• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Muhammad Ali was Right to Refuse Army Induction

Muhammad Ali was Right to Refuse Army Induction

  • For the Motion

    Votes: 21 67.7%

  • Against the Motion

    Votes: 10 32.3%
  • Total voters
    31
Tigerace117 said:
Yet those losses did not translate to lasting Soviets gains until after Stalingrad. The writing being on the wall is one thing, but the Red Army was in such ****ty shape for the first few years of the war that the Germans taking all those casualties didn't actually stop them.
Click to expand...

They didn't have to translate into vast Soviet gains. It was a war that could be won just by waiting until the other side bled out. It was German failures the reason the war ended earlier than had it just wore on through attrition.

Oh really? I can think of several cases were if just a little had changed the Germans could have knocked the Russians out of the war. Soviet victory on the Eastern Front was in no way, shape or form guaranteed.
Click to expand...

Such as? I'm generally interested in hearing them. This is one of the better debates I've had over this subject.

And despite all that they mauled the Soviets over and over and over again. The Red Army simply was not combat ready until late 1942 to early 1943.
Click to expand...

But not without suffering irreplaceable casualties themselves. That was the earmark of German operations in the East; overreaching goals undermined by logistical shortfalls, and eventually lack of manpower. Barbarossa, Case Blue, and Citadel were all essentially the same thing; vast, sweeping offensives that asked the Ostheer to do more than it was actually capable of doing.
 
OldFatGuy said:
I haven't bothered reading or watching WWII data for decades. I'm not about to start for your benefit.

The winter alone did not stop the Germans, the mud stopped them. Then winter started killing them and giving the Russians an edge.
Click to expand...

The Germans had been dying long before the first snow fell. By the end of September there were more Germans dead, wounded, or missing on the Eastern Front than there were replacements back home. By November the Ostheer was replacing lost troops with rear echelon forces and stripping the other armies of soldiers. The German infantry never recovered from Barbarossa, hence why a year a later, the assault on Stalingrad would be led by combat engineers. German front line troops as early as September were reporting that their fallen comrades were being replaced by supply clerks, mechanics, and of course, truck drivers. There were a lot of those, since what few trucks the Germans had often broke down, and the logistical system in place couldn't support them. That was even a bigger problem for those German divisions that went into Russia with Polish and French vehicles, since spare parts and manuals for both were virtually nonexistent.

The core problem with Barbarossa is the plan was a pipe-dream. Little things like starting the offensive two months earlier, bringing more winter clothing, or not pushing for Kiev don't change the essential arithmetic of an army trying to go too far on too little, against an enemy with too much depth and too many reserves.

Without understanding how poor most of Russia was under the Tsars, less than 30 years previously, you (generically) have no idea how poor Russia remained under Lenin and Stalin. To assume, outside of a few elite forces, regionally deployed away from the western front, that the Red Army could have had more than "poor training, abysmal low level leadership, and inadequate planning that ruined the Red Army in 1941" is absurd. In 1933, the entire Russian military numbered around 600k. Two years later, as Stalin watched Hitler emerge and commence arming Germany, he ordered military strength increased, and within two more years, the military numbered 1.3 mil, with 10k tanks and 5k planes, with the majority of new inductees serving as riflemen with no rifles. In 1937, fearing being overthrown by the newly stronger military, Stalin purged the top 7 officers, and then more than 30k additional junior offices, executing 30k. Not a recipe for a quality military. When Russia invaded Finland, a testing ground for the Russians, as Spain had been the same for the fascists, Russia lost 200k men and 1,600 tanks. His air was worthless in that war.

Stalin new his military wasn't ready for the Germans. He ordered the conscription of 3 million men. But Stalin was facing two enemies, at least in his mind, the Germans and Japanese in the east. 1/4 of his military, his most trained troops were deployed in the east. The Russian arms industry was abysmally deficient, not ready to arm so many in this new army, and without the officers to train them and create strategies.

Russia wasn't just the eastern front. It faced betrayal in Ukraine and other southern separatist provinces and states, and the Japanese were a real threat in the east. Russia is larger than the US, with no oceans protecting two of its coasts. Without taking into account the land mass of Russia, both as an asset and liability, the lack of communications, the unreadiness of its transport systems, its inadequate internal politics, and all the rest is to develop an inadequate vision of the entire war theaters of Russia during the war.

