Should Prince Harry go to Basra?

[Simon Darkshade]

Not quite. Do you know the last British monarch to lead his men in battle?

 

[nc-1701]

Well recently the Monarchy has ben somewhat wimpy

But a real King/Queen/Prince/Princess who had balls, would leads his/her troops in battle.

 

[Evil Tyrant]

I don't approve of him being a tank commander. This is based on my own opinions on how a monarchy should work. A prince or monarch should be in command of an army, not a tank. All the princes should have been trained from birth as generals, and required to act as such when they become adults. There are plenty of commoners and minor nobility to go around shooting foreigners.

I am just an American, but in my opinion, if you are going to bother having a royalty, they should act like royalty, not like commoners. Royalty's purpose is to command their nation in war and peace. They should be raised to command their country in war and peace, and trained to do so correctly. To let them sit in their palaces, and have them lead tanks does nothing but waste their entire lives. This prince is more than just another tank commander, he is a symbol, which must be protected. To have him serve as a tank commander also endangers both him and his comrades, since the enemy will probably make an effort to specifically target him and his regiment.

 

[useless]

i agree he should go, and possibly be shot.

 

[Bugfatty300]

I don't approve of him being a tank commander. This is based on my own opinions on how a monarchy should work. A prince or monarch should be in command of an army, not a tank.

The UK is not a monarchy.

I am just an American, but in my opinion, if you are going to bother having a royalty, they should act like royalty, not like commoners.

If they want to "act" like royalty fine. But the government should not be giving special privileges to them.

Call me crazy but I would not want my commanding officers to be choosen because of who their rich family is.

 

[Adamb0mb]

Damn Bugfatty,

I was quite impassioned by Evil Tyrant's image of a warrior prince leading men into combat and you ruined it!

 

[Atlas14]

Only if he's armed with the Excalibur, otherwise he should serve in America's army.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Damn Bugfatty,

I was quite impassioned by Evil Tyrant's image of a warrior prince leading men into combat and you ruined it!

Death to the aristocrats!

 

[ParkCungHee]

I'm totally for blowing up British Royalty, So I am all for this.

 

[amadeus]

If he is treated like a regular soldier.

However, if other men have to risk their lives in order just to save this spoiled brat, then no.

 

[chinesefireball]

The UK is not a monarchy.

I was under the impression that they were a constitutional monarchy

 

[shortguy]

Not quite. Do you know the last British monarch to lead his men in battle?

That's an interesting question. Does anyone know the actual answer? William III, maybe?

 

[chinesefireball]

That's an interesting question. Does anyone know the actual answer? William III, maybe?

I think it was one of the Georges.....(I've read it in the last week in a horrible history book)

Anyway it was against the french, the king was about 60, he tried to lead the charge on his horse, but then his horse ran away. Later he reapeared without his horse

 

[Tee Kay]

Prince Harry joined the army. So naturally he should be doing the same thing as what his comrades are doing.

 

[JoeM]

There was a brilliant opinion piece from some Major General in the 'Standard last night, I'll see if I can find the full force of it.

If he dies, there's plenty more where he came from

There should be more of this high ranking military opinion in mainstream media.

I'm sick of people joining the Army and then complaining that there in a war zone, as though that wasn't somehow part of the deal.

You join the army, you sign your life away. Simple as that. If you get it back at the end of your term, then good for you. :yes:

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

That's silly, because he's simply not like any other soldier. It isn't a question of pampering him by keeping him out of real combat, it's a question of whether Harry serving would compromise the Royal Army's strength in the field.

Finally we get to the rub.

No one is suggesting that Harry is any better than another Solider. But you can't deny that to the enemy he is a bigger prize than your regular squaddie. To simply say "he should be treated like anyone else" without a second thought is naive. For the American's posting our concerns regarding Harry aren't borne out of some inbred love of Monarchy, it stems from wishing to protect those around him. If Harry is now a target for the insurgency, then so are those in his command.

Perhaps that doesn't matter. War is War and the increase risk is irrelevant. That may be so, but it doesn't mean that the British Army should be as foolish as to simply say "he's the same as anyone else" and make no further preparations.

Especially since they are the ones who will get it in the neck if he is captured / killed.

I don't approve of him being a tank commander. This is based on my own opinions on how a monarchy should work. A prince or monarch should be in command of an army, not a tank. All the princes should have been trained from birth as generals, and required to act as such when they become adults. There are plenty of commoners and minor nobility to go around shooting foreigners.

The idea of deciding which people lead our Army based on Bloodline rather than skill died in World War I with the several thousand men they cost us.

If he is treated like a regular soldier.

As much as you, or indeed he may want that, it's never going to happen is it?

