Prince Harry NOT to be deployed to Iraq.

[ExigeEvan]

The story.

Now in my opinion this means Prince Harry might aswell leave the army now. Admittadly, Iraq is probably the most dangerous place he could be deployed right now but terrorism is international and wherever he goes terrorists will be out to get him. And it's not possible to just secretly let the Prince slip out of the country, even while part of the army he is constantly in the public eye.

The only solution I can see is a deployment to the Falklands, and I'm quite sure sitting on a sparsely populated and frozen island isn't Harry's idea of a military career.

 

[Sage]

Can’t you guys just dissolve the whole royalty thing… pleeeaase?

 

[ExigeEvan]

Can’t you guys just dissolve the whole royalty thing… pleeeaase?

Err why?

They don't cost all that much, the queen and Prince charles are pretty active at charity events and they bring in alot of tourism.

Sure, if we got rid of them we'd have a hell of alot of assets to sell off but that's Thatcherism on a huge scale.

 

[MagpieRacer]

I think its pathetic, hes royalty so gets special army privileges....where every other guy who joins the army DOES get sent to serve his country. why the **** shouldnt prince harry do the same..

 

[DustDriver]

because being a prince means he's on the top of the hit list.
If he gets hit, you can be sure the bullet was meant for him, and not a random British soldier

 

[Swift]

It's no different then in the USA. You think if President Bush's children were enlisted they'd go to Iraq? No way. Or clinton's? It's the way politics is. I can't even believe this is a story.

 

[ExigeEvan]

It's no different then in the USA. You think if President Bush's children were enlisted they'd go to Iraq? No way. Or clinton's? It's the way politics is. I can't even believe this is a story.

It's because untill now the MoD were all for Prince Harry going to Iraq. Yes, it was on a day-by-day basis but he was going to go. Now all of a sudden there's been a huge U-turn.

This allows means that it is even less likely that Prince William will see active duty, as he is inline to the throne (as opposed to Harry who won't unless William is unable to or has no heirs.)

 

[Famine]

His Uncle, Prince Andrew, served in a war when he was second in line to the throne (Charles -> Andrew -> Edward -> Anne). What's the difference?

 

[ExigeEvan]

His Uncle, Prince Andrew, served in a war when he was second in line to the throne (Charles -> Andrew -> Edward -> Anne). What's the difference?

I was thinking that. As Prince Andrew was a helicopter pilot in the Falklands (and on the doomed Sir Galahad).

But, I think the difference is that there is a greater risk of Harry being taken hostage (alive or dead) in Iraq than there was of Andrew in the Falklands.

Death would be devastating, taken hostage would be a disaster.

 

[Stevisiov]

Personally I am not a big fan of Royalty. Saying this I wouldn't want to be disbanded, its part of the British Culture, as for Prince Harry not going to Iraq, it makes sense. Imagine what would happen if he gets shot... the propagander will just be crazy. Imagine he gets captured, what sort of bargaining rights will the terrorists have.

You can't just say he shouldn't get preferencial treatment over everyone else just because a Prince, that is very naive, its not just his life at stake, the safety of everyone around him will be at risk. Consider yourself a terrorist, you hear about an intelligence leak that the Prince of Great Britain is nearby. Your going to send all of your fellow terrorists to assault their convoy. Now intelligence leaks are rare but its hardly unlikely that no one is going to know where he is located.

 

[Famine]

I was thinking that. As Prince Andrew was a helicopter pilot in the Falklands (and on the doomed Sir Galahad).

But, I think the difference is that there is a greater risk of Harry being taken hostage (alive or dead) in Iraq than there was of Andrew in the Falklands.

Death would be devastating, taken hostage would be a disaster.

The Argentines were at least fighting us with contemporary weapons (that we'd sold them 8 years earlier). All it would have taken was a single British-made Exocet.

How many ships have Al Qaida sunk in the Gulf? They didn't even sink the U.S.S. Cole, and that was docked and mostly uncrewed.

 

[daan]

He's in the army. He should go where his regiment goes. If they don't want him to go to a war zone, he shouldn't be in the army in the first place.

 

[Stevisiov]

Your right he shouldn't be in the army period. If its to dangerous for him to go to war in any circumstance what is his objective in being in the army? Unfortunately he is in the army but this doesn't mean he should go, he should resign, he has no reason to be there.

 

[Philly]

Yes, I'm an American and don't do this whole royalty thing. Of course, I don't believe in special priviledges for politicians' families, either.

