ALI, the movie

[longeyes]

It will be interesting to see how a movie about a guy who renounced his Christian heritage (and name) for Islam and then refused to fight for his country,using his faith as a reason, will play with the heartland of America, especially at this time.

My curiosity is about the cultural aspects of this, not the filmmaking aspects or the sportive ones. I have no doubt the movie's well-crafted, whatever its perspective (Michael Mann's take is, I hear, arch-liberal) and that Will Smith amazes in the role. As for Ali the prizefighter, we all know his awesome abilities in the ring. Ali has long been an untouchable icon--will he remain so? I wonder.

 

[CastleBravo]

Hmm. Mann has made alot of shows that don't exactly fit a sissy liberal ideologue mold: e.g. Heat, Miami Vice, Last of the Mohicans, Thief, Crime Story. In the final analysis, I think we need to conclude that Ali was a bit of a loon in real life, which probably had its part to play in why he was so entertaining. As for the movie, frankly I'm not all that interested in it since nobody is going to outdo the real-life fight dramatics, insane behavior and smart-ass commentary of the real Ali anyway.

 

[Don Gwinn]

I doubt many people will have the concerns you voice. A LOT of people refused to fight in Vietnam, most of them by fleeing. Ali stayed and accepted the consequences of his actions even though it meant tearing his entire life apart. Frankly, Ali had a point. At a time when many or most white Americans thought of him as a second-class citizen (or would have, if he hadn't been so good at knocking people out) they still had the gall to demand that he enter into slavery and accept that he would be forced to go to a foreign country and risk his life for "our American way of life."

I've said this before, but it is simply immoral to own slaves. It is not less immoral if the government owns slaves. If they draft you, they own your body for two years--and that means you're a slave.

As for his Christian heritage, no offense, but all those religions look alike to me. OK, that's a little too flip--but the point is that not everybody is a Christian or cares to be, and the backlash against a man who exchanges Christianity for Islam is not likely to be great. We're talking about the same God and mostly the same prophets with a few disagreements about the Messiah (and if we're not, you should be aware that this is how most non-Christians see it.) I look at it as almost the same thing as changing from Catholic to Methodist. Just different ways of accomplishing the same worship.

Anyway, I'm out of here for a couple of days. Merry Christmas! (Yes, I'm aware of the irony. Merry Christmas anyway, you bunch of humbugs.)

 

[Fred S]

Sorry Don, he refused to do his duty. Then later on went and reaped the fruits of the American Way of Life, the riches of being an 'entertainer'... just like Hanoi Jane did. He's in the same boat as her in my book. No hero to me.

When called to serve, you serve. You don't get the choice of saying "Hmm, I don't like this war, it don't fit my politics, religion etc."

Oh, and those that simply fled, I call them cowards.

 

[Waterdog]

I don't think we need to get into flame war about who and who didn't go to war. There were a lot of rich pukes who didn't go to war because their
daddies were in politics or had money.

GW Bush and Klinton are both recipients of special treatment.

Poor white, black, and hispanics fought that war, with a smattering of silver spooners.

Alis refusal was on principlal, him being banned
turned out to be unjustified.

Some people just can't except the fact, that he was and is, the greatest heavy weight fighter ever.

IMHO

Waterdog

 

[WyldOne]

well in my dad's words, "i just can't understand why anyone would pay to see a movie about how some guy is The Greatest" (not a direct quote but that's the gist). dad was drafted and served in vietnam, but he rarely speaks of his time there. i just can't help wonder if his reaction is bc ali didn't serve, or if my dad really just gets annoyed with people telling him how great they are (which would probably be enough right there)

AAR, it will be interesting on a sociological level, to see how the war-happy american public accepts a movie about a guy who didn't serve. even though the movie will (i'm guessing here) have more to do with ali's boxing and his life, than about that one small part of his life.

 

[clem]

Well, for the price of admission, I could buy a box of ammo. So, it's out to the desert for some tin can killing!

Clem
USMC Retired

 

[Malone LaVeigh]

Ali's act is all the more principled when you realize that as the heavyweight champ of the world, there's no way he would have seen combat. IIRC, in his autobiography he reported an offer from the draft board that he would basically have been put in a uniform to do USO shows. A couple of easy years and then back to the ring. Instead he took a position that stripped him of his title and the ability to fight.

Still, I'm not sure I want to see the movie. Will Smith is just SO WRONG for that role.

 

[Don Gwinn]

Look, I'm not trying to start a flame war over the draft, but I don't understand the argument. "He didn't do his duty." Why was it his duty? Who says?
I would go if drafted, but that doesn't mean that I think it's fair or just to draft people. It was his duty to allow himself to be forced into a life of slavery?