However, if other men have to risk their lives in order just to save this spoiled brat, then no.

Soliders shouldn't risk their life to save their comrades? Is Harry's worth now worth less than anothers?

I'm sick of people joining the Army and then complaining that there in a war zone, as though that wasn't somehow part of the deal.

You join the army, you sign your life away. Simple as that.

When did Harry say he didn't want to be deployed to Iraq?

If you get it back at the end of your term, then good for you. :yes:

Gratitude exemplified

 

[JoeM]

Finally we get to the rub.

No one is suggesting that Harry is any better than another Solider. But you can't deny that to the enemy he is a bigger prize than your regular squaddie. To simply say "he should be treated like anyone else" without a second thought is naive. For the American's posting our concerns regarding Harry aren't borne out of some inbred love of Monarchy, it stems from wishing to protect those around him. If Harry is now a target for the insurgency, then so are those in his command.

I wish I could find this article. The good Major General had a response for that too...."Grow a moustache and no-one will recognise him.." !!! "...unless the papers print pictures of him with a moustache."

What a card!

When did Harry say he didn't want to be deployed to Iraq?

I did not say nor mean to imply that. I was talking about an issue not entirely removed from the thread.

But, to address your point, the Prince has been quite clear that he wishes to serve. I do not give him any undue credibility for saying this, as it should be taken for granted seeing as he signed up for it.

There are two clear sides to this issue. As a citizen it is quite clear. But as a Prince, I'm not so sure. In fact if a member of the royalty were to be killed in battle would there really be that much impact?

There is a simple solution, with which I'm sure you disagree; get rid of the monarchy. The reason there is a debate as to whether he should or shouldn't serve on the front line is because we all know he shouldn't be treated better than anyone else. It's true on the battle field and it's true in daily life.

We, British society in general (if I may be so bold) don't give credence to bloodlines anymore or inherited privilege.

 

[Mega Tsunami]

Of course he should go to Iraq – the decision was made a couple of years ago when he signed up and it cannot be reversed for many reasons.

But, to address your point, the Prince has been quite clear that he wishes to serve. I do not give him any undue credibility for saying this, as it should be taken for granted seeing as he signed up for it.

What is your point? He signed up after Iraq (and possibly Afghanistan) started knowing he would almost certainly be going to one or the other.

There are two clear sides to this issue. As a citizen it is quite clear. But as a Prince, I'm not so sure. In fact if a member of the royalty were to be killed in battle would there really be that much impact?

Of course there would be a huge impact. If his going out there is such big news at the moment, his death would have a big impact. And if he is captured it would be massive.
Where were you when Princess Diana died?

There is a simple solution, with which I'm sure you disagree; get rid of the monarchy. The reason there is a debate as to whether he should or shouldn't serve on the front line is because we all know he shouldn't be treated better than anyone else. It's true on the battle field and it's true in daily life.

We, British society in general (if I may be so bold) don't give credence to bloodlines anymore or inherited privilege.

If Euan Blair was going out we would be having exactly the same discussions.

Not that he would of course: he is too busy out in the States on special courses and work experience. And how did he get there? Why ‘bloodlines and inherited privileges’ of course.

 

[ComradeDavo]

That's silly, because he's simply not like any other soldier. It isn't a question of pampering him by keeping him out of real combat, it's a question of whether Harry serving would compromise the Royal Army's strength in the field.

He joined the army, he should get treated like he's in the army. Which means the same treatment as any other soldier. I don't care that he's in the monarchy, I want the monarchy abolished anyway.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

There are two clear sides to this issue. As a citizen it is quite clear. But as a Prince, I'm not so sure. In fact if a member of the royalty were to be killed in battle would there really be that much impact?.

It's a fair question. In so far as the British are concerned I think Harry's death would not doubt increase the Monarchy's popularity, it would only fill the newspaper pages until the next Beckham crisis.

It's not the British response that concerns me. To my mind killing a member of the Royal Family from the Great Shaitan* would be a great PR boost to those who oppose us. If we can't protect our own Royality, how can we ever hope to provide protection to the average Iraqi?

There is a simple solution, with which I'm sure you disagree; get rid of the monarchy. The reason there is a debate as to whether he should or shouldn't serve on the front line is because we all know he shouldn't be treated better than anyone else. It's true on the battle field and it's true in daily life.

As I said, it's not the fact that he's a Royal that concerns me. It's the fact that he is a high value target for the enemy. I'm only as concerned about sending him there as I would be David Beckham**.

We, British society in general (if I may be so bold) don't give credence to bloodlines anymore or inherited privilege.

We may not, but those in the region he is being placed, I believe, still do.


*That apply to the West in general or just the US?
**Although MT's analogy with Euen Blair is much better