HOME | DD
CloudNumber8 — Muhammad Ali
Published: 2016-06-05 21:35:07 +0000 UTC; Views: 5025; Favourites: 67; Downloads: 17
Redirect to original
Description
Not jumping on the bandwagon. Just a fan of the man and genuinely sad to see him go.Related content
Comments: 79
A violent sport that was COMPLETELY voluntary. How you can make the comparison is beyond me.
And you think Vietnam led to the eventual collapse of the USSR? Loool okay.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You don't see the hypocrisy of someone participating in a violent sport being a draft dodger? Wow.
And don't lol at me. What do you think caused the collapse of the USSR?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No, I don't find the hypocrisy of objecting to killing people while participating in a volunteer sport.
And the collapse of the USSR were due to several reasons: 1) Communism does not work. It was doomed to fail as do any communist states. 2) Their attempts of invading countries (Vietnam was an assist) and failing, such as in Afghanistan. They were overspending and not producing. 3) Globalism
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Violence is violence. Not seeing it is just a deliberate disconnect. He violated the law by refusing to serve. He could even probably been in some non-combatant role [like Elvis]
"5.A. Bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; or
B. Perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; or
C. Perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law."
If you want the benefits of citizenship, you have to accept the responsibilities. Even if you disagree. The President is still the President even if you voted against him.
There were a hundred things that caused the collapse of the USSR. Afghanistan certainly [we're now wasting lives and resources there] Shouldve just killed until we got binLaden and left instead of trying to nation build. Vietnam was part of that overspending.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Muhammad Ali refused to help his country invade another country for spurious reasons, as he famously said 'None of them ever called me a nigger.' [*source: www.youtube.com/watch?v=vd9aIa… ] The Vietnam war was not in response to an invasion by that country, nor was it for any good reason at all. I don't see anything wrong with him refusing to go to war with a country that had nothing to do with anything
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The Vietnam War was to help an ally being invaded by its northern enemy supported by the USSR. US never invaded NV.
And I would ask the 58,000 killed what they think of Clay.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
58000 Americans dead, and for what? What was achieved, besides a massive bodycount on every side and traumatised men and women? This was a proxy war fought between the USSR and America, they didn't give a single shit about the country they fought it on. All so the 'cold war' could continue without outright hostilities between the two super-powers. Good job, guys. Way to go.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So helping an ally against a war of aggression means nothing to you?
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
You fail to understand my point. The whole premise of the vietnam war was plausible deniability. America got to go to war with USSR by proxy, yet showed up like 'Oh we're just helpin our buddies out.' On a simplistic level, yes, they did jump in to keep a push by a USSR backed government to take over an entire country, but when they (americans and russians) went home, the status quo remained the same, only with millions of people dead needlessly. I oppose war on a fundamental level. It is one thing to defend yourself or your family, it is another thing entirely to preemptively invade/occupy a country. My issue with the Vietnam war is that instead of working things out between themselves, America and the USSR chose to use a smaller country's internecine conflict as the banner under which they shoved each other around.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The US did not occupy another country. We attempted to save SV from an invasion. Calling it simplistic insults the memory of those who died trying.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I included occupation, which is what America did. Occupation is where a country holds and defends territory that is not its sovereign soil, whether for themselves or an ally (the SV). And what I said was the surface 'reasoning' was simplistic. Again you are taking my words out of context. If that country had been left to its own devices with no intervention from either side it would have saved American (and allies, including Australia which is where I'm from) and Soviet troops from needless death in a conflict that didn't affect the citizens of those countries one iota; except that their relations were drafted into what amounted to a playground argument between the two biggest kids in the yard over who's special friend got to keep their lunch that day. Again, it ended in stalemate. The same government your country occupied Vietnam to depose is now being sold weapons by your government. 58,000 of your countrymen died to tip the balance of a status quo that is unaffected to this day by their deaths. Achieving... exactly nothing. Illegal War:0-Status Quo:1
There are many reasons people become/maintain a conscientious objector status, and one of them is to avoid dying senselessly in immoral and illegal conflicts that serve nothing.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ahh... Australia... And if the US hadn't been there, you'd be worshipping the Son of Heaven and bowing to the Rising Sun. Or maybe if it wasn't for US making a stand in Vietnam you'd be out there on May Day waving the hammer&sickle.
