Letter to george and other "haters"--ali (cont.)

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by Mdmtx

Aren't we glad we aren't all conscientious objectors? If we were, what language would we speak? Would we have organized sports? Would we have this forum? Would the Internet exist?

Mark Medlin

I was admittedly pretty young when the Vietnam War was going on, but I don't remember there ever being a threat of the US being invaded from the North Vietnamese. Or the North Koreans during the Korean War for that matter. It was of some concern during WWII, but that's the only war I can think of since the War of 1812 where being invaded by a foreign nation was an issue. Historically, we have generally gone to war to protect other interests, most often economic ones.

Oh, just in case you forgot, we lost the Vietnam War. We pulled out and left South Vietnam to a fate we either could not or chose not to prevent. My step dad was an Air Force officer who spent several years over there in the early days of our involvement. To this day, he still doesn't understand what we were doing because he damn sure doesn't think we were trying very hard to win the war. But even though we lost, we still speak American English, play organized sports, have access to the internet, and even have the ability to post dumbass remarks on this forum from time to time.

[packs]

Oh wait I see what you're saying now. Never mind my original comment. I will just add the Mexican - American War and the Philippine - American War as wars that threatened US land interests directly.

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by packs

Oh wait I see what you're saying now. Never mind my original comment. I will just add the Mexican - American War and the Philippine - American War as wars that threatened US land interests directly.

Well, both of those wars are arguable I suppose. In the Mexican-American War, annexing Texas was the straw that broke the camel's back since Mexico still claimed Texas as its national territory. In the end, we conquered Mexico City and gained about 50% of Mexico's land, so I guess who invaded who is debatable. That was another extremely controversial, and to some, extremely unpopular, war.

In the Philippine-American War, we had just, and I mean just, gotten the Philippines from Spain after the Spanish-American War and we fought the same people who had been fighting Spain for Philippine independence the year before. They viewed it as a continuation of the same struggle for independence. We didn't. Again, who was the invader really depends on point of view.

[forazzurri2axz]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

Well, both of those wars are arguable I suppose. In the Mexican-American War, annexing Texas was the straw that broke the camel's back since Mexico still claimed Texas as its national territory. In the end, we conquered Mexico City and gained about 50% of Mexico's land, so I guess who invaded who is debatable. That was another extremely controversial, and to some, extremely unpopular, war.

In the Philippine-American War, we had just, and I mean just, gotten the Philippines from Spain after the Spanish-American War and we fought the same people who had been fighting Spain for Philippine independence the year before. They viewed it as a continuation of the same struggle for independence. We didn't. Again, who was the invader really depends on point of view.

"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"

[griffon512]

Originally Posted by forazzurri2axz

"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"

with all of that time you spent replying to people -- many of whom had well thought out, valid counterpoints -- that dared to disagree with you, you could have served at least 50 people at a soup kitchen (e. in your original post). damn shame.

[forazzurri2axz]

Originally Posted by griffon512

with all of that time you spent replying to people -- many of whom had well thought out, valid counterpoints -- that dared to disagree with you, you could have served at least 50 people at a soup kitchen (e. in your original post). damn shame.

and you could have made a donation to a charity that helps poor people instead of spewing out BS ---I did not reply to many people who had counterpoints; I believe it was 2. And would it be better to avoid responding to people whose viewpoints I feel are dangerous to society? And what have you done to improve the lives of others lately????

[griffon512]

Originally Posted by forazzurri2axz

and you could have made a donation to a charity that helps poor people instead of spewing out bs ---i did not reply to many people who had counterpoints; i believe it was 2. And would it be better to avoid responding to people whose viewpoints i feel are dangerous to society? And what have you done to improve the lives of others lately????

all caps because you are annoying me and to hammer home the point.

Funny you should ask what i have done to improve the lives of others lately? Mid-career i decided to transition to being a professional social worker so i could devote more of my time to work that i find meaningful, i.e., improving the lives of others.

One of the sad realities i've found as a social worker is that those who think of themselves as profoundly moral and tolerant versus most other humans are generally ignorant, obstinate, and intolerant [insert your picture here]. Ouch! That hurt a little, i know. It's ok, just keep on reminding yourself how righteous you are!

[Mdmtx]

I wonder how 1,000,000 conscientious objectors would have fared against a blitzkrieg? How about against the Russian army? Surely that would have stopped Tojo. Let's go back a little farther. Maybe the conscientious objectors could have slayed Gengis Khan.