We can futilely argue and discuss specific armaments, failures and successes of strategies, and so forth. Nothing changes the past. Why this thread about Ali has drifted in this direction is beyond the usual thread drift. And more aptly, it is worthless rumination.
Click to expand...

Everything you've said here is fairly correct and very well written, and I have no idea what point you're trying to prove.
 
Ali was right on so many fronts to refuse being drafted into the Vietnam War. He refused on more than just religious grounds, however. For him, it was also principle:

"Why should I go fight a war against a people who never did me any harm?"

"Why should I go fight for a country that doesn't love or appreciate me?"

"Why should I as a Black man go fight a war abroad when my true enemy is White men in my own country?"

Pretty tough positions to take at a time of great civil strife, but Ali stood up for his principles and his believes and won in the end.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
They didn't have to translate into vast Soviet gains. It was a war that could be won just by waiting until the other side bled out. It was German failures the reason the war ended earlier than had it just wore on through attrition.



Such as? I'm generally interested in hearing them. This is one of the better debates I've had over this subject.



But not without suffering irreplaceable casualties themselves. That was the earmark of German operations in the East; overreaching goals undermined by logistical shortfalls, and eventually lack of manpower. Barbarossa, Case Blue, and Citadel were all essentially the same thing; vast, sweeping offensives that asked the Ostheer to do more than it was actually capable of doing.[/QUOTE

Considering that they had suffered an huge material and territorial loss, they definitely needed to start making lasting gains against the Axis, yet such gains didn’t occur until after the German surrender in Stalingrad.Considering the reports of cannibalism in Leningrad during the siege, among other examples, arguing that the Soviets “just had to wait the Germans out” doesn’t seem likely. The Wehrmacht still had one hell of a right hook—- the Red Army couldn’t keep taking blows indefinitely, or until the Germans ran out of men, which is as good as indefinitely.

Well, in most general terms, Stalin being killed or badly injured by a German air strike during the Battle of Moscow would have caused a level of confusion and paralysis the Soviets simply couldn’t afford at that point. Dipping further into alternate history, the distraction of a Japanese offensive into the Far East—-even one contained by the forces stationed there, which were fairly large—-could have tipped the scales against the Russians. A more sane German policy towards groups like the Ukrainians and other oft persecuted ethnicities could have caused serious problems for the Soviets, who largely didn’t have to worry about guerrillas—-there were Ukrainian insurgents, but they were ineffectual, and other such groups were either far from the front or totally silent.

The Finns being ambitious and agreeing to advance past their old border would have helped threaten the valuable ports of Murmansk and maybe even Arkhangelsk. Leningrad would still have been a meat grinder, but Finnish ski troops could have caused great havoc on the Road of Life had their hearts really been in the fight. Heck, to indulge in another alternate history scenario, the Turks being suitably convinced/threatened by German success into threatening the Soviet oil supply in the Caucasus region such as Baku could have had devastating effects.

Those are just a few idle theories though.

Well, the first Tigers and especially Panthers were in essence panic rush jobs due to the appearance of the T-34. A better vehicle might have greatly helped the Germans at Kursk. Even then, incidents like Third Kharkov showed the Germans had the ability to overcome their disadvantages.

I agree, this has been a very good debate.
Click to expand...
 
Tigerace117 said:
Jredbaron96 said:
They didn't have to translate into vast Soviet gains. It was a war that could be won just by waiting until the other side bled out. It was German failures the reason the war ended earlier than had it just wore on through attrition.



Such as? I'm generally interested in hearing them. This is one of the better debates I've had over this subject.



But not without suffering irreplaceable casualties themselves. That was the earmark of German operations in the East; overreaching goals undermined by logistical shortfalls, and eventually lack of manpower. Barbarossa, Case Blue, and Citadel were all essentially the same thing; vast, sweeping offensives that asked the Ostheer to do more than it was actually capable of doing.
Click to expand...

Considering that they had suffered an huge material and territorial loss, they definitely needed to start making lasting gains against the Axis, yet such gains didn’t occur until after the German surrender in Stalingrad.Considering the reports of cannibalism in Leningrad during the siege, among other examples, arguing that the Soviets “just had to wait the Germans out” doesn’t seem likely. The Wehrmacht still had one hell of a right hook—- the Red Army couldn’t keep taking blows indefinitely, or until the Germans ran out of men, which is as good as indefinitely.