Anyway, I saw this story on BBC today in advisory and almost died.

Prince Harry will not be deployed in Iraq because of the security threat, the head of the Army says.

Security threat? Iraq? Who would have though there could be a connectio there?

Iraq is one of the most unstable places in the world right now. When I first heard that a prince was going to war, I actually felt really good inside. When I heard that his plans changed because of a security threat, I just said, "Wow. Why would you even consider sending him in the first place if you are going to say no because of security?"

If you Brits are going to play games like this, why even let him be in the Army? If Harry was simply deployed to something like a nuclear base, that would've been cool. At least he would have been "helping out." To say yes then no for some reason that couldn't be more obvoius on an issue I find really quite silly just makes it so I really can't take the Royal family, or even many politicians seriously.

End of ignorantly poking fun at a "pointless" royalty.

 

[Famine]

"The Head of the Army"?

His gran?

 

[Stevisiov]

you Brits

I can see how this decision reflects the whole of the British public.

Don't get me started on 'you Americans'

 

[Swift]

I can see how this decision reflects the whole of the British public.

Don't get me started on 'you Americans'

Nah, you have an unfair advantage!

 

[Stevisiov]

Nah, you have an unfair advantage!

lol, Its not a personal attack on American's more, correcting philly cheese's stupid comment.

 

[Dave A]

Yes, I'm an American and don't do this whole royalty thing. Of course, I don't believe in special priviledges for politicians' families, either.

Neither do I, and in general I agree with the principal that if he's in the army he should ge wherever his regiment goes.

Iraq is one of the most unstable places in the world right now. When I first heard that a prince was going to war, I actually felt really good inside. When I heard that his plans changed because of a security threat, I just said, "Wow. Why would you even consider sending him in the first place if you are going to say no because of security?"

It's not the fact that there is a security threat, it's the fact that he will be singled out as a priority target. Like someone else said earlier, if he get's shot the chances are the bullet was for him and not for some random soldier. Which does cloud the issue a little.

If you Brits are going to play games like this, why even let him be in the Army?

I didn't know I or the vast majority barring a few select individuals had the power to stop him being in the army if he chose to be and was fit enough, which he was.

If Harry was simply deployed to something like a nuclear base, that would've been cool. At least he would have been "helping out."

I agree, and with hindsight and/or more common sense they might have done that.

To say yes then no for some reason that couldn't be more obvoius on an issue I find really quite silly just makes it so I really can't take the Royal family, or even many politicians seriously.

The Royal Family didn't make the decision, I'm sure if the Army wanted Harry in Iraq Harry would have gone and everyone would have accepted that. Persoanlly I don't see the royal family as much more than a tourist attraction, and I don't hold politicians in high regard at all, but they have little to do with what's going on besides Harry being born royalty.

Their is blame to lay for the amusing mess up of a U-turn, but it doesn't lie with Harry, the British people in general or the rest of the royal family. The three things you pointed out.

lol, Its not a personal attack on American's more, correcting YSSMAN's stupid comment.

YSSMAN hasn't posted in this thread.

 

[Swift]

lol, Its not a personal attack on American's more, correcting YSSMAN's stupid comment.

I know, hence my joke. I'm sure we're equal on the "you ____" debate.

Granted, I know jack about the political system in GB, but I do know that a there is no way the presidents son would go to Iraq. I'm actually surprised that one of the senator's has a son over there.

 

[Gonz013]

He wants to go and serve his country, so let him.
They should have just deployed him without making a fuss about it.

 

[Sting]

I think its pathetic, hes royalty so gets special army privileges....where every other guy who joins the army DOES get sent to serve his country. why the **** shouldnt prince harry do the same..

Agreed 110%

because being a prince means he's on the top of the hit list.
If he gets hit, you can be sure the bullet was meant for him, and not a random British soldier

In war you don't have time to discriminate. An enemy is the enemy regardless of title. From the terrorists point of view, if Harry got shot, or some other British soldier it would still mean the same thing.... 1 less British troop to worry about.

I'm not a big fan of the Royal family for their special priviledges.

 

[Dave A]

In war you don't have time to discriminate. An enemy is the enemy regardless of title. From the terrorists point of view, if Harry got shot, or some other British soldier it would still mean the same thing.... 1 less British troop to worry about.

