Prince Harry will go to Iraq

minks · Post by **minks** » Mon Apr 30, 2007 2:55 pm

I wish him well and safety. I hope he does not become a target, nor be a distraction as his fellow military men who strive to protect him

Prince Harry will go to Iraq: army chief

Mon Apr 30, 1:27 PM

LONDON (AFP) - Prince Harry will deploy to Iraq, the head of the British army said Monday, after speculation that he may not go because of fears he could be targeted by insurgents.

But General Sir Richard Dannatt also said he could yet change his mind, if circumstances change.

"I have taken the decision as chief of general staff. It's my decision as chief of general staff. I have full command of everyone in the army, including Prince Harry," he said in a statement.

"The decision has been taken by myself that he (Harry) will deploy with his regiment in due course."

Dannatt said the decision had been taken after the "widest possible consultation."

"I will of course keep that decision continually under review and if circumstances are such that I change that decision, I will make a further statement," he told Sky News.

Speculation has been rife about Harry's deployment with the Blues and Royals regiment since the decision was announced in February. The regiment was expected to begin its six-month tour of duty in May.

British media have said the second lieutenant -- or Cornet Wales as he is known in the Blues and Royals -- could be pulled from the front line because of the threat of kidnap or death and his presence could put comrades in danger.

Any decision to pull him out is likely to infuriate the third-in-line to the throne, who has said there was "no way" he would train to become an officer, then sit around while his soldiers fought.

Harry, 22, is responsible for 11 soldiers and four Scimitar reconnaissance vehicles.

An unnamed Household Cavalry regiment source told the domestic Press Association news agency last week that Harry would resign if he is not allowed to go.

April has been one of the deadliest months for British forces in Iraq since the US-led invasion of March 2003. To date 12 lives have been lost, including a corporal doing Harry's armoured reconnaissance troop leader job.

Harry would become the first British royal to see active service since his uncle Prince Andrew flew helicopters in the 1982 Falklands War with Argentina.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Mon Apr 30, 2007 3:05 pm

minks;603655 wrote: I wish him well and safety.

Ditto.

minks;603655 wrote: (from a newspaper, perhaps) Any decision to pull him out is likely to infuriate the third-in-line to the throne, who has said there was "no way" he would train to become an officer, then sit around while his soldiers fought.

He's in the army, and has no business being infuriated by his orders. If he *is* infuriated by them, he could well have to answer to his mum.

There will have to be a campaign of mis-information. Any opposition in Iraq would give their eye teeth to be able to do him in. The meeja won't be a help, either. Perhaps the reporters could be employed as a "human shield". That'd sort 'em out!

minks · Post by **minks** » Mon Apr 30, 2007 3:09 pm

Bill Sikes;603659 wrote: Ditto.

He's in the army, and has no business being infuriated by his orders. If he *is* infuriated by them, he could well have to answer to his mum.

There will have to be a campaign of mis-information. Any opposition in Iraq would give their eye teeth to be able to do him in. The meeja won't be a help, either. Perhaps the reporters could be employed as a "human shield". That'd sort 'em out!

Brilliant plan.

It seems a frightening thing to deploy him from all angles but we can only hope for the best.

minks · Post by **minks** » Mon Apr 30, 2007 3:12 pm

AngelEyes82;603665 wrote: Wow- I wish him well.

Along with all the others fighting.

I second that

Chookie · Post by **Chookie** » Mon Apr 30, 2007 3:15 pm

I don't give a damn about him, or the rest of his parasitic family, but he will be seen as a target. That means that the soldiers under his command will also be targets. Targets in an illegal war.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Mon Apr 30, 2007 3:23 pm

minks;603662 wrote:

It seems a frightening thing to deploy him from all angles but we can only hope for the best.

Perhaps he's being employed as some sort of honeypot.

(edit: perhaps "deployed")

weinbeck · Post by **weinbeck** » Mon Apr 30, 2007 3:55 pm

Chookie;603671 wrote: I don't give a damn about him, or the rest of his parasitic family, but he will be seen as a target. That means that the soldiers under his command will also be targets. Targets in an illegal war.

