 times a day on the Internet? Forget about Hawai'i's statehood... you said Peal Harbor was part of the mainland. Then you try and claim that I should've known what you meant? Well no, actually I was a little confused. Did he really mean "mainland", or did he mean territories that are thousands of miles away from the mainland? It was kind of hard for me to tell, based on the utter. fucking. incompatibility. of what you wrote.

BTW, if "pulling a Cam" means expecting that people have enough clarity that they don't contradict themselves in the span of a single sentence, I'm fine with that. Now's when I'd usually come up with some witty definition of "pulling a Render", but I think that phrase has already been defined by the board. Something involving multiple partners and pirate role-play I think. :)


*which, if anybody still reading this has forgotten, was: "My personal view is that unless our mainland is under attack (EG Pearl harbor) then a draft is unethical and unconstitutional."

As long as we're getting pedantic about the "letter of the law" regarding the Vietnam draft, I'm surprised that nobody's mentioned the fact that congress never declared war against Vietnam. Throw in the fact that Vietnam was a French territory, and that the entire conflict was largely built upon the second Tonkin Gulf incident that never actually occurred, and I am pretty surprised that even with the benefit of full hindsight we're asking "why didn't people want to serve in Vietnam?".

This is a really easy thing to say.

See this is precisely where you lose all credibility with me. You knew exactly what the discussion was about, you understood precisely what was meant by my statement, even if it was worded poorly and you tried to make a smart ass remark to degrade me for whatever reason. THIS is how your comment came across.

You were just trying to be a fucking smartass and you failed, not only in that it was obvious you knew by your own wording and teh fact that you tried to throw in the added commentary of Hawaii's status at the time. Which you totally fucking blew.

How bout you just stfu for awhile instead of trying to tread water in a position you've already failed at.

SOmetimes you make some great posts, then there are times like this when you devolve into a sorry little piss ant trying to one up someone and then getting pissed because you look like an complete fucking imbicile when you do it.

Oh and nice personal shot there asshole, another glaring point maker that you were just being a fuckwit, you had to resort to insulting my wife and lifestyle to get some sort of gratification.

Oh thank you =) I was just verifying those points to throw out there when I saw your post =)

Dude, I'm pretty sure most guys on here would much prefer to "pull a RendeR" than "pull a Cam". As for the rest of your comment, you make yourself look like an ass much easier than I ever could.

Whatever fail-boy. Carry on with your petty attacks when you can't just admit you were being a fuckwit.

But those two kittens are actually cute :)

Is this better?

Yes

Ok I laughed.

teapot meet kettle...