Siteadmin, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, Administrators
2,684
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 4:
Line 4: + − + − Yes!!
Debate:Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform? (view source)
Revision as of 14:39, January 16, 2007
, 14:39, January 16, 2007no edit summary
*'''Reply''' As a member of the US Armed Forces he '''''was''''' (would have been) fighting for America. Just because in this case America was working together with other nations does not change that fact. A soldier in the military does not have the right to choose his duty. He signed up to fight as a soldier for America '''''wherever''''' America wanted him to go. If you think that he has a right to choose where he fights, then you have to sefend any soldier who does not like following orders and fighting where he is told to fight. Also It was not "third parties goals" because america is part of the UN they have to do their part in the UN peacekeeping forces, as much as i hate the UN does not change that fact. If Aamerica tells him to fight for the UN then that is his duty '''''to America'''''. Even though American forces fighting in Vietnam and Korea were not directly fighting to defend america, they were still fighting for america. it is the same concept here.
*'''Reply''' As a member of the US Armed Forces he '''''was''''' (would have been) fighting for America. Just because in this case America was working together with other nations does not change that fact. A soldier in the military does not have the right to choose his duty. He signed up to fight as a soldier for America '''''wherever''''' America wanted him to go. If you think that he has a right to choose where he fights, then you have to sefend any soldier who does not like following orders and fighting where he is told to fight. Also It was not "third parties goals" because america is part of the UN they have to do their part in the UN peacekeeping forces, as much as i hate the UN does not change that fact. If Aamerica tells him to fight for the UN then that is his duty '''''to America'''''. Even though American forces fighting in Vietnam and Korea were not directly fighting to defend america, they were still fighting for america. it is the same concept here.
--[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 23:43, 15 January 2007 (EST)
--[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 23:43, 15 January 2007 (EST)
*'''Reply''' So if the United States told Michael New to go and exterminate two million black people, as you say, "a soldier in the military does not have the right to choose his duty." Therefore, Michael New would have to go and kill two million people.
:Therefore, you are correct. It's a very serious issue to become a "GI" (Government Issue) because you are giving up your right to decide what's best, even on a moral issue. Should your commander-in-chief assign you a mission that is morally questionable, you must obey or become derelict in your duty and suffer the consequences of a court marshal. Great thought has to be given when one is considering giving allegiance to any government that requires an unconditional allegiance to it causes, including wars and enforcing its policies, whether you agree with them or not. (These last thoughts were derived by input from my father)
[[User:DeborahB.|~DeborahB~]]
[[User:DeborahB.|~DeborahB~]]