Well, in most general terms, Stalin being killed or badly injured by a German air strike during the Battle of Moscow would have caused a level of confusion and paralysis the Soviets simply couldn’t afford at that point. Dipping further into alternate history, the distraction of a Japanese offensive into the Far East—-even one contained by the forces stationed there, which were fairly large—-could have tipped the scales against the Russians. A more sane German policy towards groups like the Ukrainians and other oft persecuted ethnicities could have caused serious problems for the Soviets, who largely didn’t have to worry about guerrillas—-there were Ukrainian insurgents, but they were ineffectual, and other such groups were either far from the front or totally silent.

The Finns being ambitious and agreeing to advance past their old border would have helped threaten the valuable ports of Murmansk and maybe even Arkhangelsk. Leningrad would still have been a meat grinder, but Finnish ski troops could have caused great havoc on the Road of Life had their hearts really been in the fight. Heck, to indulge in another alternate history scenario, the Turks being suitably convinced/threatened by German success into threatening the Soviet oil supply in the Caucasus region such as Baku could have had devastating effects.

Those are just a few idle theories though.

Well, the first Tigers and especially Panthers were in essence panic rush jobs due to the appearance of the T-34. A better vehicle might have greatly helped the Germans at Kursk. Even then, incidents like Third Kharkov showed the Germans had the ability to overcome their disadvantages.

I agree, this has been a very good debate.
Click to expand...

Jredbaron96 said:
They didn't have to translate into vast Soviet gains. It was a war that could be won just by waiting until the other side bled out. It was German failures the reason the war ended earlier than had it just wore on through attrition.



Such as? I'm generally interested in hearing them. This is one of the better debates I've had over this subject.



But not without suffering irreplaceable casualties themselves. That was the earmark of German operations in the East; overreaching goals undermined by logistical shortfalls, and eventually lack of manpower. Barbarossa, Case Blue, and Citadel were all essentially the same thing; vast, sweeping offensives that asked the Ostheer to do more than it was actually capable of doing.
Click to expand...

Quote function didn’t work the first time I tried it let’s see if it’ll work now....
 
Marco Montana said:
Ali was an egotistical, arrogant racist! Probably the most racist toward his own race!
Click to expand...

Why do you say that? He certainly called out a few Black people he considered to be hypocrites, but he certainly wasn't racists against his own.

Egotistical...I'll give you that, but when you're the Heavy Weight Champion of the World 3 times, I think you earned the right to have an inflated ego especially when you back up your claims.
 
joG said:
Had it been conscious objection it would have been great. But “I ain’t got no quarrel...” was not a legal nor was it a sufficient reason to refuse service, when others went and died. His punishment should have been the maximum permissible.
Click to expand...

But that was his main reason for refusing to be drafted. Perhaps you should watch the short video in post #8 at the very least. Or do some homework on the subject.
 
Nap said:
I don't believe military service should be forced on anyone.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that in a conflict with potential existential consequences, everyone should get to decide if they feel the country is worth fighting for? If so, that Pandora's Box has far reaching consequences doesn't it. If laws are specific to the individual, isn't that really just anarchy (or the potential for anarchy even if everyone agreed and behaved the same way). Laws often times require behavior or action when individuals resist. Paying taxes. Obeying the speed limit. And yes, putting ones self in harm's way if our country is threatened and individuals are drafted. Now, one can argue the definition of "threatened" as in "Iraq posed no threat to us here" prior to the most recent war." But, the very nature of our system of government requires trust; trust that our elected officials will do the right thing. It is up to us to rectify the situation via the ballot box if they don't.
 
jet57 said:
I think he did it because he was genuinely afraid to have his ass in the grass. Lots of black dudes felt the same way and had the same criticisms, but they went anyway. I've always loved Ali and thought he represented the country very well and was good for kids as a great role model, but on that he was wrong.

In the long run of course, those of us who knew we didn't have any business over there were absolutely right, but you can't take advantage of the gifts of this country without living up to the responsibilities.
Click to expand...

They went because they didn't have the courage of their conviction nor the clout Ali had. It's just that simple.

The problem with your analogy at the end is Ali didn't believe America had bestowed any "gifts" upon him. He firmly believed his beauty, skills and talents were a gift from God and that anything he achieved was due to God's blessings. Therefore, he didn't think he owed American anything. That believe was further cemented once the federal government tried to take his livelihood away from him.
 
Objective Voice said:
They went because they didn't have the courage of their conviction nor the clout Ali had. It's just that simple.

