Changes

: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~]]

: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~]]

*'''Reply:''' I agree with this. The arguments that I made above were mainly aimed at the laws that allow the US to force someone to serve the UN. Obviously, if you join the military you have to obey your commanding officers. For this reason you better be positive you're ready to do anything the military says before you sign up. When Hitler's soldiers were put on trial at the end of the war they claimed that they were "just obeying orders." Hopefully America's government will remain moral enough so as not to scare any moral people from signing up. Joining the UN was a step in the wrong direction. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 10:01, 16 January 2007 (EST)

*'''Reply:''' I agree with this. The arguments that I made above were mainly aimed at the laws that allow the US to force someone to serve the UN. Obviously, if you join the military you have to obey your commanding officers. For this reason you better be positive you're ready to do anything the military says before you sign up. When Hitler's soldiers were put on trial at the end of the war they claimed that they were "just obeying orders." Hopefully America's government will remain moral enough so as not to scare any moral people from signing up. Joining the UN was a step in the wrong direction. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 10:01, 16 January 2007 (EST)

**'''Reply''' Again, no-one is 'forced' to 'serve the UN'. Nations decide whether or not to participate in UN actions, and it is those nations that 'force' their military personnel to deploy. The remark about Hitler's soldiers is a fallacy; the Nuremberg trials made it very clear that 'I was just following orders' is not acceptable as a defense when it comes to certain crimes, known these days as crimes against humanity. And America didn't take a step in the wrong direction by 'joining the UN'; it was one of the driving forces behind the creation of the UN, and one of its founding member nations. Check it out: http://www.un.org/aboutun/unhistory/ [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 13:23, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

**'''Reply''' Again, no-one is 'forced' to 'serve the UN'. Nations decide whether or not to participate in UN actions, and it is those nations that 'force' their military personnel to deploy. The remark about Hitler's soldiers is a fallacy; the Nuremberg trials made it very clear that 'I was just following orders' is not acceptable as a defense when it comes to certain crimes, known these days as crimes against humanity. And America didn't take a step in the wrong direction by 'joining the UN'; it was one of the driving forces behind the creation of the UN, and one of its founding member nations. Check it out: https://www.un.org/aboutun/unhistory/ [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 13:23, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

**'''Reply''' We have to separate the moral argument from the constitutional argument for a second here.  You are correct that under the constitution if Michael New was ordered to kill 2 million black people (why are you dragging racism into this debate?) then he would have to obey.  The Bible Tells us to obey those in authority over us, unless they are telling us to do something morally wrong.  that is the difference.  In the example you gave, Michael New's Moral obligation would be to refuse to kill the people, and take his dishonorable discharge.  In the UN case, obeying his superiors would not be morally wrong.  Therefore, disobeying was wrong both constitutionally and morally.  --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 20:30, 16 January 2007 (EST)

**'''Reply''' We have to separate the moral argument from the constitutional argument for a second here.  You are correct that under the constitution if Michael New was ordered to kill 2 million black people (why are you dragging racism into this debate?) then he would have to obey.  The Bible Tells us to obey those in authority over us, unless they are telling us to do something morally wrong.  that is the difference.  In the example you gave, Michael New's Moral obligation would be to refuse to kill the people, and take his dishonorable discharge.  In the UN case, obeying his superiors would not be morally wrong.  Therefore, disobeying was wrong both constitutionally and morally.  --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 20:30, 16 January 2007 (EST)

**'''Reply''' Wrong. Under the UCMJ, no member of the armed forces is required to obey a patently illegal order - such as, for example, the disingenuous example above, of being ordered to kill two million black people. However, there is nothing illegal in the '''American''' government ordering an '''American serviceman''' to serve under American officers in a unit to be employed in a UN operation. Bear in mind the UN has no power to compel its member nations to participate in any UN intervention, so when American units participate in such, it is with the full knowledge and blessing of the government. Furthermore, the government at no time surrenders control of those personnel to the UN; if the mandate for the UN operation in question should change - or even if it doesn't but the government no longer wishes to support the mandate - then the government withdraws its troops. It's as simple as that. Likewise the American government and military are perfectly within their rights to order their servicemen and women to wear whatever insignia they deem suitable to the taskings at hand. If a unit is deploying in support of a UN operation and that unit's personnel are required to wear the UN-blue helmet and shoulder patch, then that's the ordered uniform. So Michael New knowingly disobeyed a lawful command from his superiors.

**'''Reply''' Wrong. Under the UCMJ, no member of the armed forces is required to obey a patently illegal order - such as, for example, the disingenuous example above, of being ordered to kill two million black people. However, there is nothing illegal in the '''American''' government ordering an '''American serviceman''' to serve under American officers in a unit to be employed in a UN operation. Bear in mind the UN has no power to compel its member nations to participate in any UN intervention, so when American units participate in such, it is with the full knowledge and blessing of the government. Furthermore, the government at no time surrenders control of those personnel to the UN; if the mandate for the UN operation in question should change - or even if it doesn't but the government no longer wishes to support the mandate - then the government withdraws its troops. It's as simple as that. Likewise the American government and military are perfectly within their rights to order their servicemen and women to wear whatever insignia they deem suitable to the taskings at hand. If a unit is deploying in support of a UN operation and that unit's personnel are required to wear the UN-blue helmet and shoulder patch, then that's the ordered uniform. So Michael New knowingly disobeyed a lawful command from his superiors.

       force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and

       force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and

     to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement  

     to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement  

       of all peoples..."[http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/]

       of all peoples..."[https://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/]

    

    

Nowhere in this is any mention made of God, or any  "gods of this world", including but not limited to Allah, shivna, jupiter, buddha, etc. In any case, from the same argument, what of those who aren't God's people? To be God's people necessitates actually following the principles of God (see 1 Cor 11:1, Eph 5), which drastically cuts the number of people who make claims to said status that may actually be included in said group (see Matt 7:21-23).

Nowhere in this is any mention made of God, or any  "gods of this world", including but not limited to Allah, shivna, jupiter, buddha, etc. In any case, from the same argument, what of those who aren't God's people? To be God's people necessitates actually following the principles of God (see 1 Cor 11:1, Eph 5), which drastically cuts the number of people who make claims to said status that may actually be included in said group (see Matt 7:21-23).