Prince Harry not to serve in Iraq

[JODO 2]

[SteveLaura 0]

But the fact is, he IS different...and he would have been a bigger target there.

I really don't know how I feel about this, but I can see the logic because his being killed would be a bigger coup to those we're fighting...

it would be a huge coup. such would probably weaken even more the british resolve to remain engaged in the conflict, which, in all likelihood, is the aim of the insurgents.

I'm not so sure. Although I was only 9 at the time, I don't think there was any change in policy regarding Northern Ireland after the IRA killed Earl Mountbatten. The difference, maybe, is that the majority of the UK want out of Iraq anyway. Harry's demise wouldn't make any difference in that sense.

[SteveLaura 0]

one could argue that the terrist have won. they scared a powerful country into not sending a prince over to fight.

Daniel

:energetic:

It depends by what you mean by 'won'. Have they won because I now have to take my shoes off and have them scanned before boarding a plane? Did they win when police checked bags in subways? Things have changed, sure, but it's a minor victory at most, I suppose.

Royalty - I'd get rid of 'em all (peacefully, naturally) anyway.

[Oath 0]

I'm in two minds over this.

One one hand, He's a soldier, he should serve his country no matter what the country or dangers, afterall thats what he's paid and trained for. On the other hand he's a liability to his squad and any unit he's assigned to (if he's spotted by the enemy).

That said I'm glad he had the stones to try it, but I'll be disapointed if he doesnt follow through on his threat to leave the army if he's not treated as a soldier.

Kudos for having a pair.

[almaty 19]

i am glad he is not going..i am glad when anyone does not have to go to that sh!thole

[Alex+R 0]

i am glad he is not going..i am glad when anyone does not have to go to that sh!thole

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Hmmm - and I thought the point of the Princes doing military service was to set some sort of example...

Seems to me that if you're going to join the armed forces it stands to reason that you would have to automatically cede your right to any sort of "protected" status. Granted its not Harry's decision, but even if he were to have gone to Iraq and by chance gotten killed out there - would his death really be more tragic than Darren Smith from Chelmsford, Essex. More public certainly, but still...

or perhaps the threats made against him were deemed credible and it was decided it was not worth the risk. or would you prefer to see him killed or even captured, maybe a video of him being beheaded on tv to satisfy your sense of "example" and proof of "unprotected" status?

Hmmm... Twisted cynicism doesn't really quite cut it there does it Charles? Seeing (any) people "killed and captured" isn't really my thing ya know...

Whether or not the threats are credible - he's a member of the UK armed forces and should surely serve where needed. Considering that the princes themselves have publicly stressed that they wanted no special treatment, and Harry himself reportedly wanted to serve with his unit - what's being said here? That you can be pulled from active service just because you are deemed "too important". At least Harry wanted to go, rather than spend his time getting drunk and organising political campaigns for his father

Considering that you lot like to bang on about "appeasement", I wonder how you fit pulling out a trained serviceman who wants to serve his country into that rationale.

In context - Prince Andrew served as a pilot for the Royal Navy during the Falklands war. Granted it was a pretty small war - but it would not be inaccurate to suggest that he was not in danger of his life.

Edited May 16, 2007 by erekose

[Ban Hammer 14,573]

Hmmm - and I thought the point of the Princes doing military service was to set some sort of example...

Seems to me that if you're going to join the armed forces it stands to reason that you would have to automatically cede your right to any sort of "protected" status. Granted its not Harry's decision, but even if he were to have gone to Iraq and by chance gotten killed out there - would his death really be more tragic than Darren Smith from Chelmsford, Essex. More public certainly, but still...

or perhaps the threats made against him were deemed credible and it was decided it was not worth the risk. or would you prefer to see him killed or even captured, maybe a video of him being beheaded on tv to satisfy your sense of "example" and proof of "unprotected" status?

Hmmm... Twisted cynicism doesn't really quite cut it there does it Charles? Seeing (any) people "killed and captured" isn't really my thing ya know...

Whether or not the threats are credible - he's a member of the UK armed forces and should surely serve where needed. Considering that the princes themselves have publicly stressed that they wanted no special treatment, and Harry himself reportedly wanted to serve with his unit - what's being said here? That you can be pulled from active service just because you are deemed "too important". At least Harry wanted to go, rather than spend his time getting drunk and organising political campaigns for his father

Considering that you lot like to bang on about "appeasement", I wonder how you fit pulling out a trained serviceman who wants to serve his country into that rationale.

In context - Prince Andrew served as a pilot for the Royal Navy during the Falklands war. Granted it was a pretty small war - but it would not be inaccurate to suggest that he was not in danger of his life.

i don't have a problem with him being in iraq, no, but apparently someone way up the food chain does. yet upon reflection, perhaps they may be right given his presence may be detrimental to other members of his unit. it's a tough call, isn't it?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

it's a tough call, isn't it?

Sure.

[no name 1]

He would endanger his troop as well. What about the amount of ££ spent & the endangered lives of the officers sent to 'protect' him?

All this yammering about not wanting to be treated differently is #######. They ARE princes, they have a 'duty' to England, etc, etc. They will never be normal. Nor would I bet they want to be...

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The Prince is staying away from the battlefield same as the sons and daughters of the elite and leadership of all countries that chose to attack Iraq without cause and due process.

[Oath 0]

The Prince is staying away from the battlefield same as the sons and daughters of the elite and leadership of all countries that chose to attack Iraq without cause and due process.

I don't recall the Queen demanding the downfall of Iraq. You'll also note that Soldiers today join the army through choice, there is no draft (yet) they may not want to be there, but it is their job.

Edited May 16, 2007 by Oath

[truffles 2]

I think i recall the prince saying he wanted to go with his men - and to be honest i actually beleive he wanted to go....but he does make his unit stand out for special attention out there if he went - I watched question time on BBC recently andit was pointed out that perhaps if the media werent so intense on tracking every movement ( sometimes irresponsibly) then maybe he could have gone out there without the media glare - perhaps that is also worth a consideration.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

He would endanger his troop as well. What about the amount of ££ spent & the endangered lives of the officers sent to 'protect' him?

All this yammering about not wanting to be treated differently is #######. They ARE princes, they have a 'duty' to England, etc, etc. They will never be normal. Nor would I bet they want to be...

Hmmm... How better can they prove their duty to England than by military service? Clearly both William and Harry take their royal duties seriously enough to join the armed forces. Harry is not the first prince to serve, and most importantly he's not the first to serve in an armed conflict. Prince Philip (racist old coot though he might be) served in direct combat in WW2 and fought in several major engagements, not least where his ship was bombed in the Battle of Crete. Prince Andrew was as I said a pilot during the Falklands War.

And why would (or should) the military spent any extra money specifically to protect Harry? He's an trained and qualified army officer whose been through Sandhurst. He chose to serve, and if he wants to he should be allowed. And there don't seem to any objections from the people in his unit - most of whom appear to be proud to be serving with him. This has the smell of politics all over it... IMHO. Likely the commanders (and the politicians behind them) are more concerned about their public image in the event he were killed, and the effect it might have on an already questionable policy.

He can fight. Just not in this war apparently...

[Ban Hammer 14,573]

He can fight. Just not in this war apparently...

well, let's look at it this way. just food for thought, you know? if his unit gets unnecessary attention from the insurgents trying to gain a feather for their hat, would that not affect the morale of the troops he commands? just like you'd probably not want to be the personal secretary for salman rushdie, you know? it's a good idea to be far away from someone who has a death threat on their head.