The problem with your analogy at the end is Ali didn't believe America had bestowed any "gifts" upon him. He firmly believed his beauty, skills and talents were a gift from God and that anything he achieved was due to God's blessings. Therefore, he didn't think he owed American anything. That believe was further cemented once the federal government tried to take his livelihood away from him.
Click to expand...

Muhammad Ali refuses Army induction - Apr 28, 1967 - HISTORY.com

Ali was convicted of draft evasion, sentenced to five years in prison, fined $10,000 and banned from boxing for three years.
Click to expand...

He didn't have that much juice.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
The core problem with Barbarossa is the plan was a pipe-dream. Little things like starting the offensive two months earlier, bringing more winter clothing, or not pushing for Kiev don't change the essential arithmetic of an army trying to go too far on too little, against an enemy with too much depth and too many reserves.



Everything you've said here is fairly correct and very well written, and I have no idea what point you're trying to prove.
Click to expand...

Barbarossa was plain insanity and ego for the leaders of both nations, in no particular order. Sacrificing the lives of so many for so little.

The point is simple, refighting the war, arguing the specifics, on the internet holds no value. It isn't a point to prove, just to accept. I grew up listening to my father and his brothers arguing the fine points of each of the campaigns they had participated in every Sunday after dinner and an afternoon of watching whatever sports were in season on my grandmother's tiny B&W tv in her living room with the women in the kitchen, sitting on the porch or showing the kids in the family new puppies and kittens from the strays my grandmother kept bringing into her house. When myself and my cousins had all returned from SE, one of my cousins asked the prior generations, if any of them had been aware of these moments when they were busy trying to stay alive and keep their buds alive as they were killing fascists, or waiting, the endless military habit, to do the same. They all laughed, and said "of course not." Then my uncle Ruby quietly, almost with a whisper, said, "We speak about the war this way so we don't speak of the horrors we each witnessed and which damaged our souls." After my touristing in SE Asia, I understood. I also understood why my father rarely spoke to myself and my siblings about his war experiences when we asked as children, why he always deflected the conversation. They were hard men, made harder by the war, but it was still all a nightmare that never ended. You could see it their eyes. Perhaps that is why they held their children so dearly yet kept a certain distance?
 
Mixolydian said:
Are you suggesting that in a conflict with potential existential consequences, everyone should get to decide if they feel the country is worth fighting for? If so, that Pandora's Box has far reaching consequences doesn't it. If laws are specific to the individual, isn't that really just anarchy (or the potential for anarchy even if everyone agreed and behaved the same way). Laws often times require behavior or action when individuals resist. Paying taxes. Obeying the speed limit. And yes, putting ones self in harm's way if our country is threatened and individuals are drafted. Now, one can argue the definition of "threatened" as in "Iraq posed no threat to us here" prior to the most recent war." But, the very nature of our system of government requires trust; trust that our elected officials will do the right thing. It is up to us to rectify the situation via the ballot box if they don't.
Click to expand...

Our system of governance is one of quiet revolution. Enough citizens who no longer trust politicians in office have the right to show them exactly that at the next election. Historically the experiment with quiet revolutions, has been relatively successful compare to the violence of other regime changes in the past as well as right now.

Each and every man and woman in our society has the right to express their opinions and choose their actions, including rejection of government actions. None escape the consequences, tho each maintains a right to defend themselves in a court of law and their peers.

Sometimes, still, the system fails. There may not be a consequential alternative at the ballot. Politicians certainly win by default. The trust of the citizens is not earned, and not cared for, one way or another. Then we have to hope for time to cure. Political policies of war, the demand to serve are not sacrosanct, they are not written in stone. On a personal level, I trust no politician, not one, and you have no right to demand that I do. I don't accept your self righteousness.
 
Last edited:
Mixolydian said:
Are you suggesting that in a conflict with potential existential consequences, everyone should get to decide if they feel the country is worth fighting for? If so, that Pandora's Box has far reaching consequences doesn't it. If laws are specific to the individual, isn't that really just anarchy (or the potential for anarchy even if everyone agreed and behaved the same way). Laws often times require behavior or action when individuals resist. Paying taxes. Obeying the speed limit. And yes, putting ones self in harm's way if our country is threatened and individuals are drafted. Now, one can argue the definition of "threatened" as in "Iraq posed no threat to us here" prior to the most recent war." But, the very nature of our system of government requires trust; trust that our elected officials will do the right thing. It is up to us to rectify the situation via the ballot box if they don't.
Click to expand...