[jhs5120]

Originally Posted by Mdmtx

I wonder how 1,000,000 conscientious objectors would have fared against a blitzkrieg? How about against the Russian army? Surely that would have stopped Tojo. Let's go back a little farther. Maybe the conscientious objectors could have slayed Gengis Khan.

I think if every human in world history opted to be a conscientious objector, there would have been no need for soldiers to prevent such atrocities and conflict.

[packs]

I respect everyone's right to fight or not fight, but I didn't see a lot of power behind Ali's decision. He was never in any type of danger, even if he did go fight. He was a celebrity. Do you think anyone ever took a shot at Elvis? It was more of a statement against the institutional racism of the time. That's why he used the moment to invoke how white people addressed him and how no Vietcong had ever said that to him. That's the power in the statement. Focusing on his refusal to fight I think misses the point of the moment.

[Mdmtx]

Originally Posted by jhs5120

I think if every human in world history opted to be a conscientious objector, there would have been no need for soldiers to prevent such atrocities and conflict.

I agree with that. And if nobody cheated on their taxes our rates would be lower. And if everyone paid for their medical care, those costs would be less. And if we all were nice to each other we wouldn't need alarm companies, guard dogs, electric fences, nuclear arms, policemen, armies etc...

Mankind has proven time and again that many people and groups are ONLY stopped by force.

Shangrila does not exist on earth. Unfortunate.

[Mdmtx]

I will drop from this good spirited debate now, before it becomes ugly. Interesting views.

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by Mdmtx

I will drop from this good spirited debate now, before it becomes ugly. Interesting views.

Mark- just a reminder of your previous promise.

Seems it's difficult for some of us to live up to their convictions even for the short term.

Try to imagine how difficult it was to face the consequences of your decision - not running over the Canadian border or enrolling at Oxford as actual 'draft dodgers' did.

Imagine instead standing by your decision and seeing the best years of your life being subjected to the kind of criticism that 'folks' like you continue to spew.

I will not promise to 'drop out' of this discussion as I believe in defending true Heroes.


.

[Wite3]

Mark,
You essentially asked...what would happen if a nation of objectors stood up to a nation of war, imperialism, and violence...

The answer is you get India, the largest democratic republic in the world. Gandhi took a revolution of violence in the early part of the 20th century and turned it to a movement of civil disobedience eventually leading to the creation of India and Pakistan. Through strikes, mutinies, sit-ins, walk outs, etc. he created a movement that paralyzed the British.

Also the notion that we do not need objectors is a very limited, and frankly, a very disturbing trend.

The objector acts as a voice of opposition, a voice of conscience. People need to have that voice. It often leads to great outcomes. One of those great outcomes was the great nation you now live in and supposedly support. As someone mentioned above, you can both be an objector to war and still serve. Some of the first objectors were Quakers and Mennonites. They refused to fight in the Revolutionary War even through they were strong supporters of the Revolution itself (on grounds of taxes, freedom of thought and religion, freedom of movement, etc.). What did they do, they supplied the revolutionaries. Often with food, clothing, wagons, tools, etc. With out their help, what might have happened.

The idea of objectors is necessary and often overlooked.

I had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Ali on several occasions at show signings and one notable run in at a hotel here in Los Angeles. I got to sit and speak with him and his daughter and he was personable, funny, and wanted nothing more than to make others around him feel comfortable. As much as he seemed to crave fame at the height of his career, he seemed, at least to me, almost shy about it at times and people came up to us and asked for autographs and photos. I never got his autograph but was much happier to shake his hand. I was younger then and did not appreciate the man and what he came to represent as much as I do now.

I rarely wade into these frays but my hero, Jackie Robinson, respected him and was able to create a friendship with someone who held very different views. In fact, that is one of the things I have come to appreciate about Ali, his ability to engage with any culture, religion, race, etc. in a meaningful and respectful way...I wish we could all aspire and strive for that one character trait...

Joshua

[jhs5120]

Originally Posted by Mdmtx

I agree with that. And if nobody cheated on their taxes our rates would be lower. And if everyone paid for their medical care, those costs would be less. And if we all were nice to each other we wouldn't need alarm companies, guard dogs, electric fences, nuclear arms, policemen, armies etc...