If:

1. You can be ordered to do any work, anytime, anywhere, and forced to do same, or

2. You can be killed (or forced to sacrifice your life (voluntarily) or

3. You can't leave or refuse orders on pain of prison,

Then you're a slave. People who are drafted into our military experience all three. Therefore they are being enslaved--and slavery is wrong. To me, it's that black and white. I'm willing to listen to another side, but I want to hear support, not just naked assertions.

If you think it's an American's duty to serve in the military, then amend the Constitution and make it the law of the land. Until then, don't tell me that a man is "shirking his duty" because he refuses to fight in what he considers an unjust war on behalf of what he considers an unjust government. I also don't want to hear about how much money he made--his career was laid waste by what he did--his whole life was destroyed by what he did--and since when does the fact that someone is allowed to make a lot of money make up for other injustices?

 

[ds1973]

The draft IS slavery

Bear with me on the length of this, but on the grounds of reason and the right to life of man, I must defend Don Gwinn.

Man has NO DUTY to LIVE FOR THE SAKE OF OTHERS. In fact MORALITY dictates that he live for himself.

“Nowhere in the Constitution is Congress or the president authorized to conscript the wealth of the nation or the blood of its sons for crusades. This is not the Holy Roman Empire. Conservatives who believe our Cold War triumph empowers us to go abroad in search of monsters to destroy should cease calling themselves conservatives.”

-Pat Buchanan, A Republic, Not an Empire

Without a draft army, the foreign policies of statist or mixed economies would not be possible.

If you claim to recognize the right to life of a man, then the draft is clearly in violation of that right. The draft says that man’s life is ultimately a property of the state. This is the mentality Europeans have (and always have had).

“If the state may force a man to risk death or hideous maiming and crippling, in a war declared at the state’s discretion. For a cause he may neither approve of nor even understand, if his consent is not required to send him into unspeakable martyrdom – then, in principle, all rights are negated in that state, and its government is not man’s protector any longer. What else is there left to protect?”

--Ayn Rand, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal

How can a conservative, who upholds the right to property, yet support the draft reconcile this? How can a creature, who has no right to their life, have a right to a bank account?

People claim that rights impose obligations, this is false. A right is a Freedom to Action. The only role of Government is as a protector of rights. It cannot claim your life as payment to protect it.

“But”, you may cry, “what if a country lacks enough volunteers?” Well there are two things that would inhibit men from volunteering to die for their freedom. a) The country has become so corrupt and authoritarian that no reasonable man would defend it. b) The government of said country decides to fight a war for a reason other than self-defense, and we all saw how Vietnam tore this country apart.

So really, a volunteer army is a great PROTECTOR of the peace. Both against foreign aggressors and domestic war hawks in government.

May 18, 1966: McNamara: “As matters stand, our present Selective service system draws on only a minority of eligible young men. That is an inequity. It seems to me that we could move towards remedying that inequity by asking every young person in the United States to give two years of service to his country-whether in one of the military services, in the Peace Corps or in some other volunteer developmental work at home or abroad.” Source: Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal

Does this sound to you like a vision of a FREE country?

If a man is not willing to fight to defend those he claims to "love" then he does not truly value them. However, if a man values his freedom and values the lives of his wife, children, or parents, he will fight to the death. To die fighting for your freedom (if you value it) or to save someone you love (wife, child, sibling) is not a sacrifice if you value those people more than yourself.

Would I go if the country asked for volunteers, it would depend on the righteousness of the war. Would I go if drafted? Yes. There is no choice at the point of a gun, but my compliance with the draft would not imply that I sanction it.

Demetrius

Objectivist and Laissez-Faire Capitalist....

If you're wondering how I had so many quotes at hand, I just had this same arguement with one of my right wing ex-military friends. Of course she VOLUNTEERED for the army and then couldn't wait to GET OUT.

 

[Zander]

Why, Don...

...don't you know?

Why was it his duty? Who says?

The fed.gov says so.

Young males of age are threatened with very real legal and other sanctions if they don't do their "duty" and register.

Don't believe me?

Check it out for yourself...if you're a male and don't register for the draft within the fed.gov's required time, you are damaged goods.

You won't hold a federal job and you might as well have a dishonorable discharge hanging over your head.

Discrimination...naaaaaah. 'Course not!

