RE: Prince Harry to not serve in Iraq

RE: Prince Harry to not serve in Iraq (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

domiguy -> RE: Prince Harry to not serve in Iraq (5/17/2007 4:35:35 PM)
If he really wanted to go he would go...End of story I think any troops that served with him woulf be honred to do so...I think it speaks volumes about the possibility of not wanting to watch the blood drain from those rosy nice cheeks of his over such a lost cause...If this were a noble war...One in which the outcome would have dire repercussions for the English or America....I bet you couldn't stop him with a thousand horses....This just sends one more reason for the "little guy" to stay the fuck out of this one cause there is nothing to be gained and your arms, eyes, legs and life are one heck of a payment over such a meaningless endeavour.

KenDckey -> RE: Prince Harry to not serve in Iraq (5/17/2007 4:51:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: UtopianRanger I disagree. The men who fought with South Carolina’s favorite son, ''Old Hickory'' never thought so. They stood in line to fight with him. And believe me no one had a target on their back like A. Jackson. I think he was thrust with saber seven times and nearly his whole family died as a result of the British Army….and still fought again again – And in what some historians would conclude as the origin of modern guerilla warfare. But hey….I’ve said time and time again; they don’t makem’ like they used to. So what about Pat Tillman or celebrities who fought in the Vietnam conflict? Are you trying to make the case that celebrity status whether they are the sons or daughters, of Kings, Queens, Presidents, and Politicians should not be allowed to enter the theatre because they might put the troops in harms way? Like I said, that’s a mighty convenient excuse for the likes of a war mongers in control to never have to worry about their families placed in harms way during a conflict. They should be subject to they same exposure as any normal person. Period. I am glad you disagree. That is the true meaning of debate. Celebrities for the most part are just that. Out for their 15 Minutes of Glory and take along with them most of ours. Generals become celebs because they are good and men do want to fight with them. And I think we might agree that untried, unproven, 2d LTs are pretty much a dime a dozen. Most of the time the celebs are offered positions in Recreation Services to help boost moral, not command combat troops. Some refuse (i.e. Elvis) and become a soldier just like anyone else. Some go on to be combat leaders. Some REMFs. However, the Royals, in my opinion hold special status beyond that of the normal celeb. That makes them a greater target. The greater the target, the greater chance of injuring and killing your troops - those that you are there to lead and protect. I am not saying he shouldn't go necessarily, but not necessarily in his current capacity. Liaison at HQ, Morale builder, something might be a better plan. Especially in an unconventional war. In a conventional war, I don't see the problem as being so great. In a conventional war, specific units are generally not targeted, area targets are more important. Just my 2 cents

Real0ne -> RE: Prince Harry to not serve in Iraq (5/17/2007 5:34:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slaverosebeauty I think it is in Harry's best interest and safetey not only for him but those who would be serving with him that he stays. He is an easily recognizable figure and the snippers and terrorists would LOVE to get their weapons on him or kidnap him and use him as a pon for thier evil exploits. I applaud Harry for wanting and desireing to serve with his troops, yet, in his heart, he knows that he would be exposing them to more danger if he went. Even though he could colour his hair and stay well 'guarded' it will still make him a target. The best thing he can do, is to pray for those he has commanded and work on bringing them home ASAP. come on its all just for show, its about as worthless as gw saying he would serve. lead up to then back down. i would only believe it if i seen it and we wont see it, not even in the back lines LOL they are losing support for the war over there just like here, and that has that icing appearance. nope dont buy it till i see it, and if i do not see then it was never real in the first place.

orfunboi -> RE: Prince Harry to not serve in Iraq (5/17/2007 5:42:08 PM)
i can understand their decision. He would definately be a juicy target and that would put his friends in danger. But i feel bad for him because i think he really wanted to be there and help fight.

minnetar -> RE: Prince Harry to not serve in Iraq (5/17/2007 6:26:31 PM)
i agree with you completely. Might as well have a big bullseye painted on him lol. It would be too much of a target and bring too much danger to his regiment. minnetar

dcnovice -> RE: Prince Harry to not serve in Iraq (5/17/2007 8:17:07 PM)
quote: i feel bad for him because i think he really wanted to be there and help fight. I do too. He must be the only person on Earth who actually wants to go to Iraq. Not getting to go, and knowing he's being criticized for it, has to be a downer. It also raises questions about his future in the army, since (I've read) just about everyone else has served in either Iraq or Afghanistan. All that said, I can see the argument that it's not fair to increase the risks for other soldiers just because Cornet Wales is their commander.

dcnovice -> RE: Prince Harry to not serve in Iraq (5/17/2007 8:19:00 PM)
quote: i am curious, did he get huge press that he was going and literally no press that he is not? The news sites I looked at, both British and American, all covered his not going.