Mankind has proven time and again that many people and groups are ONLY stopped by force.

Shangrila does not exist on earth. Unfortunate.

I can agree with all of this, but a straw man argument deserves a straw man response.

Muhammed Ali found no reason to fight for a people who had no love for him, nor did he have a reason to fight against a people who did not wrong him. He felt that the greatest injustice Americans were facing was at home and chose to stay and fight it.

[Mdmtx]

Originally Posted by jhs5120

I can agree with all of this, but a straw man argument deserves a straw man response.

Muhammed Ali found no reason to fight for a people who had no love for him, nor did he have a reason to fight against a people who did not wrong him. He felt that the greatest injustice Americans were facing was at home and chose to stay and fight it.

And that brings me back to my first post. If an army of objectors faced a fierce army that had no objections against killing, who wins the war?

[jhs5120]

Originally Posted by Mdmtx

And that brings me back to my first post. If an army of objectors faced a fierce army that had no objections against killing, who wins the war?

Well, there would be no war if an entire side conscientiously objects.

Muhammed Ali fought a much more noble war at home than he would have fought overseas. He was already drafted into an army and fighting for the freedom of millions of Americans when Uncle Sam came knocking.

I have no love for draft dodgers, nor do I have anything but the upmost respect for service men and women, but Muhammed Ali was doing a much greater service to mankind staying home.

[forazzurri2axz]

Originally Posted by jhs5120

I think if every human in world history opted to be a conscientious objector, there would have been no need for soldiers to prevent such atrocities and conflict.

phenomenally spoken, thank you!!!

[forazzurri2axz]

Originally Posted by Mdmtx

I wonder how 1,000,000 conscientious objectors would have fared against a blitzkrieg? How about against the Russian army? Surely that would have stopped Tojo. Let's go back a little farther. Maybe the conscientious objectors could have slayed Gengis Khan.

and people like you said they were going to undermine our democratic way of life!! (gooks is what Y"ALL called 'em) Our "way of life " was to kill 2 million of them so they wouldn't paddle over in rowboats and spread their communismn around . HA!!! WW2 is quite different than Nam or Iraq and the conversation regarding THE GREATEST had to do with Nam, not WW2. By the way you spelled G______Khan incorrectly.

[Mdmtx]

Originally Posted by forazzurri2axz

and people like you said they were going to undermine our democratic way of life!! (gooks is what Y"ALL called 'em) Our "way of life " was to kill 2 million of them so they wouldn't paddle over in rowboats and spread their communismn around . HA!!! WW2 is quite different than Nam or Iraq and the conversation regarding THE GREATEST had to do with Nam, not WW2. By the way you spelled G______Khan incorrectly.

Sorry. Genghis. My auto correct dropped the h. Anyway, I never made a comment pro or con regarding Ali, or a specific time period. My comments were merely in regard to his mindset of an objector. I think that is hogwash. My .02. Type till you are blue in the face, but until you can prove how conscientious objectors could have stopped the holocaust or any such atrocious event, you will not change my mind. And it's lucky for you that people with my mind set have kept your life unencumbered by war.

[forazzurri2axz]

Originally Posted by Mdmtx

Sorry. Genghis. My auto correct dropped the h. Anyway, I never made a comment pro or con regarding Ali, or a specific time period. My comments were merely in regard to his mindset of an objector. I think that is hogwash. My .02. Type till you are blue in the face, but until you can prove how conscientious objectors could have stopped the holocaust or any such atrocious event, you will not change my mind. And it's lucky for you that people with my mind set have kept your life unencumbered by war.

Your last sentence makes me realize that you are a Ted Nugent Dick Cheney
Richard Nixon right wing fool who just happens to collect baseball cards. People with YOUR mindset encumber our lives with war;

It's lucky for me that people with MY mind set have protested against warmongers like you. Up against the wall, m________.

PEACE OUT

[Mdmtx]

Originally Posted by forazzurri2axz

Your last sentence makes me realize that you are a Ted Nugent Dick Cheney
Richard Nixon right wing fool who just happens to collect baseball cards. People with YOUR mindset encumber our lives with war;

It's lucky for me that people with MY mind set have protested against warmongers like you. Up against the wall, m________.

PEACE OUT

P.S. Ted Nugent rocks in more ways than one. Oh, thanks for calling me a fool. You are a warrior in the Thesarus department.