 

[paratrooper]

If you like ANY part of your life than the Draft did you a favor . Ever hear of "The Rape Of Nan King "? that is what would have happened to your mother if the Japs had won . Tied spread eagle to a chair and raped until they either bled to death or died of shame since this was IN THE STREET in front of everyone .
The Nazi's might have spared them such a fate . They had medical experiments that needed a supply of "fresh meat" every day . The wars that are fought are against enemies that are almost as bad as those among us that do not want to fight them . If any other country can give you a better deal I suggest you look into it . If you don't think that these freedoms are worth fighting for than maybe you don't deserve them .
The draft in war time is for survival . In peace time it assures that we are prepared in case of war .
If the Draft is slavery then so is school perhaps . You were forced to learn . A shame . If you didn't you could not have typed that drivel . I have seen good people go to great lengths to be noticed . Typing stupid stuff is far down on the list .
That is what the Commies wanted to spread so we would have a small rebellion in our own ranks . Communism is dead and so is that tired crap .

 

[longeyes]

"'But,'you may cry, 'what if a country lacks enough volunteers?' Well there are two things that
would inhibit men from volunteering to die for their freedom. a) The country has become so corrupt and authoritarian that no reasonable man would defend it. b) The government of said country decides to fight a war for a reason other than self-defense, and we all saw how Vietnam tore this country apart."

Didn't you forget cowardice?

And how about the willingness of some to let others do what they refuse to do for themselves?

It may well be a man's right not to fight for his country, but then said man shouldn't expect to enjoy the fruits of those who have either, should he?

Some worry about conscription as "slavery." I find myself worrying about young men and women risking their lives, injuring themselves, and dying so that a shopaholic soccer mom can confuse consumerism with constitutional liberty.

 

[Don Gwinn]

I am not a shopaholic soccer mom. I do not consider myself stupid nor my beliefs drivel. If you do, fine for you--but you might find a more diplomatic way to say it as long as you're on TFL. You might notice that I did not call anyone stupid or throw around comments about drivel, and my point seems to have gotten across to most. It must be possible to do it politely.

The oldest trick in the book is to refer to one's opponent's position in any debate as cowardly or un-American. It's also one of the weakest because it doesn't support your argument in the least. Next.

Paratrooper, the brave soldiers who fought the Japanese did me a huge service. Please do not imply again that I don't appreciate or understand what they did. You won't get away with pretending that you are the only one who is grateful to veterans. Throwing around graphic images in reference to my mother won't get it done either. Support your argument or concede. I've supported mine.

SOMEONE please post a reasoned defense of the draft. In other words, prove that the state owns my life and has the right to dispose of it if it wishes. You might also endeavor to prove that my life is not my own to do with as I please, since you advocate denying me that freedom.

Finally, for bonus points, you might explain how a state that owns your life and can order you to end it at any time does not have the power to deny you the right to protect yourself or own firearms. If they own your life and can tell you to throw it away whenever they want, why can't they tell you not to defend it if attacked?

 

[longeyes]

Don Gwinn

For the record, if you examine my post closely, you will note that I did not accuse you of being stupid, alleging that your beliefs are "drivel," or mistaking you for a shopaholic soccer mom. Nor was I accusing you of being un-American or a coward. Sorry you got that impression, but nothing I wrote was aimed at you personally.

I was merely stating my own concerns and suggesting that there could be other reasons why someone, not you, might opt not to fight in a war. I am in complete agreement with you that we are not owned, body or soul, by the State. However, I can't agree that we can really adopt a kind of atomistic view in which each man is an island either. I guess I feel we all need to pull an oar, especially in times of crisis. That said, as you may guess from my signature, I think Thoreau was right on target about civil disobedience, as he was about most things.

 

[Skorzeny]

Don Gwinn:

I agree with you wholeheartedly - on both counts.

First, I completely agree with your position on the draft. If required, I'd go in a heart bit as well, but that does not imply my acceptance of the draft as a system of exacting life and service from the people by the government.

Many European immigrants fled Europe and came to the US to avoid military service (usually for the cause of the ruling princes) as much as to find a new economic life or religious freedom. Yet, many of these immigrants (particularly Germans and Scandinavians) willingly volunteered in droves when the Civil War began. One only has to examine the history of states like Iowa and Wisconsin to realize this. Why did these men do it? Because many of them were principled abolitionists and strongly believed in the northern cause. They volunteered and fought because they believed in the cause they were fighting for.

Military conscription is a product of the nationalist-statist Europe of the 19th Century - the kind that ultimately led to World War I and the subsequent horrors of Nazism and Soviet communism.

Of course, this is not to suggest that there should not be any kind of military service at all, but the Constitution clearly mandated NO standing armies. We were supposed to rely on volunteers AND militias for a strict self-defense of the US. What happened was that the Manifest Destiny and the social Darwinism of the 19th Century spread across the US and infected its people with a desire of colonies (Cuba, the Philippines and etc.) and turned the US into a European-like colonial power that needed a standing army to fight overseas wars, instead of being a neutral trading nation (as I believe the Founding Fathers meant for us to be).