Of course I do, if someone doesn't want to serve it is not only wrong to force them but put yourself in the soldier's position would you really want to put your life in the hands of the soldier next to you and he doesn't want to be there?

Outside of WW2, has any war be a legimate threat to us?

Maybe the government was worthy of trust at one time in history, however in my lifetime the only thing you could trust the government for is bombing people in the middle East, creating unnecessary regulations, and obscene levels of corruption. I wish I could blindly trust the government, but pay any attention to what's going on and that trust quickly evaporates.
 
jet57 said:
Muhammad Ali refuses Army induction - Apr 28, 1967 - HISTORY.com



He didn't have that much juice.
Click to expand...

Yet he returned to boxing after serving his 3 year suspension, his conviction for draft evasion was eventually overturned by the Supreme Court and he never spent a day in prison pending his appeal. If it were any other Black man (short of MLK, Jr or Malcolm X), they would have been imprisoned while awaiting their appeal.

I'd say he had just enough juice to get through a very difficult period in his life and move on to accomplish something no other boxer in the sport has ever achieved or duplicate. (I'm, of course, referring to Ali being the only boxer in history to win the Heavy Weight title 3 times. That's a hard feat to duplicate...although Mike Tyson holding the WBA, WBA and IBF Heavy Weight Championship belts simultaneously will be extremely difficult if not impossible to top!)
 
Objective Voice said:
But that was his main reason for refusing to be drafted. Perhaps you should watch the short video in post #8 at the very least. Or do some homework on the subject.
Click to expand...

He stated his reason as his having no gripe with the Vietnamese. That is fine, but was not a legal reason for avoiding front duty. That he might at times have said other things is no surprise as it wasn't that Clinton never inhaled.
 
So one of the greatest boxers in history can cite religious reasons for his choice in a matter and get off nearly scot free. This is of course baring all legal action that he had to go through to get himself out of prison and to get back in the ring.

Now if we just look at todays world and see how a simple baker can have their livelihoods ruined over such a decision and we can see just how far back down the hole we have slid.
 
xMathFanx said:
Muhammad Ali was Right to Refuse Army Induction
Click to expand...

Sure, but the state was also right to sentence him for it.
One should not consent to doing something one considers morally wrong merely because the state says so.
OTOH free societies rely on citizens' armies for protection against enemies foreign and domestic. Optimally that requires an all-volunteer force, but if a majority of the citizens agree that the number of volunteers is insufficient, they are within their rights to introduce conscription, whereby people are inducted into the armed forces by chance. Such a system cannot work if there is no downside to refusing service, so one must be provided, and it must be one that does not influence with the recruitment of volunteers.

So I consider Ali right in refusing service, and the state right in providing a downside to doing so.
There is nothing wrong in commending people for being prepared to suffer imprisonment rather than take up arms in a cause they consider unjust. Even if you disagree with them, one should keep in mind that the act of refusing to carry weapons can be a valuable weapon against tyranny.
 
Fenton Lum said:
You cannot be that dense, really?


Analysis: US support for ISIS 'unprecedented'
Analysis: US support for ISIS 'unprecedented' | TheHill


US Gave Silent Backing To
Taliban Rise To Power
US Gave Silent Backing To Taliban Rise To Power


The Historical US Support for al-Qaeda
https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2014/01/10/the-historical-us-support-for-al-qaeda/


How The CIA Helped Create Osama Bin Laden
Bin Laden comes home to roost | NBC News


Folks are either desirable of being aware or they're not.
Click to expand...
Speaking of not being aware. It is quite obvious you didn't even read your own links. At least not more then the headline. Either that or your reading comprehension is at about a 3rd grade level.


Either reason explains rather completely why you are always so wrong.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
It's a odd irony that modern day Germany is renowned for their automobiles but back then had one of the least productive auto industries in Europe.
Click to expand...
Have you forgotten the American Edsel?

Eisenhower modeled the Interstate Highway System on Hitler's Autobahn.
 
braindrain said:
Speaking of not being aware. It is quite obvious you didn't even read your own links. At least not more then the headline. Either that or your reading comprehension is at about a 3rd grade level.


Either reason explains rather completely why you are always so wrong.
Click to expand...
In 3rd grade I was reading at a 12th grade level.
 
Indian Giver said:
Sure they did. They were embedded in the Roosevelt regime.
Click to expand...

Credible proof needed

and I really am getting bored with the anti semitic nonsense I see these days
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom