I know it is the short version but don't forget the influenza that infected half a billion people and killed between 50 and 100 million. Woodrow Wilson expanded the draft range to all men 18-45. Converted the nation into a war machine while ignoring the pandemic that was exploding as a result of his lust for war, all while taking a giant dump on the rights of Americans. The reason it is called the Spanish flu was because the freedom hating leaders of every other country including ours where it most likely started silenced the press. Spain was the only nation that was reporting on it.
Contrary on Ali
- Thread starter ngrant
- Start date
I know it is the short version but don't forget the influenza that infected half a billion people and killed between 50 and 100 million. Woodrow Wilson expanded the draft range to all men 18-45. Converted the nation into a war machine while ignoring the pandemic that was exploding as a result of his lust for war, all while taking a giant dump on the rights of Americans. The reason it is called the Spanish flu was because the freedom hating leaders of every other country including ours where it most likely started silenced the press. Spain was the only nation that was reporting on it.
I said a decent reason. None of that could be thought of by any reasonable person as a justification for the incredible death and destruction caused by WW1. And what was achieved by WW!....besides WW2 ?
There's a great song by Eric Anderson from the Sixties which includes the lines that say it all:
"He was eighteen and he had to die
And to this day god knows I don't know why
To be so young and pay such a cost
For what was gained for what was lost?"
There's no justification for what we did to VietNam or the young men we sent over there....for nothing.
And anyone who struggled against that war did the right thing in my book.
-----
thank you for your service.... I went to RU from 68 through the spring of 73..... I was mentally prepared that after college I would wind up in the military ..... the draft ended close to my graduation so I did not go.....
back then it was all about timing...... today some attack this or that politician as avoiding the draft because they went to college during the war...
I see Bill Clinton also graduated in 73, so as luck would have it, he did not have to go into the military if he did not want to
..... Trump appears to have finished his education in 1968 and then failed a physical thereafter, not entering the military.
one logical reason for some people taking deferment-utilizing Trump to task in this particular situation but not deferment-utilizing Clinton might be -
the various instances where deferment-utilizing Trump demeaned / diminished the service of and made denigrating remarks toward individuals who genuinely served this country-
predominately simply because he now sees them as political opponents or convenient targets to bash.
for example - Trump's attacks on Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a Navy veteran who spent years as a POW in Hanoi were despicable - and entirely uncalled for
"He's not a war hero," Trump said “He's a war hero 'cause he was captured'. I like people that weren't captured, OK?.”
while on the other hand, deferment-utilizing Clinton in this particular situation has made no critical demeaning comments about anybody's valor or "hero worthiness".
Unless someone got to Vietnam VERY early in the US involvement the Civil Rights legislation of 1964 & 1965 put the Jim Crow laws on the path to oblivion. Ali made his decision and paid the price. Can't say I agree with it but I respect the fact he didn't run to Canada.
I enjoyed watching him as a boxer and often rooted for him. I respect what he accomplished for the black athletes and blacks in general. However, having been part of the last draft lottery with a low number (war ended before I had to go) and having a family member die in Viet Nam, I have a difficult time embracing him. Now for those who will start posting political leaders as examples, I guess, as to why I shouldn't feel this way, I feel the same about them as well.
Such an oversimplification. Let's start with the fact that Ho Chi Minh was not exactly a paragon of democracy, and was being supplied by the Communist bloc. Let's add the fact that while you are provably well aware of the war crime at Me Lai you probably haven't heard much about the mass graves at Hue. Vietnam is so much more complicated than popularly portrayed; Catholic-Buddiist, North - South, urban-rural, Communist - Capitalist.
Uh, I don't think Hillary had anything to worry about....as they weren't drafting women back then.
BTW, I loved the footage where Trump couldn't even recall which leg or foot it was that gave him such a problem back then.
It's a friggin message board. I try to keep it brief.
But actually Vietnam was very simple. We had no more right being there than the French did. And you know damn well that Ho would have won any election vs. Diem. That is of course unless the US Republicans had been in charge of voter id laws over there back then.
As in Iran and so many other places, the US was on the wrong side in Vietnam. All in the name of that "religion"
whose motto was bizarrely enough "kill a commie for Christ."