minnetar -> RE: Prince Harry to not serve in Iraq (5/17/2007 8:37:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: domiguy If he really wanted to go he would go...End of story I think any troops that served with him woulf be honred to do so...I think it speaks volumes about the possibility of not wanting to watch the blood drain from those rosy nice cheeks of his over such a lost cause...If this were a noble war...One in which the outcome would have dire repercussions for the English or America....I bet you couldn't stop him with a thousand horses....This just sends one more reason for the "little guy" to stay the fuck out of this one cause there is nothing to be gained and your arms, eyes, legs and life are one heck of a payment over such a meaningless endeavour. That is bs. First of all why would he endanger others with his presence? Doesn't make any sense. He also should know what a target he would be. So he isn't suicidal and that is why he isnt going. minnetar

Real0ne -> RE: Prince Harry to not serve in Iraq (5/17/2007 10:05:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: minnetar quote: ORIGINAL: domiguy If he really wanted to go he would go...End of story I think any troops that served with him woulf be honred to do so...I think it speaks volumes about the possibility of not wanting to watch the blood drain from those rosy nice cheeks of his over such a lost cause...If this were a noble war...One in which the outcome would have dire repercussions for the English or America....I bet you couldn't stop him with a thousand horses....This just sends one more reason for the "little guy" to stay the fuck out of this one cause there is nothing to be gained and your arms, eyes, legs and life are one heck of a payment over such a meaningless endeavour. That is bs. First of all why would he endanger others with his presence? Doesn't make any sense. He also should know what a target he would be. So he isn't suicidal and that is why he isnt going. minnetar hey the whole freaking thing is bullshit imo. when ya got 1000 guys that look the same with no rank on their uniform the enemy will have to shoot them all LOL That and whats all this crap about endangering the soldiers?????? if people are worried about endangering the soldiers then get them the fuck out of there. come people get a grip LOL

Sinergy -> RE: Prince Harry to not serve in Iraq (5/17/2007 10:13:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave My 'orse my 'orse my kingdom for a 'orse. Far be it from me to send anyone into combat but if some who are eligible should go then ALL the eligible should go. He would probably have been kept in the background anyway. One law for the poor and another for the rich and all that. Wish more right wingers, like our President for example, agreed with the idea that all eligible should go. Sinergy

thompsonx -> RE: Prince Harry to not serve in Iraq (5/17/2007 11:37:16 PM)
Fast Response : From a tactical standpoint I would think that putting Harry into the field would be an excellent idea. The way to defeat your enemy is to close with him and kill him. If Harry & co. maintained a high profile they should draw fire and lots of it. This is called engaging the enemy. In the game of war you cannot win if you do not play. When I was in Viet Nam there was a group called the "zippo brigade". The NVA had put a bounty, dead or alive, on every member of the "zippo brigade". The "zippo brigade" was in country from 1965 to 1969 to my knowledge no one ever collected any of that bounty money. If you know you are the primary target then use that to your advantage....draw your enemy to you and crush him. thompson

UtopianRanger -> RE: Prince Harry to not serve in Iraq (5/17/2007 11:56:38 PM)
quote: However, the Royals, in my opinion hold special status beyond that of the normal celeb. That makes them a greater target. The greater the target, the greater chance of injuring and killing your troops - those that you are there to lead and protect. I am not saying he shouldn't go necessarily, but not necessarily in his current capacity. Liaison at HQ, Morale builder, something might be a better plan. Especially in an unconventional war. In a conventional war, I don't see the problem as being so great. In a conventional war, specific units are generally not targeted, area targets are more important. Just my 2 cents You miss the whole underlying point KenDckey. The day the children of the dilatants, dignitaries, presidents and kings start riding shotgun in Humvee's like the rest of us peasants, is day we will stop seeing these useless, stupid-ass wars like we have in Iraq--and possibly Iran next-- that seem to benefit just a minute bloc of the population. Furthermore.... I already gave you one great example of our Seventeenth President, Andrew Jackson, a warrior till death, who was undoubtedly the prime target of his time; yet he led the way in great battles knowing full well he and the men who served with him were hunted by the enemy. So tell me KenDickey..... What’s changed? Is it scary Muslims with goofy looking beards and long swords that cut people's heads off and make videos mouthing Allâhu akbar? - Certain bands of American Indians cut your scalp off while you were still alive, if they caught you. What's the fucking difference brother? Please tell me. - R

popeye1250 -> RE: Prince Harry to not serve in Iraq (5/18/2007 12:17:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: UtopianRanger quote: However, the Royals, in my opinion hold special status beyond that of the normal celeb. That makes them a greater target. The greater the target, the greater chance of injuring and killing your troops - those that you are there to lead and protect. I am not saying he shouldn't go necessarily, but not necessarily in his current capacity. Liaison at HQ, Morale builder, something might be a better plan. Especially in an unconventional war. In a conventional war, I don't see the problem as being so great. In a conventional war, specific units are generally not targeted, area targets are more important. Just my 2 cents You miss the whole underlying point KenDckey. The day the children of the dilatants, dignitaries, presidents and kings start riding shotgun in Humvee's like the rest of us peasants, is day we will stop seeing these useless, stupid-ass wars like we have in Iraq--and possibly Iran next-- that seem to benefit just a minute bloc of the population. Furthermore.... I already gave you one great example of our Seventeenth President, Andrew Jackson, a warrior till death, who was undoubtedly the prime target of his time; yet he led the way in great battles knowing full well he and the men who served with him were hunted by the enemy. So tell me KenDickey..... What’s changed? Is it scary Muslims with goofy looking beards and long swords that cut people's heads off and make videos mouthing Allâhu akbar? - Certain bands of American Indians cut your scalp off while you were still alive, if they caught you. What's the fucking difference brother? Please tell me. - R Ranger, true, General Custer had long blond hair that stuck out like a sore thumb!