Someday, thank an American serviceman for our 'illegal' wars.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Your willful blindness astounds me mate. You really believe everything school and the government teaches you, don't you? We weren't talking about WWII (which was an entirely different kettle of fish). And the supposition that an illegal war in Vietnam prevented a country over 3000 miles from us, and less than a quarter of our size, from conquering us is completely ludicrous. Vietnam also showed no signs of expansionism as they were fighting a civil war. Think Soviet would have helped? Think again. Russia is over 6000 miles from us and would not have bothered with us because in every direction they are far closer to strategic global positions than we are. They share a landmass with China, one of the only reasons anyone would invade us is for air superiority in the Asian theatre, which would be nothing for Russia to achieve without the hassle of subduing an island nation. So neither of your theories holds water. I never said anything against America participating in WWII, and have every respect for the servicemen and women who did so.
What we started out talking about was the refusal of one man to participate in a war that was not only illegal and founded on a lie, but also went against everything he stood for.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The Soviets took the time to takeover Vietnam. Australia would have been on their agenda in a decade or two. Don't believe it, you need to read more. As for not taking over island nations far away from their landmass, never heard of Cuba?
Calling Vietnam illegal endlessly as you have fails to change the fact that it was legal. Made so by every US Administration and Congress from 1954 - 1975.
Clay's contentious objector status was rejected in court. He refused to serve. And was jailed for his crime. The fact he was a violent man who used the excuse of changing his name and joining a murderous cult to prove his case makes him a coward.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ok so I gotta ask, because my answer has to depend on your line of thinking; did you mean the occupation of Cuba by Spain between ~1500's and 1898 (with a minor hiccup of British occupation)? Because that supports my earlier sentiment about forward bases in foreign territory that create beach-heads and footholds to pursue a war. Which would make Australia obsolete to Russia except as a way of denying our strategic importance in the Asian theatre to countries that might oppose their theoretical goals (and we are perfectly capable of creating Pyrrhic conditions that would cost manpower and hulls that would not be able to be directed elsewhere). Or do you mean the subsequent American occupations (1898-1902, 1906-1909 and finally 1917-1922)? In which case it was more to deny the space to the Spanish (the first was a concession by Spain), then an occupation spanning three years from 1906 to prevent a civil war in Cuba, or the Sugar Intervention of 1917 which was ostensibly in response to the cries for help of american sugar plantation owners due to the insurgency created by Liberal upswelling against a conservative they felt was elected unfairly. Again, by presence helping to stabalise the island. Also remember that Cuba is very close geologically to the US, being just outside of the Gulf of Mexico and about a stone's throw distance from Florida. So it makes sense for them (you) to control who is in power there to prevent hostile forces from using it as a forward base of operations. Which is entirely different to what you suggest would happen to Australia in the event that Russia had their heads up their asses far enough to believe that unlike Germany they could pursue an imperialist agenda without significant opposition from literally everyone else on the planet.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Why don't you go enlist, tough guy.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
very true 
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Beautiful words for a beautiful man. Nice work my friend. Thank you for sharing with the group, much appreciated.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
aww thank you. I am glad you liked it and kindly accepted it in to the group
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I love all your work and will always accept it my friend.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Just like Morgan Freeman, Christopher Lee, Martin Luther King, and so many other historical people, Muhammad Ali will live on eternal and immortal throughout our history. He has truly achieved immortality. Rest in Peace Muhammad.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Very true and beautifully put. Thank you for reading and commenting
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Y'know, speaking of Christopher Lee, he said this himself in an interview
that he and many others have truly earned immortality. Not because they will never physically die or age, but rather, they will live on forever in the hearts and memories of so many people as the great humans they were.
Muhammad Ali has definitely join those ranks, because of how famous he was, and all the things he's done. Remember the time that he saved a war veteran from throwing himself off a building even though police and psychologists from below could not? Yeah, a normal human being can't do that.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yeah, you are right. What I wonder is who in the current crop of people in Ali's position would use their power for good in the way he did. I wonder if there will ever be another Ali, another John Lennon. People who inspire those who look up to them to change.
thank you again for sharing your thoughts
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It's a touching tribute to an inspirational man.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
thank you 
👍: 0 ⏩: 0