Actually, we had more right than the French because the government of South Vietnam requested assistance. Would have Ho won a nationwide election in 1954? Yes, unless there was a Democrat like Mayor Dailey getting the graveyard vote out for his opponent. Would Ho have won an election in South Vietnam after the country was divided and the non-rural population shifted? I don't think so.
There is a big difference between legislating and enforcing.
For example Brown vs Board of Education may have passed in 1954 but in many places integration wasn't completed until the 70s. As an example Charlotte didn't until 1973. So while you may be doing your mental calculus that education opportunities have been equal for 60+ years, in Charlotte and other places you didn't actually see blacks graduate after spending their full academic career in integrated schools until the mid eighties.
Without a doubt you are wrong. While in Nam I did my own polling. Whenever we made contact with the civilian population , I Would ask the locals a simple question. Ho ChinMinh or Nguyen Van Thieu, the President of South Vietnam. I didn't speak much Vietnamese and they didn't speak much English, so we communicated with a simple Numba 1 ( good) Numba 10 (bad). it wasn't close. Whether amongst Catholics or Buddhists, young or old, city or boonies, Ho was a consistent Numba 1. Scientific it was not, but it was clear that we were not winning the hearts and minds. Thieu was a scoundrel and a thief but even if SV had a better, more charismatic leader, Ho Would have won. Ho died the year I was there, but by then it was clear that South Vietnam was not viable without a prolonged US presence and by then even Nixon was ready to bail. A unified Vietnam was a historical inevitability , it just took the communists a little longer to hang their banner Mission Accomplished.
Last edited:
mdk01 said: ↑
Actually, we had more right than the French because the government of South Vietnam requested assistance. Would have Ho won a nationwide election in 1954? Yes, unless there was a Democrat like Mayor Dailey getting the graveyard vote out for his opponent. Would Ho have won an election in South Vietnam after the country was divided and the non-rural population shifted? I don't think so.
according to this:
Geneva Conference begins - Apr 26, 1954 - HISTORY.com
>In an effort to resolve several problems in Asia, including the war between the French and Vietnamese nationalists in Indochina, representatives from the world’s powers meet in Geneva. The conference marked a turning point in the United States’ involvement in Vietnam.<
>Privately, U.S. officials felt that the Geneva Agreements, if allowed to be put into action, were a disaster. They were convinced that national elections in Vietnam would result in an overwhelming victory for Ho, the man who had defeated the French colonialists.<
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/geneva-conference-begins
Actually, we had more right than the French because the government of South Vietnam requested assistance. Would have Ho won a nationwide election in 1954? Yes, unless there was a Democrat like Mayor Dailey getting the graveyard vote out for his opponent. Would Ho have won an election in South Vietnam after the country was divided and the non-rural population shifted? I don't think so.
Seems like you might be right about Ho Chi Minh winning, the US felt the same way in 1954
according to this:
Geneva Conference begins - Apr 26, 1954 - HISTORY.com
>In an effort to resolve several problems in Asia, including the war between the French and Vietnamese nationalists in Indochina, representatives from the world’s powers meet in Geneva. The conference marked a turning point in the United States’ involvement in Vietnam.<
>Privately, U.S. officials felt that the Geneva Agreements, if allowed to be put into action, were a disaster. They were convinced that national elections in Vietnam would result in an overwhelming victory for Ho, the man who had defeated the French colonialists.<
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/geneva-conference-begins
H
.Sure enough,we went to the third floor and sitting around the perimeter of the room were about 50 of Southeast Asia's very attractive women. After inspecting the stock, you made your choice and went to Mamasan to check out. The girls wore name tags and had ID cards which certified that they were recently medically inspected and were VD free. To be safe however, they recoorded the girls ID number with your name so that if it was later determined that she had VD, the military knew who to contact.
So what has this to do with race relations. It turns out that the black GIs were told to go the 4th floor. It seems that the white GIs wanted no part of any of the women who had been with black guys, so the military obliged with their own separate but somewhat less equal policy. Amongst the working ladies, they adopted this hierarchy and it was clear that the third floor ladies considered themselves superior to the 4 th floor crowd and viewed them with considerable disdain. How ironic that in such a multi- racial, multi- cultural city- state like Singapore, Jim Crow became a leading import.
