Did Muhammad Ali betray his country??

[Sushan]

This topic is about the March 2022 Philosophy Book of the Month, My Enemy in Vietnam by Billy Springer



In the second Indochina war US decided to take the side of South Vietnam and engage into war. So many Americans, willingly or not, joined the forces and fought with the Vietcong. But many had thoughts against this decision and many even criticized the decision openly. The famous boxing player, late Muhammad Ali also refused to go to war saying,

I ain’t got no quarrel with them Vietcong.

The author of this book too seemingly had second thoughts about the decision of his country.

Did these two betray their country by going against the decision of the state? What should a true patriot do in such a situation; take side with the state or be true to your own beliefs?

[stevie]

Did these two betray their country by going against the decision of the state? What should a true patriot do in such a situation; take side with the state or be true to your own beliefs?

Help me, what is a "true patriot"?

[Pattern-chaser]

This topic is about the March 2022 Philosophy Book of the Month, My Enemy in Vietnam by Billy Springer



In the second Indochina war US decided to take the side of South Vietnam and engage into war. So many Americans, willingly or not, joined the forces and fought with the Vietcong. But many had thoughts against this decision and many even criticized the decision openly. The famous boxing player, late Muhammad Ali also refused to go to war saying,

I ain’t got no quarrel with them Vietcong.

The author of this book too seemingly had second thoughts about the decision of his country.

Did these two betray their country by going against the decision of the state? What should a true patriot do in such a situation; take side with the state or be true to your own beliefs?

What does one do if tribal/social/political duties or requirements are in conflict with one's personal beliefs? And there is no answer, in general. Each issue has to be considered on its own, as it arises, because they're all different, always. I could offer my opinion on the specific question you ask, but I can see no point. If my opinion differs from yours, is one of us wrong? Are we both wrong? I don't know.

[Alias]

The famous boxing player, late Muhammad Ali also refused to go to war saying,
"I ain’t got no quarrel with them Vietcong."
The author of this book too seemingly had second thoughts about the decision of his country.

Smart people, like Ali, had first thoughts. It was an idiotic and costly decision. The US lost a lot of people, a lot of ordnance, a generation of patriots, the war and face in the international community.

Did these two betray their country by going against the decision of the state?

There is no such decision-making entity as "the state". Some elected officials make a decision for whatever reason; some elected officials vote for it, for whatever reason; some elected officials vote against it for whatever reason. The winning political faction then goes on to make a war. That doesn't mean the whole nation is making a war. Most of the people have have no idea what's going on or why. Most of the people usually just go along and do what they're told. When there is conscription, most of the young men (and now also women) go when they're called, suffer what they are required to suffer, kill whomever they are commanded to kill, come home if they're still alive, endure their nightmares and social ostracism, without ever having any idea what it was all for: they were just doing their duty. The ones who did some thinking beforehand chose, instead, to flee the country or accept a prison sentence, and kill nobody and have a clear conscience, at the cost of their status as nationalists.
There was no betrayal in either position - just a stand on principles.

What should a true patriot do in such a situation; take side with the state or be true to your own beliefs?

Does anyone know what 'a patriot' is? Someone who has concern for their country might think about what a war does to a country in the long term, and particularly what an ill-conceived, badly conducted war might do their own country. But most patriots are not given enough information or smart enough to collate that information into a sound decision. So they're reduced to going with their instinct.

[LuckyR]

This topic is about the March 2022 Philosophy Book of the Month, My Enemy in Vietnam by Billy Springer



In the second Indochina war US decided to take the side of South Vietnam and engage into war. So many Americans, willingly or not, joined the forces and fought with the Vietcong. But many had thoughts against this decision and many even criticized the decision openly. The famous boxing player, late Muhammad Ali also refused to go to war saying,

I ain’t got no quarrel with them Vietcong.

The author of this book too seemingly had second thoughts about the decision of his country.

Did these two betray their country by going against the decision of the state? What should a true patriot do in such a situation; take side with the state or be true to your own beliefs?

Well, the Vietnam War was unusual in that it required a draft to obtain enough soldiers to go to war. In a war with broad popular support, say the Ukrainian War, there is no need for a draft. Professional tennis players, living the cushy life overseas have stopped playing and picked up arms against the Russians. Therefore the Vietnam War was suspect from the get go. As it turns out, Ali was correct and the government was wrong. Things would have turned out better for the US if they would have engaged the Communist government and not gone to war. Thus Ali ended up being a True Patriot, though it can be argued that he performed this patriotic act for purely selfish reasons, ie he lucked into it.

[Ecurb]

betray ; to deliver or expose to an enemy by treachery or disloyalty:

Civil disobedience is not "betrayal". Easy question.