Strong words and at last someone who has had the courage of their own conviction to come out and say it. What does he, Charles or anybody else mean to me? Exactly what I mean to them - sweet F A!

caesar777 · Post by **caesar777** » Tue May 01, 2007 7:20 am

And so he should go. If the ordinary soldier goes then why should he be spared?

We should send Blair and Bush's children too, then they'd think twice about wether or not ANYBODY should be there.

minks · Post by **minks** » Tue May 01, 2007 9:52 am

I wonder how many people are in jeopardy when he goes off to fight? Maybe not just soldiers?

You have to wonder don't you?

I mean what would happen if he was captured?

It appears to be a 2 headed coin kind of situation the more I think about it.

Sweet Tooth · Post by **Sweet Tooth** » Tue May 01, 2007 9:59 am

I think that some of you are being a little rude! I wish him and his soldiers well! I can understand his point of view because my husband was in a similar situation where they didn't want to send him to Iraq because I was having medical problems, and he understood, but he kind of wanted to go because his Marines looked up to him and some even stayed in just to get deployed with him, which I understand! And what does the military care about me? I'm a waste of money to them being a wife! Its a duty a man has- get over it!

SlipStream · Post by **SlipStream** » Wed May 02, 2007 3:48 am

I'd say he should go But he shouldn't get targeted for who he is.

jamiebocc · Post by **jamiebocc** » Thu May 03, 2007 1:55 pm

caesar777;604000 wrote: And so he should go. If the ordinary soldier goes then why should he be spared?

We should send Blair and Bush's children too, then they'd think twice about wether or not ANYBODY should be there.

The problem is he will create more danger for the people around him.

caesar777 · Post by **caesar777** » Sun May 06, 2007 4:11 am

jamiebocc;605804 wrote: The problem is he will create more danger for the people around him.

Then why join up in the first place if he won't serve alongside his comrades (or subjects)?

jamiebocc · Post by **jamiebocc** » Sun May 06, 2007 1:04 pm

caesar777;607564 wrote: Then why join up in the first place if he won't serve alongside his comrades (or subjects)?

He is willing to go but everyone around him will be in more danger. What made you think he wouldn't go. He has said if they don't send him he is going to quit.

caesar777 · Post by **caesar777** » Mon May 07, 2007 12:53 pm

jamiebocc;607756 wrote: He is willing to go but everyone around him will be in more danger. What made you think he wouldn't go. He has said if they don't send him he is going to quit.

If he poses a danger to his comrades then he shouldn't go.

If he shouldn't go then don't send him.

If he won't be sent then he shouldn't have joined up.

Send him to work as a road sweeper (or toilet cleaner) for minimum wage, I think that would suit him and his talents better.

Chookie · Post by **Chookie** » Mon May 07, 2007 1:04 pm

caesar777;608359 wrote: ...........I think that would suit him and his talents better.

Talents????

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Thu May 17, 2007 9:07 am

Well, he won't, actually.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... rry216.xml

The Statement by the Chief of the General Staff Sir Richard Dannatt includes:

"I have come to this final decision following a further and wide round of consultation, including a visit to Iraq by myself at the end of last week.

There have been a number of specific threats – some reported and some not reported - which relate directly to Prince Harry as an individual.

These threats expose not only him but also those around him to a degree of risk that I now deem unacceptable.

Now that I have decided that he will not be deploying with his Troop, the risks faced by his Battlegroup are no different to those faced by any other Battlegroup or other of our Servicemen in Iraq.

I have to add that a contributing factor to this increase in threat to Prince Harry has been the widespread knowledge and discussion of his deployment. "

SlipStream · Post by **SlipStream** » Thu May 17, 2007 9:14 am

perhaps it's 4 the best.. if only 2 prevent some of our guys being killed protecting him.

zinkyusa · Post by **zinkyusa** » Thu May 17, 2007 10:30 am

he will, he won't, he will, he won't WhoTF cares?

guppy · Post by **guppy** » Thu May 17, 2007 10:31 am

zinkyusa;615206 wrote: he will, he won't, he will, he won't WhoTF cares?

