Silly Royals. Always coddling their young...

[towski]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/01/nharry01.xml


Prince Harry is to be sent to Iraq next year as a troop commander and is likely to patrol the hazardous border with Iran, defence sources have disclosed.

The third in line to the throne will join the Army's 1st Mechanised Brigade, which will be deployed to Basra in May 2007.

The prince has told colleagues that he is determined to go on operations and be treated as normally as possible - not kept out of the line of fire.

Defence chiefs, in consultation with the Prince of Wales's office, will have to devise a plan that will not put his life or those of his troops in any greater danger. Substantial planning will go into the deployment and the media is likely to be asked for co-operation on security aspects of the mission.

As a troop commander in the Blues and Royals, the prince will have the rank of cornet, equivalent to a second lieutenant, in charge of 11 men and four light tanks.

The reconnaissance formation will patrol the long border with Iran where weapons, insurgents, drugs and money are smuggled.

[The_Comedian]

Very brave of him to be willing to go to Iraq.

However, I don't know if I wanted to serve in the same unit if I was a regular soldier.

[towski]

Very brave of him to be willing to go to Iraq.

However, I don't know if I wanted to serve in the same unit if I was a regular soldier.

Why not?


Instructors at Sandhurst have been impressed by Prince Harry's approach. "He is going to be a real asset to the Army," a senior officer said. "It would be a real shame if the Palace or MoD did not allow him to go on operations because he is a cracking officer."

[Eddie]

Why not?

It would make for a rather substantial symbolic target..

[green lantern]

It would make for a rather substantial symbolic target.. the safest place to be would be in his group....

[Blueangel]

It would make for a rather substantial symbolic target..That's the main concern.

Harry's safety is obviously a big concern, but it would be unfair to subject his colleagues to increased risk because they happen to be serving with him.

His grandfather served in WWII. His uncle served in The Falklands, but this is a whole different ball game and we all know it.

Can you imagine if Bush's daughters joined the armed forces?

[bowerbird]

That's the main concern.

Harry's safety is obviously a big concern, but it would be unfair to subject his colleagues to increased risk because they happen to be serving with him.

His grandfather served in WWII. His uncle served in The Falklands, but this is a whole different ball game and we all know it.

Can you imagine if Bush's daughters joined the armed forces?

I think people forget how personally involved the Royal family have been in the military. And I just cannot imagine ANY of Bush's family serving in the military:sorry:

[Dangerrmouse]

The ginger one has always had a penchant for uniforms, he was the one who went to party dressed as a Nazi. I think Charles is to be commended for bringing him up like he was one of his own kids.

[muffins]

The ginger one has always had a penchant for uniforms, he was the one who went to party dressed as a Nazi. I think Charles is to be commended for bringing him up like he was one of his own kids.

I didn't realise you were into those kind of theories.

[Dangerrmouse]

Not in a major (cough) way.

[The_Comedian]

It would make for a rather substantial symbolic target..
Exactly.

And if they would start protecting him and his unit with special care and atttention, they probably couldn't fullfill their duties at all.

[Dutch]

So prince harry isn't charles'? Remarkable. Who was the name of the (cough) other guy?

[muffins]

Dangermouse already gave you a major (cough) clue http://www.jms101.btinternet.co.uk/full_sets/gold/circular_bold_std/grin2.gif

[Alvin T. Grey]

I'm not surprised really. And if he's anything like his uncle Andrew, there won't be any special treatment. I believe that his job at one time was 'Missile Decoy' and SAR.

[Carpe Pax]

Frontline Prince Harry is a potential disaster; I can't believe the army would even contemplate it! Imagine him being shot dead! Imagine him being kidnapped! Imagine pictures of a kidnapped prince harry delivering blackmail messages on behalf of his captors to the west.

It's just so stupid and dangerous for so many reasons that I can't imagine anybody letting him go out their, let alone politicians like Tony Blair and co who know what bad press they'd get from a dead royal.

And the biggest threat, of course, is him. He'd be high on drugs all the time and his Nazi uniform would confuse the Iraqi people too much.

[muffins]

Frontline Prince Harry is a potential disaster; I can't believe the army would even contemplate it! Imagine him being shot dead! Imagine him being kidnapped! Imagine pictures of a kidnapped prince harry delivering blackmail messages on behalf of his captors to the west.

Don't worry! He's the 'spare' prince so it doesn't matter too much if he gets shot 'cos we've got another. It's like prince Charles and Andrew at the time of the Falklands War - the spare went off to fight while the next in line to the throne stayed home to sip tea with mother http://www.jms101.btinternet.co.uk/full_sets/gold/circular_subtle_std/grin.gif

[ScummyD]

Harry's safety is obviously a big concern, but it would be unfair to subject his colleagues to increased risk because they happen to be serving with him.


Frontline Prince Harry is a potential disaster; I can't believe the army would even contemplate it! Imagine him being shot dead! Imagine him being kidnapped! Imagine pictures of a kidnapped prince harry delivering blackmail messages on behalf of his captors to the west.

It's just so stupid and dangerous for so many reasons that I can't imagine anybody letting him go out their
None of the criticisms against Harry's going to war have any weight. In fact, they are down right silly.

Look at the language. It is "unfair. . ." ". . .subject. . ." :crying: They are, oh the inhumanity, subjected. :lol:

The armed forces always have symbolic targets. It is unreasonable to argue that soldiers must not be exposed to the dangers of war under the idea that it is "unfair" that certain groups of soldiers are going to be greater targets for the enemy than others. It is a senseless argument. There will always be targets of greater emphasis and targets of less importance symbolic or otherwise.

By such unreasonable standards an entire battle field of soldiers could claim "unfair" treatement for being "subjected" to greater threats than other soldiers not in their position or on the front lines.

:thinking:

Others, paralyzed with fear, support removing elites from battle dreading the unknown inherent in the fight.

It is interesting to hear people oppose sending society's elites into battle at the same time hearing people whine that not enough family members of elites go to war, that it is always a poor man's fight while the rich sit in safety.