Muhammad Ali is the Father of Boxing

Yet you appear to be calling going into parts of Moldovia, Azerbadjan, and Georgia," major "incidents. I'd liken them more to Britain having troops in Northern Ireland for 25 years. In any event the collapse of the Soviet Union meant the end of communism in those regions so any of these skirmishes were hardly in the name of political ideology, which is the so called reasoning behind America invading Vietnam.

I'll say again Britain and America have had more troops directly operating with acts of aggression in foreign countries since WW2 than either Russia or China.

Here is another one, or are we saying that mining foreign harbours doesn't count?

The Republic of Nicaragua v. The United States of America (1986) ICJ 1 is a public international law case decided by the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The ICJ ruled in favor of Nicaragua and against the United States and awarded reparations to Nicaragua. The ICJ held that the U.S. had violated international law by supporting the Contras in their rebellion against the Nicaraguan government and by mining Nicaragua's harbors. The United States refused to participate in the proceedings after the Court rejected its argument that the ICJ lacked jurisdiction to hear the case. The U.S. later blocked enforcement of the judgment by the United Nations Security Council and thereby prevented Nicaragua from obtaining any actual compensation. The Nicaraguan government finally withdrew the complaint from the court in September 1992 (under the later, post-FSLN, government of Violeta Chamorro), following a repeal of the law requiring the country to seek compensation.

The Court found in its verdict that the United States was "in breach of its obligations under customary international law not to use force against another State", "not to intervene in its affairs", "not to violate its sovereignty", "not to interrupt peaceful maritime commerce", and "in breach of its obligations under Article XIX of the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between the Parties signed at Managua on 21 January 1956."

 

So darn disingenuous to spout nonsense T. The government can't control what your idol Ali THOUGHT, but it has the right to ENFORCE the laws on the books.I don't like some of the tax laws
that take from ME to give to others too damn lazy to work ,knock off children like rabbits, go on food stamps etc. BUT I pay my darn taxes all my life because we are a nation of laws.
Can you understand how anarchy would take over if everyone including Ali would only obey what laws they want??? So worship your idol as a paragon of virtue and good citizenship while other
suckers obey the laws that others have to bear the freight !!!

 

Okay.. I can actually agree with this one.

 

I'm glad you do M. Sometimes age brings wisdom...

 

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."

Thomas Jefferson

(The emphasis is my own)

Civil disobedience (preferably of the peaceful variety, of course) has often been a valid form of protest since your country was founded. It led to the creation of the Union; and to the dissolution of restrictive and unfair laws, such as Jim Crow.

In the case of Ali, he was well within his rights to protest against military action that he (and many others) felt was unwarranted. You can agree or disagree with his stance, but precedent had certainly been set well before Ali was born.

 

They did invade and they have continued to occupy. Not on major scale (although Eastern Ukraine isn't too far from it), but still invasions. You were asking for invasions and I gave you examples. Wasn't more complicated than that.

Northern Ireland is closer to Chechnya. And while British troops haven't always been gentle in the Northern Ireland conflict to put it mildly, it absolutely pales in comparison to the brutality in the Checneya.

And it's true (and I also mentioned it) that the US has been involved in several coups and supported militias. Guetemala, Iran, Nicaragua and Cuba are some of the examples here, but again the name of the game was "invaded" and none of these constituted an outright invasion.

The Soviet Union was no stranger to this kind of thing either, seeing how most of the dictatorships in Eastern Europe were reliant on Soviet support. Actually there are strong similarities between how the Soviet handled Eastern Europe and how the US handled Central America during the cold war. The difference would be that the US was somewhat more clandestine and didn't send own troops to crush popular uprisings like the Soviet did in Hungary and Czechoslovakia.

Since the end of the Cold War, Russia has supported guys like Milosevic and Assad and what's his face in Belarus. They were also seemingly involved in trying to kill one of the leaders of the Orange Revolution in Ukraine. I forget his name, but he went on to become president there. I think there was a strong hint of Russian involvement in the coup in Kirgizistan as well.

 

More often than not it brings grey hair, wrinkles, forgetfulness and erectile dysfunction... But on occasion you can be enlightening :good

** sorry you left yourself open for that one**

 

That makes perfect sense.

I would imagine the US government considered the NOI a subversive group in itself, and the last thing they would want was one of its high profile members speaking out against an ideological war. After all this wasn't Malcolm X or some other guy you either went out of your way to listen to, or ignore. This was a World Champion Athlete using his standing as a platform to say the same stuff that the NOI was saying.

 

:think

 

Hehehehe.

Old Burt names 4 Americans that he believes are commies, or have commie leanings. Do you reckon it is coincidence they are all black?

 

Yeah there is certainly a difference, countries in the near vicinity of Russia are actually under threat of being conquered. Whatever wrongs the US commit it does not flat out expand with military means (In recent times that is).

Now, to get back to the subject: If Ali is the father, who gave birth?

 

So you don't think falsely invading Iraq ( WMD ) is expanding with military means. I suppose the oil in the region and their ( US troops ), proximity to it are purely coincidental.

You can go down the road of political hypocrisy and never get to the end of it, like the Saudis being welcome in Buckingham Palace, and the White House, even though they sponsor Islamist terrorism, and could well have been behind the attacks on the US and Britain.

But never mind, just as long as they are good old fashioned capitalists with lots of oil, and open to business.

 

Are U saying that if I or anyone not only has the right to express himself [which I agree] but he has the right to disobey ANY DAMN law he doesn't like without any consequences ??? Hm.
Please don't quote Thomas Jefferson as I suspect he had a little more wisdom and understanding of our constitution than Ali or
most likely you...Try to think deeply on a subject,rather than spout an unworkable philosophy of I'll do what I want to do, and screw any law I don't want to obey...I was a member of what is
quoted as "the greatest generation" for a damn good reason. We sacrificed our wants and desires for the common good, knowing full well that we had to do what was necessary for our civilization to survive...Truly we are going downhill fast if your "whatever I WANT philosophy " is an indication of today's too many misguided and selfish American citizens...Good Luck, you'll need it...:hi:

 

I think deeply enough on this topic to know that not all laws are created equal, Burt.

Blind obedience to each and every law that exists- regardless of how unjust that law that law is- is just as harmful as wonton disobedience to each and every law. There are consequences to that attitude, too....and Thomas Jefferson (who I'll continue to quote if the need arises and I choose to do so, thank you very much) recognized that just as well as anyone. So did members of "the greatest generation", like Martin Luther King.

As for Ali, his initial application for the status of conscientious objector was denied without reason. By not providing legal basis for their decision, the advisory board (and by extension, U.S law) failed him. Laws are drafted by and enforced by human beings and therefore not infallible, And when they fail someone, that should be noted, rather than excused or dismissed altogether.

That's all I'm saying.

 

You make a good point. :good

I think the point about black Americans and the Vietnam war is that, for many blacks, the 1960s was the most frustrating era, where the final recognition of their freedom/rights/equality was in the balance, and could have swung either way.

I can understand why being sent overseas to possibly die for the USA, fighting other non-white people in a country no one had heard of, seemed like a step to far for many ... at a time where PEACEFUL civil rights leaders were being assassinated and bombed at home.