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

[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

[tschock]

Originally Posted by 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.
Joshua

Really? A somewhat flawed or idealistic analogy. Britain was not North Vietnam, North Korea, the USSR, China, Japan, Germany, etc. Do you honestly feel that a nation full of conscientious objectors would have worked well for the South Vietnamese? Maybe you should ask the Cambodians how well that worked out? Or France?

It really depends largely on who you are 'conscientiously objecting' against and what's in it for them (one way or the other).

[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.

[Mdmtx]

Originally Posted by jhs5120

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.

I doubt his draft dodging decisions caused any disent. I'm glad you aren't against draft dodgers. But outright support one. You guys have some crazy ideas. But that's what fighting for freedom has provided, your ability to spew them.

[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....

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by CMIZ5290

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

Absolutely agree, but I still like Snakeskin Cowboy and Stranglehold pretty well. Not as much as I used to 35 years ago, but pretty well.

[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.