Army chiefs are continuing to review Prince Harry's role during his deployment to Iraq, the Ministry of Defence said. The MoD said the Prince's deployment was under "constant consideration", as the Sun reported that the Army had launched an 11th-hour review into the decision to let the 22-year-old officer serve alongside his men. The Sun newspaper said senior military figures were increasingly concerned about the Prince's presence on the battlefield amid reports that insurgents would be targeting him. An MoD spokeswoman said on Thursday: "Prince Harry's deployment to Iraq is, as we've always said, under constant consideration. It is still our intent that Prince Harry will deploy as a troop leader." Clarence House would not comment. Clarence House and the Ministry of Defence confirmed in February that Harry would be deployed to Iraq, saying he would take on a "normal troop commander's role" rather than a desk job. As a career soldier, Harry has always been determined to see action on the front line and fight for his country. In an interview to mark his 21st birthday, he said: "There's no way I'm going to put myself through Sandhurst and then sit on my a*** back home while my boys are out fighting for their country." A joint statement from Clarence House and the MoD in February said: "Whilst in Iraq, Cornet Wales will carry out a normal troop commander's role, involving leading a troop of 12 men in four Scimitar armoured reconnaissance vehicles, each with a crew of three." The deployment will make Harry, the third in line to the throne, the first royal to be deployed on a tour of duty in a war zone for a quarter of a century. Should Harry serve in Iraq?
He should if he wants to. Just because he's royal doesn't mean his place in the army should be more precious than anyone elses.
(Speaking as a non-Brit, and not to be rude or morbid, but...) If Harry were to kick the bucket, then it'd be Willy, right? And some god-forbid-unforeseen thing were to happen to William, then it'd revert to Andrew, and then to (issue of Andrew & Fergie, whose names escape my mind just at the moment). So the British Throne would seem to be well enough supplied with heirs. It'd be really bad publicity if Harry were to meet his maker in Iraq, sure, but, well - haven't the Royals lived down that kind of thing before? (...er, apologies for poor choice of wording there...) I dunno, it just seems to me that if he lives his life as a coddled egg, well - his dad could tell him all about what that's like. And if Harry were to come out alive and having learned (at least a bit of) sense, that'd be all to the good. Just my non-Subject opinion, - Evelyn
Oops. (I'd sort of thought that, but then I got confused.) But doesn't that support my point, that Harry's life is not *so* darned precious that it needs to be regarded as inexpendable, especially in comparison to that of John Q. Britishcitizen? (By the way, I am fully cognizant that my people are the ones who dragged all of us into this. Would I want to see Jenna and/or Barbara (The Younger) Bush serving in Iraq? - Hell, yes, in a New York (or perhaps even a London minute. (But would I want to see either one of them in charge of a tank brigade? - Only if it were Iraqi insurgents inside the tanks - Evelyn
I'm sure there's the son of a senator serving somewhere, why not royalty? After all, it's not like they do anything anymore...
Should Harry serve in Iraq? ...he's third in line for the throne... those that matters to, would likely say 'no'... ...if bush's twins signed up, do you think they should serve in iraq?
Nobody should be in Iraq - it's terrorizing. I can't even remember what we are fighting for, honestly.
We went to Afghanistan, and there we found out that Saddam might have wmd's. He didn't, but did everything he could to try and make it look like he did. Completely ambiguous... Can we NOT talk about Iraq? Frankly, all it will do is piss people off, something this forum has managed to avoid for quite some time.
this IS the 'lounge'... where supposedly anyone can talk about anything they want, as long as it's not over-the-top 'dirty'... you don't have to go to threads that you don't want to take part in, after all...
Sigh. Well, don't come whining to me when this erupts in flames. As for the Bush twins...No, they don't, well- they wouldn't do well in the military. Let's leave it at that. If he had some kids that could survive a week without a cell, I'd be all for it...
(at the risk of fulfilling Ferret's prophesy of doom...) Was there something we were supposed to be fighting for? You mean, like a purpose or something?* - Evelyn (*The above question is intended strictly rhetorically. If you attempt to explain it to me, I will dope-slap you
Dope slap on the internet? Sure. But why ask a rhetorical question when there's a completely logical answer? Sadam made it seem as if he had the weapons. He didn't, but for some strange reason he made it seem as if he did. You don't just ignore that. That'd be stupid. The American's are in a lose-lose situation anyway. They pull out, Iraq will fall to pieces. Literally. But the longer they stay, the more troops die, the more political heat all the politicians involved get.
I'm very curious to see what happens in the United States concerning the presidential election next year.
I do actually. Actually, the inspectors were in Iraq when we invaded. We didn't bother to go find out what the actual situation was before we invaded. They won't secede for the same reason that I didn't move to Canada when George Bush was re-elected. They like this country, no matter who is running it. People on both sides of the aisle are patriots. Besides, Hilary is a moderate liberal from the South. Texas isn't the most conservative state. Utah is.
I come right through your ISP... KTHLUP!!! You Dope! Don't do that!!! You mean there were Aussies who fell for that one, too? As opposed to the marvel of political cohesion and cross-interest-group cooperation that our presence is lending itself to now??? ...KTHLUP!!!
Andrew flew helicopters, he didn't strut around on the ground. Plus, Harry's red hair makes him pretty much a walking target.
Everyone fell for it. Even the weapons inspectors were saying the Iraqi's were hiding something. Saddam could have thrown the US off of its attack at least temporarily, by fully co-operating with the UN. Instead he stalled inspections, spread rumours, and prevented key scientists from being interviews. Now back to the original question. In every war that Royalty has fought in, they have been against conventional enemies. So a royal could be killed, but if they were captured, they would have been treated humanely, if for no other reason then propaganda. WW1 Germany, Argentina, etc, all played by the rules of war to a great extent. The insurgency in Iraq is different. They go out of their way to torture, kill and maim people purely for propaganda purposes. Insurgents on all sides have stated they will throw every resource they have into capturing Harry, with ideas of holding him hostage in return for key demands, to simply killing him. If Harry is captured, he's a dead man. And several thousand people will be devoting their lives to capturing him. This is a bad situation for Harry, and anyone close to him.
They decided he will go. He shouldn't be. The royal family doesn't bother me. Allowing terrorists a clean shot at getting our country does bother me. Stupid Military idiots. He's not really any different to anyone that dies out there. The point is that militant terrorists out there don't see it that way. They see it as a clean shot at our country. So he's third in line... he'll never get the throne.
Looking at i logically... The Queen Mother lived past 100. The Queen is looking rather spritley for almost 80. Charles isn't looking too bad. So they age rather well. Wills isn't gonna be sent off to anywhere. And when he has kids it Pushes Harry further back. The odds of Wills dropping dead tomorrow... slight.
Admitedly, but there is still the chance. Stranger things have happened with the British royal family.
