PRINCE HARRY IN THE FORCES

Should Harry serve in Afghanistan ? The palace has announced that they feel the risk is too great and that he should not. What do you think ?

Thingywhatsit wrote:

Should Harry serve in Afghanistan ? The palace has announced that they feel the risk is too great and that he should not. What do you think ?

Yes. He is a member of the Armed Forces just like any other soldier or officer. Which was his choice.

Yes I think so too.

Andrew did, didn't he? In the Falklands?

drewboy wrote:

Thingywhatsit wrote:

Should Harry serve in Afghanistan ? The palace has announced that they feel the risk is too great and that he should not. What do you think ?

Yes. He is a member of the Armed Forces just like any other soldier or officer. Which was his choice.

Totally agree. I have even read interviews which say Harry feels the same; he wants to be out there and I dont blame him, what is the point of all his training otherwise!!

yes, He seems the type that wouldnt take a no anyways

I think there are a few other royals who should join him on the frontline as well.

The Queen with an assault rifle? Sounds great actually.

Almost on the fence again here with this one, cos I don't agree with our troops actually being out there. BUT he is in the forces so he should join wherever he is needed, regardless of the risk.

How about when british troops are sent into war, a member of each of every cabinet ministers family and five of the royal family are sent in with them, that might reduce the number of wars our peers get us involved in.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6663053.stm

So Harrys not allowed in Iraq. Personally I think it's the right decision. He would be headhunted by Al Queida and that would put his comrades in an unneccesary dangerous situation.

drewboy wrote:

Thingywhatsit wrote:

Should Harry serve in Afghanistan ? The palace has announced that they feel the risk is too great and that he should not. What do you think ?

Yes. He is a member of the Armed Forces just like any other soldier or officer. Which was his choice.

Total rubbish.. he's not an ordinary soldier he's a Prince and third in line to the throne!

If he could be treated as an ordinary soldiers by his fellow men and by the enemy then fair enough but of course he is going to be targeted and thus would be in greater danger and more importantly he would endager those around him. He shouldn't go and he should stop pretending he his ordinary in any way!

I don't think it was the palace that said 'no' to Harry going - it was the head of the armed forces. It's not about what Harry does or doesn't want - and it's not really about HIS safety. It's a matter of whether it's safe for the people around him for him to be there.
I was amazed they ever contemplated sending him to start with - princes don't need to play at war especially if they drag others into greater risk. To let him go would have been stupid.

And Iraq isn't the Falklands - there was never any stated intention by the Argentinians to target Andrew and identifying which helicopter was his would have been a lot more difficult than finding Harry.

Also, importantly, the Falklands 'Conflict' was a matter of the UK defending a sovereign territory against hostile attack - that's quite different from an aggressive invasion of another country.

The thing that gets me is that he joined the armed forces, trained to do the job and what is that going to lead to- nothing.

I agree that it would put others at danger around him, but shouldn't this of been thought of before letting him join and do the training?

I can see why the families of other people out there are so angry; it's ok for their sons and daughters to put their lives at risk but not Harry.

spoilt_little_brat wrote:

I can see why the families of other people out there are so angry; it's ok for their sons and daughters to put their lives at risk but not Harry.

Fair enough but how many of those families would really want any of their sons or daughters serving in the same outfit as Harry knowing they would be a greater risk of being killed...

koshkha wrote:

Also, importantly, the Falklands 'Conflict' was a matter of the UK defending a sovereign territory against hostile attack - that's quite different from an aggressive invasion of another country.

I don't think this makes any difference and besides the troops now aren't 'invading' Iraq they now have a political mandate both from the UN and from the elected government in Iraq. The people blowing up civilians in Iraq now are not insurgents or freedom fighters they are terrorists intent on keeping the situation as unstable as possible and they have no justification whatever in what they are doing since primarily they are being funded and armed by neighbouring countries like Iran and Syria.

Whatever your feelings about the war or about whether troops should stay or go by talking about at this stage the terrorists as repelling an invasion does tend to legitimise the atrocities and murders that they are carrying on the streets day after day.

It's not my intention to legitimise anything of the kind nor do I hold particularly strong views on Iraq. But there is a difference between defending your own territory and involvement in a conflict in an unconnected country. And I think those have an impact on the suitability of Andrew or Harry being involved.

Iraq's a bit like Israel/Palestine - neither side is keeping a clean sheet on activities and definitions of 'terrorist' are very debatable. We're not 'allowed' to call Palestinians terrorists when they suicide bomb Israeli restaurants - or to call the Israeli authorities terrorists when they bomb the strip but both sides are behaving apallingly.

Personally, I don't believe there is a place for the term 'terrorist' in a war situation - it's too much dependent on who's reporting the news.

I don't understand why it isn't used to the army's advantage.

They could easily just keep leaking various different places at the same time as a location for the prince while having him in a completely different one.

We are constantly told we have one of the best forces in the world so why can't they keep the location of the prince secret?

Oh, and I couldn't care less that he is 3rd in line to the throne.

drewboy wrote:

Oh, and I couldn't care less that he is 3rd in line to the throne.

Me neither

Must be a disappointment not to be able to follow in your father's footsteps - I'm referring of course to James Hewitt.

I'll now duck and run for cover. If Harry is Charles's son then my mother's Vera Lynn

koshkha wrote:

Must be a disappointment not to be able to follow in your father's footsteps - I'm referring of course to James Hewitt.

I'll now duck and run for cover. If Harry is Charles's son then my mother's Vera Lynn

You must stop reading the Daily Mail Barbara...ok, so what if he has red hair and his mother was having an affair with a serviceman at the time..

koshkha wrote:

Must be a disappointment not to be able to follow in your father's footsteps - I'm referring of course to James Hewitt.

I'll now duck and run for cover. If Harry is Charles's son then my mother's Vera Lynn

I have always thought that. He is the mans spitting image!

drewboy wrote:

koshkha wrote:

Must be a disappointment not to be able to follow in your father's footsteps - I'm referring of course to James Hewitt.

I'll now duck and run for cover. If Harry is Charles's son then my mother's Vera Lynn

I have always thought that. He is the mans spitting image!

Poor Harry

koshkha wrote:

Personally, I don't believe there is a place for the term 'terrorist' in a war situation - it's too much dependent on who's reporting the news.

I think if you plant a bomb in a crowded marketplace with the aim of killing as many civilians as possible in order to terrorise the population, you can be fairly be called a terrorist whatever way the news is reported! Or are you arguing that the people shopping at the market are legitimate targets in the war because they are trying to get on with their lives ratehr than simply accepting a state of anarchy.

There can be a fine line between a terrorist and a resistance movement freedom fighter but let's not lose sight of the fact that acts of senseless murder of innocent civilians simply in order to foster panic and fear ARE acts of terrorism...

A terrorist - 'A person who oppresses or forces by fear or violence' - Collins dictionary. Unfortunately they do exist in peace time and in war time.