On the second point, I must also agree that debate on TFL often degenerates into name-calling and Ad Hominem attacks. I agree again, with Don Gwinn, that such attacks are a clear sign of a weak argument.

In the past, I've made critical remarks about the policies of the current Israeli government. It did not take long before "anti-Semite," "Nazi" and other names were thrown about at my direction. I did my best to bring the involved people back to a more calm, logical debate, but to no avail.

If one disagrees with the facts and opinions others proffer, why not argue with those facts and opinions and offer one's own instead? Why attack the person?

Skorzeny

 

[Jim March]

I believe that ever (male?) citizen should be required to TRAIN for war to at least some degree, and I can see drafting for actual combat to deal with an invasion by a foreign power. This would be entirely in line with the original Constitutional militia concept and is very similar to how the Swiss operate today. (see note below)

But "overseas adventures" should require pure volunteers from within the already-trained pool, on a "war by war" basis.

Well what if we don't get enough volunteers?

Then either we don't do it, or we somehow boost the pay until we DO get enough volunteers!

As one example, the Gulf War was in large part about preventing a madman from taking control of so much of the world's oil supply that he could manipulate prices. So if we didn't get enough volunteers, fine, let Exxon and other big oil companies chip in on the hazardous duty pay until we get 'em.

Or maybe it wouldn't necessarily be about pay. In the case of WW2, it might have been quite possible to document Japanese and German human rights abuses to a point where enough disgusted Americans signed up.

Once you sign up for the war in question, you shouldn't be allowed to back out. But on the other hand, the government would be required to publish a "mission objectives statement" for the prospective volunteers, and lying about either the mission or the underlying need/morality/facts would be treason and/or criminal perjury on the part of the gov't officials in question.

That's how the US can morally manage military affairs, IMHO.

Under the current system, the idea of being in the military and allowing somebody like Clinton to decide who *I* should kill absolutely horrifies me, draft or no draft.

(Note: Our nation's founders were quite clear about citizen militias: any idiot who tried to use them for overseas adventures would be laughed at and/or reviled or even shot to death by that same militia. They cited the Roman experience, where Julius Ceasar took over other nations with a pro army, and then came back to Rome and slaughtered the Roman citizen militia with that same pro army.)

 

[Scarborough]

If a man does not wish to serve then don't. Be prepared to live with the consequences. If you have no moral obligation to defend the state I suppose that the state has no obligation to protect you . In other words you defend your own Nanking. If I choose to be a law unto myself that is my only option. I cannot expect another to do for me that which I am not prepared to do for them. Of course things don't work quite that way. So the rugged individualist will enjoy the benefits of those obligations that he decrys.

 

[longeyes]

In the old days warriors got more than military pensions for risking life and limb on "foreign adventures." They were lionized and got first dibs on everything desirable. It was understood that they were more than functionaries who happened to be trained in martial arts. What we see now is just another form of division of labor: we hire people to do things we ourselves are too busy and too affluent and too self-regarding to do ourselves. A rich, consumer society is filled with people who value their own survival and must search for people, often young, naive, and poor, that they can convince to take on a savage burden. Nowadays they don't even have to pay very much for this dangerous activity. Quite an amazing and disheartening turn of events, I'd say.

I am still stunned that we should think that the survivors of the WTC disaster should receive more in financial aid that goes to an American soldier who dies in battle.

 

[Don Gwinn]

Longeyes, I apologize for singling you out with the shopaholic soccer mom comment. It was obviously a misunderstanding on my part. The rest was not directed at you, but at those who did post the other comments.

What Skorzeny said about the draft goes double for me. He stated the position better than I did.

Again, I notice that no one who argues in favor of the draft seems to be able to justify the draft itself. Instead, they all choose to argue that "we should all pull an oar" or "we have a duty to defend our nation" or "those who enjoy the fruits should be willing to pay the price themselves." I agree with all those things. So does Skorzeny, which is why we have both stated that we would answer a draft call even though we think the draft is abhorrent. I can't believe that's not enough dedication to duty--that a man would willingly put himself into a slavery he despises because he believes he is truly needed. What more does anyone ask?

I also believe, for the record, that a human being is far better off never experimenting with methamphetamines, cocaine, and heroin. Yet I believe it is immoral to outlaw these drugs--because a free man ought to choose to do what is right, not to be forced to it.

Sure it is lousy that soldiers don't get the respect they deserve (in peacetime) or the pay they deserve. But that's irrelevant to the issue of the draft. Again, that's nothing more than an attempt to stir up emotion which will then be applied to a problem requiring intellect. Bad way of making a decision, and another sign of a weak argument.

I'm still waiting for a defense of the draft itself. Not a defense of fighting for one's country; we all agree that this is a noble thing deserving of respect. I have never failed to accord that respect.