[Ecurb]

Well, the Vietnam War was unusual in that it required a draft to obtain enough soldiers to go to war. In a war with broad popular support, say the Ukrainian War, there is no need for a draft. Professional tennis players, living the cushy life overseas have stopped playing and picked up arms against the Russians. Therefore the Vietnam War was suspect from the get go. As it turns out, Ali was correct and the government was wrong. Things would have turned out better for the US if they would have engaged the Communist government and not gone to war. Thus Ali ended up being a True Patriot, though it can be argued that he performed this patriotic act for purely selfish reasons, ie he lucked into it.

WW1, WW2, and the Korean war also involved drafting soldiers. So Viet Nam (unpopular though it might have been) was not "unusual". The three most recent U.S. wars had drafted soldiers, as had the Civil War.

[AverageBozo]

…many Americans, willingly or not, joined the forces and fought with the Vietcong.

We fought against the Vietcong.

Did these two [Sushan and Ali] betray their country by going against the decision of the state? What should a true patriot do in such a situation; take side with the state or be true to your own beliefs?

Moreover, did these two stop the American invasion of Vietnam? Did they do anything to, as the protesters of the day urged, give peace a chance?

No, even the protesters and the demonstrations could not end the war in Vietnam. The war continued despite anyone’s beliefs, probably because so many others, perhaps like sheep, were unwilling, or afraid, to go against the draft laws that were in effect.

Could they not have served willingly as Conscientious Objectors, since their beliefs couldn’t stop the carnage and they would serve in non-combatant roles such as medics and chaplain assistants?

Would it have served them to have witnessed firsthand what they opposed before raising their objections?

[Sushan]

Did these two betray their country by going against the decision of the state? What should a true patriot do in such a situation; take side with the state or be true to your own beliefs?

Help me, what is a "true patriot"?

I believe it is a person who wholeheartedly love his/her country, and come forth when the country is in trouble or in need of the help of its citizens. So a true patriot should be a one who actually does that, unlike those who say so but act differently.

[Sushan]

This topic is about the March 2022 Philosophy Book of the Month, My Enemy in Vietnam by Billy Springer



In the second Indochina war US decided to take the side of South Vietnam and engage into war. So many Americans, willingly or not, joined the forces and fought with the Vietcong. But many had thoughts against this decision and many even criticized the decision openly. The famous boxing player, late Muhammad Ali also refused to go to war saying,

I ain’t got no quarrel with them Vietcong.

The author of this book too seemingly had second thoughts about the decision of his country.

Did these two betray their country by going against the decision of the state? What should a true patriot do in such a situation; take side with the state or be true to your own beliefs?

What does one do if tribal/social/political duties or requirements are in conflict with one's personal beliefs? And there is no answer, in general. Each issue has to be considered on its own, as it arises, because they're all different, always. I could offer my opinion on the specific question you ask, but I can see no point. If my opinion differs from yours, is one of us wrong? Are we both wrong? I don't know.

Well, I have an opinion about the American involvement in Vietnam war. And also about the discrimination of Black people. And Ali's refusal to serve in army. But I lie to see what others think as well.

I think he could have told anything to the media, and then go to the war. This reminds me of the movie 'Red Tails'. It shows how Black pilots gained respect by serving valiantly in WW. If not for anything else, Ali could have used this opportunity in such a manner atleast.

[Sushan]

The famous boxing player, late Muhammad Ali also refused to go to war saying,
"I ain’t got no quarrel with them Vietcong."
The author of this book too seemingly had second thoughts about the decision of his country.

Smart people, like Ali, had first thoughts. It was an idiotic and costly decision. The US lost a lot of people, a lot of ordnance, a generation of patriots, the war and face in the international community.

Did these two betray their country by going against the decision of the state?

There is no such decision-making entity as "the state". Some elected officials make a decision for whatever reason; some elected officials vote for it, for whatever reason; some elected officials vote against it for whatever reason. The winning political faction then goes on to make a war. That doesn't mean the whole nation is making a war. Most of the people have have no idea what's going on or why. Most of the people usually just go along and do what they're told. When there is conscription, most of the young men (and now also women) go when they're called, suffer what they are required to suffer, kill whomever they are commanded to kill, come home if they're still alive, endure their nightmares and social ostracism, without ever having any idea what it was all for: they were just doing their duty. The ones who did some thinking beforehand chose, instead, to flee the country or accept a prison sentence, and kill nobody and have a clear conscience, at the cost of their status as nationalists.
There was no betrayal in either position - just a stand on principles.

What should a true patriot do in such a situation; take side with the state or be true to your own beliefs?

Does anyone know what 'a patriot' is? Someone who has concern for their country might think about what a war does to a country in the long term, and particularly what an ill-conceived, badly conducted war might do their own country. But most patriots are not given enough information or smart enough to collate that information into a sound decision. So they're reduced to going with their instinct.