You are so wrong on just about every word of this quote. Morale is a big factor, the trouble and media coverage followed by the uproad prince Harry being assasinated would likely bring would be a massive plus for them, which is probably the underlying reason behind the decision not to send him. Even in war people get assasinated and targeted for assasination.

 

[Philly]

In war you don't have time to discriminate. An enemy is the enemy regardless of title. From the terrorists point of view, if Harry got shot, or some other British soldier it would still mean the same thing.... 1 less British troop to worry about.

I'm not quite sure this is the case. True, in war you have no time to pick and choose your targets. However, having Harry killed would probably deal some kind of blow to British morale of something like that, just because he's famous. The gain (for insurgents) of having him killed far outweighs the trouble of finding and killing him.

Now, if the media didn't go crazy about this and somehow Harry got out there without the insurgents knowing, there would be no bullets for him specifically.

Dave, I was trying to go way over the top in that post. Basically, I was trying to say that they should have put a little more thought in and considered more, and that would avoid this whole mess.

 

[Lee]

Morale is a big factor, the trouble and media coverage followed by the uproad prince Harry being assasinated would likely bring would be a massive plus for them.

And one hell of a downer for all British troops to know that a Royal has been taken out.

To be honest, I'm hardly suprised he isn't going. Go back to the nightclub, bud.

 

[Sting]

Just dont dress like a nazi again :S

 

[Joey D]

I see no issue with this, it's how modern society works, if you are rich or important you get special treatment no matter what. Even if you are made to do something one of us peons would do on the lower rungs of society, you are still going to have an easier time at it.

If Bush had sons and they were in the army, the same thing would happen...errr well I don't know, maybe God would tell Bush to send them off to fight in a war . But joking aside, if these hypothetical sons were in the military they would have easy jobs and never see combat. It's just the way the world works, either accept it or figure out how to set up a civilization of your own...there are probably opening on Mars.

 

[BobK]

In war you don't have time to discriminate. An enemy is the enemy regardless of title. From the terrorists point of view, if Harry got shot, or some other British soldier it would still mean the same thing.... 1 less British troop to worry about.

Sure, and Yamamoto was just another Japanese sailor, right?

 

[a6m5]

Isn't this a no brainer?

From what I've been reading over last few weeks, Prince Harry wants to be in Iraq. This is not a "special treatment", it's quite the opposite. This VIP wants to go in, but should not be allowed to, due to the tactical situation for the British Army.

Having the Prince serve on Iraqi ground gives the insurgents a huge advantage, and a huge migrane to the U.S.-led forces. One of the main reasons for the terrorism in Iraq is to shock and scare the worldwide public to force the outsiders out of Iraq. They've been counting on their bombs to turn the public opinion against leaders like Blair and Bush, forcing them to retreat. Big celebrity like a Prince taking part in the ground operation in Iraq would've been a horrible strategic move.

His Uncle, Prince Andrew, served in a war when he was second in line to the throne (Charles -> Andrew -> Edward -> Anne). What's the difference?

But the insurgents in Iraq are sneaking bombs near targets, blowing them up, using terrorist tactics. If Prince Harry was a chopper pilot, it would have made him a much tougher target, I think. I still wouldn't send him in though.

Edit:

Sure, and Yamamoto was just another Japanese sailor, right?

That one's a little different, because Yamamoto was one of the decision makers for the Imperial Japan. But I do agree that it is ridiculous to assume Prince Harry would be just another troop. The day Prince Harry is killed or crippled by a roadside bomb, media will turn it into a circus. Something along the size of Anna Nicole Smith's death X billion, except this one will be in history books.

 

[Touring Mars]

I agree with a6m5 and DaveA here... this is not special treatment for the sake of special treatment. Harry is not being treated with kid gloves. He wants to go, but his presence there would be a severe strain on his own regiment. He has been pulled out because intelligence suggests that there are specific threats again him and his unit. With today's media coverage, it would be nigh on impossible to keep Harry and his unit's whereabouts completely confidential. Nobody is saying that he shouldn't be exposed to the same risks as every other soldier, but he doesn't face the same risk - he faces a much higher risk, and so does everyone in his unit if he is there.

Although I can understand why the relatives of dead soldiers may be dismayed, even angered, by this decision, the fact of the matter is that the situation with Harry is completely different to the ordinary soldier. He is being specifically targetted and a successful hit on him would hand the insurgents a massive propaganda victory that the coalition forces can ill-afford - esp. at the moment.