Prince Harry?:yh_bigsmi

weinbeck · Post by **weinbeck** » Thu May 17, 2007 11:54 am

zinkyusa;615206 wrote: he will, he won't, he will, he won't WhoTF cares?

I'm not in the least bit interested in any member of the Royal Family, but regarding Prince Harrry not going off to war, there must be people heaving one heck of a sigh of relief - not because of who he is, but because WHAT he is: an overgrown kid wet behind the ears who's led a pampered life with people queuing up to kiss his Jacksy. He's never had to work or fend for himself, and to cap it all is SUPPOSEDLY capable of taking command of a unit. It's not his fault, but our services need MEN - men who are in a position to command respect from their fellow soldiers, not somebody who looks and behaves like a seventeen year school kid. It's not a bloody game they're playing. You're talking about people's lives here, and quite frankly this boy is too immature both physically and mentally to be of use to any of the services. In short, HE'D BE A LIABILITY! I certainly wouldn't want him in my unit.

crazygal · Post by **crazygal** » Thu May 17, 2007 11:56 am

Yep, I was really glad to hear that he won't be going now.

zinkyusa · Post by **zinkyusa** » Thu May 17, 2007 12:01 pm

weinbeck;615286 wrote: I'm not in the least bit interested in any member of the Royal Family, but regarding Prince Harrry not going off to war, there must be people heaving one heck of a sigh of relief - not because of who he is, but because WHAT he is: an overgrown kid wet behind the ears who's led a pampered life with people queuing up to kiss his Jacksy. He's never had to work or fend for himself, and to cap it all is SUPPOSEDLY capable of taking command of a unit. It's not his fault, but our services need MEN - men who are in a position to command respect from their fellow soldiers, not somebody who looks and behaves like a seventeen year school kid. It's not a bloody game they're playing. You're talking about people's lives here, and quite frankly this boy is too immature both physically and mentally to be of use to any of the services. In short, HE'D BE A LIABILITY! I certainly wouldn't want him in my unit.

good points..

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Thu May 17, 2007 12:35 pm

weinbeck;615286 wrote: It's not his fault, but our services need MEN - men who are in a position to command respect from their fellow soldiers, not somebody who looks and behaves like a seventeen year school kid. It's not a bloody game they're playing. You're talking about people's lives here, and quite frankly this boy is too immature both physically and mentally to be of use to any of the services. In short, HE'D BE A LIABILITY! I certainly wouldn't want him in my unit.

You look like a bit of a prick to me. Some of the soldiers who have been killed in Iraq have been about "seventeen year old school kids". A number of 18 year olds have been killed, and that's just us Brits, not even including the Yanks! I would take a bet that someone younger has been killed, too - ISTR someone of 17. So don't talk wank. PH is, at age 22, nearly 23, a 2nd lieutenant, which is quite normal for his age.

Chookie · Post by **Chookie** » Thu May 17, 2007 12:46 pm

He'll probably send his valet.

He is not, and cannot be "normal" while there are people in this world who have some idiotic attachment to Royalty. Face it, if someone is "Royal" this only means that their ancestors were exceptionally gifted theives and murderers.

beautyful · Post by **beautyful** » Fri May 18, 2007 1:18 pm

Chookie;615339 wrote: He'll probably send his valet.

He is not, and cannot be "normal" while there are people in this world who have some idiotic attachment to Royalty. Face it, if someone is "Royal" this only means that their ancestors were exceptionally gifted theives and murderers.

I think you underestimate how prepared Harry was to go to war, he wanted to do his duty just like any other young man in the British army.

I, for one, believe that the royal family is an important symbol for our nation, obviously not a unifying symbol

Therefore i guess i would be one of those people with the 'idiotic' attachment to royalty that you refer to...

weinbeck · Post by **weinbeck** » Fri May 18, 2007 2:13 pm

Bill Sikes;615325 wrote: You look like a bit of a prick to me. Some of the soldiers who have been killed in Iraq have been about "seventeen year old school kids". A number of 18 year olds have been killed, and that's just us Brits, not even including the Yanks! I would take a bet that someone younger has been killed, too - ISTR someone of 17. So don't talk wank. PH is, at age 22, nearly 23, a 2nd lieutenant, which is quite normal for his age.