This is what is called democracy. Everyone are involved in decision making. To make it practical we have elections and choose a set of people out of the population to think and decide for the whole nation. And in democracy the majority wins. So no one can say the system is wrong. And after you vote can you say I am against their decisions and I have nothing to do with that? I don't think so. It is true that people always have free will and freedom to have their own opinions. But a state should be lead by someone and otherwise there will only be chaos but nothing else.

[Sushan]

This topic is about the March 2022 Philosophy Book of the Month, My Enemy in Vietnam by Billy Springer



In the second Indochina war US decided to take the side of South Vietnam and engage into war. So many Americans, willingly or not, joined the forces and fought with the Vietcong. But many had thoughts against this decision and many even criticized the decision openly. The famous boxing player, late Muhammad Ali also refused to go to war saying,

I ain’t got no quarrel with them Vietcong.

The author of this book too seemingly had second thoughts about the decision of his country.

Did these two betray their country by going against the decision of the state? What should a true patriot do in such a situation; take side with the state or be true to your own beliefs?

Well, the Vietnam War was unusual in that it required a draft to obtain enough soldiers to go to war. In a war with broad popular support, say the Ukrainian War, there is no need for a draft. Professional tennis players, living the cushy life overseas have stopped playing and picked up arms against the Russians. Therefore the Vietnam War was suspect from the get go. As it turns out, Ali was correct and the government was wrong. Things would have turned out better for the US if they would have engaged the Communist government and not gone to war. Thus Ali ended up being a True Patriot, though it can be argued that he performed this patriotic act for purely selfish reasons, ie he lucked into it.

What we see from Ukrainians in Ukraine war was seen from the Vietnamese in Vietnam war. Even women and children fought within their capacity against the offenders. They do so because they believe that they are being wrongfully attacked. And they have already gained the support of many of the rest of the world. But when US did similar invasions, either by combat or politically, into various countries, did the world react alike. No. All this is a political game and a media campaign. The true picture will be only seen years after the war, as same as the Vietnam war. Then both parties will have their own story to prove that they were correct.

[Sushan]

betray ; to deliver or expose to an enemy by treachery or disloyalty:

Civil disobedience is not "betrayal". Easy question.

Legally you are correct. It comes only under military law. But morally I think it can still be said so. And if it was made a law, then it becomes a betrayal.

[Sushan]

Well, the Vietnam War was unusual in that it required a draft to obtain enough soldiers to go to war. In a war with broad popular support, say the Ukrainian War, there is no need for a draft. Professional tennis players, living the cushy life overseas have stopped playing and picked up arms against the Russians. Therefore the Vietnam War was suspect from the get go. As it turns out, Ali was correct and the government was wrong. Things would have turned out better for the US if they would have engaged the Communist government and not gone to war. Thus Ali ended up being a True Patriot, though it can be argued that he performed this patriotic act for purely selfish reasons, ie he lucked into it.

WW1, WW2, and the Korean war also involved drafting soldiers. So Viet Nam (unpopular though it might have been) was not "unusual". The three most recent U.S. wars had drafted soldiers, as had the Civil War.

I think there was no other way for the government to bring civilians into the war. Those who have the courage to fight against the enemy join the forces willingly. But those who stay at homes and do their own work do not easily comply when they are called into a war. It doesn't matter whether the war is necessary or not, winning or loosing, they are simply not ready for that.

[Sushan]

…many Americans, willingly or not, joined the forces and fought with the Vietcong.

We fought against the Vietcong.

Did these two [Sushan and Ali] betray their country by going against the decision of the state? What should a true patriot do in such a situation; take side with the state or be true to your own beliefs?

Moreover, did these two stop the American invasion of Vietnam? Did they do anything to, as the protesters of the day urged, give peace a chance?

No, even the protesters and the demonstrations could not end the war in Vietnam. The war continued despite anyone’s beliefs, probably because so many others, perhaps like sheep, were unwilling, or afraid, to go against the draft laws that were in effect.

Could they not have served willingly as Conscientious Objectors, since their beliefs couldn’t stop the carnage and they would serve in non-combatant roles such as medics and chaplain assistants?

Would it have served them to have witnessed firsthand what they opposed before raising their objections?

I am really sorry for the misunderstanding. I also wanted to say that US fought against the Vietcong.

Yes, they would have served as Conscientious Objectors. But what does it mean? Even though they do not hold weapons, they support the continuation of war. By being a medic and helping the wounded soldiers, you help them to fight again and again and continue the war.

Couldn't they have resisted more? Yes, but that should have been an inherent quality as well as their own decision. Seemingly they chose a middle ground, to not serve but not to resist as well, which gave them less harmful consequences.