[CMIZ5290]

Originally Posted by Mdmtx

P.S. Ted Nugent rocks in more ways than one. Oh, thanks for calling me a fool. You are a warrior in the Thesarus department.

Ted Nugent is a moron, just my opinion....

[Bestdj777]

...

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by forazzurri2axz

Your last sentence makes me realize that you are a Ted Nugent Dick Cheney
Richard Nixon right wing fool...

Please, if we are going to generalize and call all conservatives fools, let's at least be a little bit honest with our facts. Kennedy escalated the Vietnam War, Johnson really escalated it while simultaneously maximizing US casualties by tying the hands of our military, and Nixon ended the Vietnam War.

For the record, I am a big fan of Ali and JFK, and I don't have much good to say about Nixon or Johnson. I'm also a conservative.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Please, if we are going to generalize and call all conservatives fools, let's at least be a little bit honest with our facts. Kennedy escalated the Vietnam War, Johnson really escalated it while simultaneously maximizing US casualties by tying the hands of our military, and Nixon ended the Vietnam War.

For the record, I am a big fan of Ali and JFK, and I don't have much good to say about Nixon or Johnson. I'm also a conservative.

Johnson did a lot of good on the civil rights front, no?

http://www.historyplace.com/speeches/johnson.htm

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Please, if we are going to generalize and call all conservatives fools, let's at least be a little bit honest with our facts. Kennedy escalated the Vietnam War, Johnson really escalated it while simultaneously maximizing US casualties by tying the hands of our military, and Nixon ended the Vietnam War.

For the record, I am a big fan of Ali and JFK, and I don't have much good to say about Nixon or Johnson. I'm also a conservative.

You forgot Ike. He sent US "advisors" to the French, and later to Vietnamese President Diem, in the mid-to late '50s. My stepdad was one of them. He went to Vietnam in 1957. He was a MAC pilot and wing commander. He broke his back in an air to air crash in 1959 that I don't understand and he doesn't talk about, although my older step brother told me that there was some issue about him being too big for the plane he was flying at the time. He went back in 1962. He has absolutely nothing good to say about our involvement or the decisions we made while there.

It's easy to put today's spin on all that stuff. But I don't see how you can have any real perspective about it unless you were there. I am also sure that there were just about as many perspectives, every one of which was valid to the person who had it, as there were people who were involved. Ultimately, I choose to believe that people who followed the dictates of their conscience, whatever way that decision led them, did the right thing. Others may differ and that's OK. We will simply have to agree to disagree.

[jhs5120]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

I was admittedly pretty young when the Vietnam War was going on, but I don't remember there ever being a threat of the US being invaded from the North Vietnamese. Or the North Koreans during the Korean War for that matter. It was of some concern during WWII, but that's the only war I can think of since the War of 1812 where being invaded by a foreign nation was an issue. Historically, we have generally gone to war to protect other interests, most often economic ones.

Oh, just in case you forgot, we lost the Vietnam War. We pulled out and left South Vietnam to a fate we either could not or chose not to prevent. My step dad was an Air Force officer who spent several years over there in the early days of our involvement. To this day, he still doesn't understand what we were doing because he damn sure doesn't think we were trying very hard to win the war. But even though we lost, we still speak American English, play organized sports, have access to the internet, and even have the ability to post dumbass remarks on this forum from time to time.

Communism.

Some people thought that preventing communism was worth dying for, others didn't.

[timn1]

Killer comment- not that the toads on this board will get it, but they don't get much....

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

I was admittedly pretty young when the Vietnam War was going on, but I don't remember there ever being a threat of the US being invaded from the North Vietnamese. Or the North Koreans during the Korean War for that matter. It was of some concern during WWII, but that's the only war I can think of since the War of 1812 where being invaded by a foreign nation was an issue. Historically, we have generally gone to war to protect other interests, most often economic ones.

Oh, just in case you forgot, we lost the Vietnam War. We pulled out and left South Vietnam to a fate we either could not or chose not to prevent. My step dad was an Air Force officer who spent several years over there in the early days of our involvement. To this day, he still doesn't understand what we were doing because he damn sure doesn't think we were trying very hard to win the war. But even though we lost, we still speak American English, play organized sports, have access to the internet, and even have the ability to post dumbass remarks on this forum from time to time.