We all know how old he is - what I'm talking about is his maturity. He may well be a 2nd lieutenant. For all I care he could even be a commision rank officer with a string of medals to his credit. But the fact is he LOOKS immature. I agree, many of them are youngsters, but they mature very quickly. I saw the troops returning from the Faulklands, and you could tell they were hard-boiled - no smiles from any of them. He may have had the training, but he certainly hasn't got the experience. Give me a real soldier any day.

Chookie · Post by **Chookie** » Fri May 18, 2007 2:29 pm

beautyful;616233 wrote: I, for one, believe that the royal family is an important symbol for our nation, obviously not a unifying symbol

You've got my interest here, what nation are you referring to?

I'm not being nasty here, I really want to know.

beautyful · Post by **beautyful** » Fri May 18, 2007 2:39 pm

Chookie;616284 wrote: You've got my interest here, what nation are you referring to?

I'm not being nasty here, I really want to know.

The nation of which she is head...the united kingdom, i realise she may hold no significance to some people but to me she does and i would prefer if you didn't refer to me as idiotic

Chookie · Post by **Chookie** » Fri May 18, 2007 2:45 pm

beautyful;616296 wrote: The nation of which she is head...the united kingdom, i realise she may hold no significance to some people but to me she does and i would prefer if you didn't refer to me as idiotic

the united kingdom is not a nation, nor is it a nation state.

i would prefer if you didn't refer to me as idiotic - I did not refer to you personally being idiotic, but if you choose to see it that way, I cannot prevent you. What I said was "there are people in this world who have some idiotic attachment to Royalty"

beautyful · Post by **beautyful** » Fri May 18, 2007 2:50 pm

Chookie;616305 wrote:

the united kingdom is not a nation, nor is it a nation state.

i would prefer if you didn't refer to me as idiotic - I did not refer to you personally being idiotic, but if you choose to see it that way, I cannot prevent you. What I said was "there are people in this world who have some idiotic attachment to Royalty"

this entirely depends on personal interpretation here and i don't think either of us is intending to offend. you have your opinions, i have mine

I realise that the queen finds lessening favour with her subjects but are those of us who believe that the idea of a royal family is not only important to our heritage but also to our future.

maybe in my original post i used nation in a loose sense to make a point and shouldn't have but i still think that the queen is an important symbol for this 'land' if you would prefer such a term

weinbeck · Post by **weinbeck** » Fri May 18, 2007 2:50 pm

beautyful;616233 wrote: I think you underestimate how prepared Harry was to go to war, he wanted to do his duty just like any other young man in the British army.

I, for one, believe that the royal family is an important symbol for our nation, obviously not a unifying symbol

Therefore i guess i would be one of those people with the 'idiotic' attachment to royalty that you refer to...

If Charles has an IQ of 40 and spends half his time talking to his plants, he will still become king - I WON'T! That's the difference between my symbolism and theirs - why should my daughter have to curtsey to their daughter. When it boils down to it the entire "firm" are just a group of normal, but obscenely privilidged, individuals who, as a tax payer and resident of this country, I will be forced to support for the rest of my working life. I care as much about them, as they do about me. Oh yes - they're very good at opening hospitals and centres, but then, so is your average film celebrity.

beautyful · Post by **beautyful** » Fri May 18, 2007 2:56 pm

weinbeck;616314 wrote: If Charles has an IQ of 40 and spends half his time talking to his plants, he will still become king - I WON'T! That's the difference between my symbolism and theirs - why should my daughter have to curtsey to their daughter. When it boils down to it the entire "firm" are just a group of normal, but obscenely privilidged, individuals who, as a tax payer and resident of this country, I will be forced to support for the rest of my working life. I care as much about them, as they do about me. Oh yes - they're very good at opening hospitals and centres, but then, so is your average film celebrity.

Like i said before you are entitled to your opinions as much as I am to mine.