Here's a little anecdote that will shed some light on racial attitudes in our integrated armed forces in late 1969. I went to Singapore for a short leave and the hotel they put us GIs in was operated as a concession by our military. Shortly arriving arriving I was told by one of the hotel staff to be sure to get to the 3rd floor pretty soon " before all the good ones were gone", I didn't immediately know what that meant but one of my traveling buddies said that the hotel runs a brothel and that's where the girls were.
.Sure enough,we went to the third floor and sitting around the perimeter of the room were about 50 of Southeast Asia's very attractive women. After inspecting the stock, you made your choice and went to Mamasan to check out. The girls wore name tags and had ID cards which certified that they were recently medically inspected and were VD free. To be safe however, they recoorded the girls ID number with your name so that if it was later determined that she had VD, the military knew who to contact.
So what has this to do with race relations. It turns out that the black GIs were told to go the 4th floor. It seems that the white GIs wanted no part of any of the women who had been with black guys, so the military obliged with their own separate but somewhat less equal policy. Amongst the working ladies, they adopted this hierarchy and it was clear that the third floor ladies considered themselves superior to the 4 th floor crowd and viewed them with considerable disdain. How ironic that in such a multi- racial, multi- cultural city- state like Singapore, Jim Crow became a leading import.
As someone who avoided military service but not service (spent 2 years in the slums of Jersey City ) during Vietnam war, I certainly respect all the US fighting men and women who have fought to protect my freedom of religion. I also have good friends who served in Nam. The people I respect least are those who went to Canada - you don't want to serve, take the consequences. had my CO status not been approved, I would have gone to jail - like Ali said (paraphrasing) when asked about going to Canada - this is my country and no one is going to make me leave.
Yeah...right.
The Kaiser and his troops were gonna be landing in Bayonne back in 1914.
:uzi::uzi::uzi::uzi:
Hell, it takes a great leap of imagination to call New Jersey schools integrated in 2016, for that matter.
How much of that is by government action as opposed to by choice? How many affluent minority families reside in Englewood or Teaneck who could buy in Paramus or Fair Lawn or even Ridgewood and Glen Rock? Trust me it's not an insignificant number. And if you look to another minority, Asians, there is substantial integration indeed.
Is this a serious post?
Just because there aren't Jim Crow laws doesn't mean that people segregate by choice. Do you think families who send their kids to Weequhaic (zero whites) wouldn't want to bus them 8 miles to Millburn HS?
I'm not saying bussing is the solution--I don't know what it--but over half a century after Brown vs. Board of Ed the state of integration in NJ is a disgrace.
I hated Ali. Rooted against him with a passion. Loud mouth jerk. There was no "universal love", that's history revision. 80 percent of the country was rooting for Frazier in their fights
Anecdotal but you can find plenty of articles about how smoking Joe was the white man's choice and there were a lot more of those back then. Joe didn't take too kindly to that characterization.
So you are saying that racist whites didn't care for the black guy who spoke out of turn and you proudly declare your association?
Rice, I think you're going way overboard and making unwarranted assumptions using "racist" (both fighters were Black after all) and saying that Ted (who I don't agree with on just about anything he posts) is a racist also when he only stated that he hated Ali because he was a "loud mouth jerk". Frazier was liked by many people, whites and Blacks because he was perceived to be a hard-working guy, a nice guy, and who was a hell of a fighter. Ali called Frazier an Uncle Tom, and Ali was perceived by many to be a draft dodging, big mouth. Ali was fun to watch and I for one became a fan of his over time, but he was far from perfect.
There were racists against Ali , also those who didn't like how he talked about his opponents and himself, those who didn't like the Black Muslim religion, then there was those who didn't like his Vietnam stance and you have to add theJoe Frazier fans that didn't care about any of those things, just wanted Smokin Joe to win.
Not all whites against Ali were raciest and there were a lot of blacks in Frazier's corner as well.
Ali pissed a lot of people off with his antics and race had nothing to do with many of his detractors not liking him.
The real shame of the way Ali treated Joe Frazier was that when Ali was banned from boxing Frazier helped him and acted like a friend.
