muskrat89 said:
This is where you are lost. Individual values vary from person to person. The definition of an illegal order does not. I suggest that you stop speaking about something of which you have no clue - the oath a soldier takes on enrollment.
You're against government, monarchy, etc.... great. We get it.
Calvin said:
Yes I can. You're underestimating soldiers. (Muskrat beat me to it)
Surely you agree that there are certain situations when it is not extremely clear whether or not an order is legal.
Also, I'm sure you agree that most individuals do not have a perfect understanding of the law.
Many orders are only deemed to have been wrong in retrospect, such as the arbitrary detention of individuals of certain ethnicities during times of war.
Furthermore, obedient and well disciplined soldiers may find it difficult to disobey the orders of a superior officer.
I'm not against government.
Calvin said:
Perhaps not. However, the Queen is head of state, not the head of the government. Brush up on the IR.
Edit: not meant to sound as cranky as it reads.
I didn't refer to the queen as either, I said simply that "no person of government deserves unlimited loyalty."
Teddy Ruxpin said:
You're wrong. The legalese here is very clear. A soldier has an obligation to refuse to carry out an order that is manifestly illegal. "Manifestly" means, in this case, obvious to a reasonable person operating under similar circumstances. If an order does not been the test of being manifestly illegal, the soldier is obligated to carry it out.
That might cover rape and genocide, but there are certainly cases when it's not quite so clear. Certain military units routinely carry out illegal orders. My understanding is that it is standard operating procedure among certain American Special Forces units to “neutralize” any individual that could blow their cover when they’re working behind enemy lines, including civilian children. That’s clearly illegal. My point in mentioning that is not to criticize the Americans or members of the Special Forces for doing what they must do, but just to suggest that desperate times often call for desperate measures. The combat environment can often serve to obscure what is right and what is wrong, making it easier for illegal orders to be carried out with less scrutiny than they would normally be given. The Milgram Experiment demonstrated this quite clearly.
Teddy Ruxpin said:
As for the rest of your rather dubious argument, since the Queen is rather unlikely to order us to commit a war crime, the point is moot, isn't it?
It’s very unlikely, but surely that doesn’t justify swearing an oath to her. We can only speculate on the state of the world in ten years. I don’t suspect German officers swearing the Soldier’s Oath in 1929 could have expected what would come a decade later. It may be beyond unlikely that anything remotely similar will ever happen to Canada, but it’s not impossible.
Regardless, why should members of the armed forces of Canada, a sovereign nation, declare their allegiance to a foreign monarch?
old medic said:
So your saying, don't bother being loyal to anything. You may wish to change your mind.
No, I’m saying that we should not be loyal to things that aren’t set in stone. There’s a difference between swearing to protect and uphold ideals such as freedom, justice and liberty and swearing to serve at the whim of the queen, especially when her only credential is that she was supposedly ordained by an entity whose existence is improvable.
old medic said:
Comparing Canadians to Nazi Germany, how insightful.
Do you think the men and women of today’s Canadian Forces are that much different from those of the Germany armed forces in 1934? Newsflash: Germans aren’t evil people. Their officers and NCMs were also just citizens who wanted to serve their country, and were forced to take an oath Hitler to have the privilege of doing so.
old medic said:
Do not do it then. Better include citizenship oaths in there, nationalism is a concept.
That’s not really an option. Do you honestly believe that someone should have to swear an oath to the queen of England to serve Canada?
old medic said:
No, he was right. Your a complete troll.
<edit: fixed grammar>
No, I’m not a troll.
No, you ain't fixed the grammar.
Torlyn said:
Just because YOU have a problem sticking with the truth, stop "jumping to conclusions" and believe that the Captain isn't an honest person. So you lie. Fine. Just because you do, doesn't mean he does.
I'm a very honest person. In fact, I'm so honest that I actual tell people when I'm being dishonest.
There’s a limit to honesty. For example, let’s say you get married, and you pledge to remain married and faithful to your wife (I’m assuming you’re male) for better or for worse. Now, heaven forbid, she gets some sort of head injury, becomes a crazy nymphomaniac, cheats on you twice a day and has contracted every STI known to man. By divorcing her, you’d be breaking an oath, are you telling me you wouldn’t do it?
My apologizes for such a ridiculous scenario, but I’m just trying to point out that oaths have limits.
I’d really prefer they didn’t, but I really don’t have an option when serving my country requires me to declare my allegiance to a foreign monarch. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t hate the queen or anything like that, in fact, I’m distantly related to her through the Erbach-Schonberg family. But I’m really left with no other option if I want to serve my Country. For that reason, I’d prefer an oath where one would swear to uphold abstract concepts, such as in the American Pledge of Allegiance.
Torlyn said:
You never stated a moral disagreement. You stated something contrary and insulting, without offering any sort of evidence/coherent thought to back it up. Had you done so, I would have been more than happy to engage you on a rational debate on the subject. A thought, perhaps instead of spending so much time clarifying the qualifications your degree *MAY* grant you when you graduate, you could do a little research first? Legality of disobeying an illegal order... 3 seconds on google and you would have saved yourself from looking like an ***.
While you are consulting that dictionary you seem so fond of, check it for "rational" and "debate". You will see that you have failed miserably on both. For the record, you've proven that you've earned the title, Troll.
T
No, I asked why having a monarch isn’t a horrible idea. I formulated the question in such a way as to convey to the reader my opposition to it. All you’ve done so far is jump to conclusions.
What’s this about rational debate? You’re an officer, albeit a newly minted one, but maybe you should lead by example. All you’ve done so far is try to criticize statements I’ve made that have very little to do with the question I’ve actually posed. If you intend to participate in a debate, maybe you should do something more than try to look for hairline cracks and break them open. That's all well and good if all you're trying to do is assassinate my character, but I sincerely hope you haven't been trying to do that because if you have you've been doing a piss-poor job.
Try “getting on track.”
redleafjumper said:
Rob, you are displaying some remarkably rigid views for one so young. Try to avoid logical fallacies and personal attacks in your arguments. You will find that when you do, you will obtain better grades, both in your papers and on this forum.
I've often been advised as such. I assure you that my vehement support of republicanism stems directly from my love for Canada.