This is a little off track as well....this is a thread on whether prince harry should go to Iraq or not....not about people's opinions on the monarchy, sure there is another thread around here about that

to throw something else into the pot....i think the media has a lot to answer for in this case, prince harry should go and do his duty for his country fighting like many other young men have, if the media were so free and easy with information, he might be able to go do this without as much threat to his life and the lives of others

zinkyusa · Post by **zinkyusa** » Fri May 18, 2007 2:58 pm

beautyful;616323 wrote: Like i said before you are entitled to your opinions as much as I am to mine.

This is a little off track as well....this is a thread on whether prince harry should go to Iraq or not....not about people's opinions on the monarchy, sure there is another thread around here about that

to throw something else into the pot....i think the media has a lot to answer for in this case, prince harry should go and do his duty for his country fighting like many other young men have, if the media were so free and easy with information, he might be able to go do this without as much threat to his life and the lives of others

I imagine he will quite a tempting target. Wouldn't that put the lives of his comrades in more danger?

beautyful · Post by **beautyful** » Fri May 18, 2007 3:01 pm

zinkyusa;616326 wrote: I imagine he will quite a tempting target. Wouldn't that put the lives of his comrades in more danger?

of course there is that but how are they to know who is who? he doesn't wear a crown or a large sign around his neck :wah:

if he and his troop were posted to a secret location...emphasis on the secret then there would be less chance of them even knowing where he was

zinkyusa · Post by **zinkyusa** » Fri May 18, 2007 3:04 pm

beautyful;616333 wrote: of course there is that but how are they to know who is who? he doesn't wear a crown or a large sign around his neck :wah:

if he and his troop were posted to a secret location...emphasis on the secret then there would be less chance of them even knowing where he was

hmmmm, if they can escape the media, you know they will look..

Chookie · Post by **Chookie** » Fri May 18, 2007 3:05 pm

zinkyusa;616326 wrote: I imagine he will quite a tempting target. Wouldn't that put the lives of his comrades in more danger?

It most certainly would.

Now let me just declare my interest in this matter. I am, as most of you have probably deduced, A Scot. I am also a nationalist, a socialist and a republican. I have no use whatsoever for any monarchy, but 2nd Lt Harry would put his soldiers (and bodygaurds) at even more risk than the normal squaddie faces.

beautyful · Post by **beautyful** » Fri May 18, 2007 3:07 pm

Chookie;616342 wrote: It most certainly would.

Now let me just declare my interest in this matter. I am, as most of you have probably deduced, A Scot. I am also a nationalist, a socialist and a republican. I have no use whatsoever for any monarchy, but 2nd Lt Harry would put his soldiers (and bodygaurds) at even more risk than the normal squaddie faces.

But hopefully not a national socialist :p

there were some parents of soldiers killed out in Iraq on the radio earlier and they were outraged that Harry wouldn't be going out there to do what their children had to do, strong feeling is if we send some, why not send all?

Chookie · Post by **Chookie** » Fri May 18, 2007 3:12 pm

beautyful;616347 wrote: ............they were outraged that Harry wouldn't be going out there to do what their children had to do, strong feeling is if we send some, why not send all?

That I could agree with if not for the fact that he, and thus his squaddies, would be the ideal target for some nutter on the "other" side.

Let's not forget, the Iraq farce was not planned for the purpose of removing Saddam Hussein, it was all about oil.

beautyful · Post by **beautyful** » Fri May 18, 2007 3:16 pm

prince harry should be treated no differently than his counterparts, that is for sure

if i am not wrong did his uncle not fight in the falklands conflict? was there all this debate at that time... i think not, he went to do his duty!

:-5 :-5

Chookie · Post by **Chookie** » Fri May 18, 2007 3:25 pm

Monarchy has damn all to do with politics.

You said "That seems right to me, if we look at it from a leadership perspective ya'll want a guy in politics thats weak and wimpy or battle proven and fearless?"

In that case how do you explain George Walker Bush?

Mia · Post by **Mia** » Fri May 18, 2007 3:26 pm

My son is in the forces and over there.All I can say is thank goodness Harry did not go.He has no experience at all about leadership in a war situation,apart from the obvious that being who he is would put them in danger anyway.

Apart from that,we are fighting a futile war that can never be resolved by violence and should never have started in the first place. Ireland should have been a lesson for us and Vietnam a lesson for America.Our boys should come home,we are not helping anyone over there,