Muhammad Ali's Success Would Have Been Impossible Without Joe Frazier - Forbes
http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeoza...-impossible-without-joe-frazier/#25fd31ea7f71
Last edited:
I'm asking a question because the statements of the poster I'm asking confused me. He made his first statement declaring his enthusiastic hatred for Ali and indicated that hatred had value because it was reinforced by the preferences of 80% of the country. He made a second statement declaring the racial element of the national preference. At the time of this match there was not an adult alive who for the majority of their life knew an America where the majority of blacks had a subordinate role in society as defined by law. One boxer had a public presence that was in direct confrontation with that legacy and one did not. I thought it was fair to ask if the poster saw their reaction in the context of racial bias. Maybe they didn't. Maybe they did. I thought it was curious either way, so I asked. Granted I did so in a more colorful and pithy manner than my digestive explanation.
Not sure if you're aware of this but Joe Frazier was black too so your comment makes no sense. I was a fan of Earnie Shavers too who also happens to be black. Your race baiting won't intimidate me !
It makes sense in light of the Uncle Tom accusation which while not fair to Joe highlighted the limited way that blacks in public life were and to a degree still are tolerated. Shut up and run the football or punch someone out and you are good. Be political, confront injustice in our institutions, demand equality? Well boy you just don't know your place.
Little late to the show here but I have to comment.
My dad was a professional boxer before WW II and had me sit and watch fights with him when I was little so I've been watching boxing since I was in diapers. He passed soon after Ali became champ and I became a big fan. When he refused induction I was young (about 10 or 11) and had a lot of difficulty understanding why he did it. One of my brothers just got back from Vietnam another went over right after the Tet offensive. It wasn't until I was older that I understood and appreciated what Ali did.
Going into the Army would have been the easy thing to do. Does anyone here actually believe that he would be wading through rice paddies with a M-16 held over his head or would have been dropping out of a helicopter into firefight?? No way!!! He would have done what Joe Louis did in WW II. He would have traveled around military bases doing boxing exhibitions and doing USO shows with Bob Hope. What he did by refusing induction cost him the 3 best years of his career (if he went into the Army he would have only been out of boxing for two) and cost him Millions of dollars and vilification from many of his countrymen.
Ali didn't do the easy thing by not going into the Army. It was the hard thing to do to stand by his convictions and his faith.
My dad was a professional boxer before WW II and had me sit and watch fights with him when I was little so I've been watching boxing since I was in diapers. He passed soon after Ali became champ and I became a big fan. When he refused induction I was young (about 10 or 11) and had a lot of difficulty understanding why he did it. One of my brothers just got back from Vietnam another went over right after the Tet offensive. It wasn't until I was older that I understood and appreciated what Ali did.
Going into the Army would have been the easy thing to do. Does anyone here actually believe that he would be wading through rice paddies with a M-16 held over his head or would have been dropping out of a helicopter into firefight?? No way!!! He would have done what Joe Louis did in WW II. He would have traveled around military bases doing boxing exhibitions and doing USO shows with Bob Hope. What he did by refusing induction cost him the 3 best years of his career (if he went into the Army he would have only been out of boxing for two) and cost him Millions of dollars and vilification from many of his countrymen.
Ali didn't do the easy thing by not going into the Army. It was the hard thing to do to stand by his convictions and his faith.
Adding to Joe Lewis traveling around military bases doing exhibitions , Lewis also donated some of his purses to military relief funds during World War II.
When everything was over Joe wound up with the IRS after his butt because of sloppy bookkeeping and not complying fully with the regulations governing his boxing earnings that he donated to those military relief funds .
Lewis had to fight past his prime to pay his back taxes off and the IRS never relented going after every penny they said Joe owed and the interest owed on it.
When everything was over Joe wound up with the IRS after his butt because of sloppy bookkeeping and not complying fully with the regulations governing his boxing earnings that he donated to those military relief funds .
Lewis had to fight past his prime to pay his back taxes off and the IRS never relented going after every penny they said Joe owed and the interest owed on it.
His faith had him join a group of murderous, drug attic thugs, but his stubborness
makes him a hero? You do know about the murders his muslim group committed?
eventually he switch to the Suni but they weren't much better.
Latest posts
-
-
Sources: Marcus Freeman seeking Chris Ash, Mike Mickens to run Notre Dame defense- Latest: PiscatawayMike
-
-