seeksfemslave -> RE: Prince Harry to not serve in Iraq (5/18/2007 1:00:57 AM)
Look what happened to him lol With regard to 'Arry saying he really wants to go, well....he would say that wouldnt he ? Dont forget the other Royal , a theatrical type if you catch my drift, nothing wrong with that I say, anyway, this Royal quite recently joined the Marines, didnt like it, got himself out and received a fair bit of criticism as a result, from some quarters anyway. He got a job as Royal "gofor" working for Andrew Lloyd Webber, he's a bit of a Royal himself.. Then married Sophie as compensation Having to earn a living. So distasteful, whats the world coming to ? I will make a prediction, if 'Arry stays in the Harmy he will be promoted to high rank. Lay money on it !

asubmissiveheart -> RE: Prince Harry to not serve in Iraq (5/18/2007 4:17:13 AM)
I never thought for one day that Prince Harry was going to Iraq.

LadyEllen -> RE: Prince Harry to not serve in Iraq (5/18/2007 4:47:47 AM)
From what I recall of what was said on BBC's Newsnight programme last night, we have only around 7000 troops in Iraq at the moment, compared to the tens of thousands the US has. Of those 7000, I would guess that at most half will be actual combat troops out on the streets (H amongst them), with the rest being logistical, medical, catering and other support. In addition, our troops have handed over all but one province in the south now. This means that the insurgents would be looking for one person amongst only say, 3500, in a comparatively small area. Given the size of UK regiments, this would mean that those 3500 combat troops would come from say 3-5 regiments. As an insurgent, I'd quite fancy my chances of finding the target given a few weeks, let alone the months of the tour during which H's regiments will be there. My chances improve no end, in that its likely that only about 50% of that 3500 will be on the streets at one time, at the most, and one can bet that some media or another will pay highly for details about his tour and whereabouts and I will be able to read all about it when someone sells their story about him for thousands of pounds to some newspaper that has no interest for the security situation; media being a worldwide affair these days. Much has very rightly been said about the increased danger to H's unit, indeed to his whole regiment. But also to consider is the incalculably large propaganda coup it would be for the insurgents to kill or preferably capture him. The question then arises, in what is a new form of war, why hand one's enemy such a golden opportunity? It would be the same situation for AQ if OBL was to take part personally in open view. If he were foolish enough to do so and we killed or captured him, how would the reaction be from our side I wonder? Also to consider is the issue of community relations in the UK, which are not at their best between Muslims and the rest of us. Were H to go, and be killed or captured, then the dangers from public reaction could be disastrous. Not that many here are great monarchists, nor that anyone particularly loves H, but in terms of the perceived attack and insult to the whole nation, because like it or not, H is not like one of the many ordinary soldiers being killed every week out there. E

seeksfemslave -> RE: Prince Harry to not serve in Iraq (5/18/2007 5:05:30 AM)
quote: ladyE Were H to go, and be killed or captured, then the dangers from public reaction could be disastrous. Not that many here are great monarchists, nor that anyone particularly loves H, but in terms of the perceived attack and insult to the whole nation, because like it or not, H is not like one of the many ordinary soldiers being killed every week out there. I dont give two monkeys about Muslim /mainstream community relations. As for the distinction between 'orseless 'Arry and ordinary soldiers I dont like that either. 'Arry is just an average human being subjected to outmoded outdated superstition based ( divine Right) grovelling sychophancy especially from the career hangers on surrounding him. We should have followed the French and disposed of the lot of them. Les enfants de la patrie lets transport the Royals to somewhere in the middle of the Indian Ocean. byeeeeee

LadyEllen -> RE: Prince Harry to not serve in Iraq (5/18/2007 5:28:12 AM)
Seeks - you know, I agree, I dont really care what happens to Harry; its of no consequence to me personally. But I recall the reaction to his mother's death. Funny lot the British public - they bought the newspapers and magazines that pursued her relentlessly and loved to read up on her misdeeds and peccadilloes and gossiped about her endlessly. And then, when she was killed by we presume, the scumbags gathering all this crap about her, they were all on the streets weeping and gnashing..... There is only one good argument for H to go to Iraq as I see it, but there are at least three good arguments as to why he should not, all of which involve the risks to others - his unit, his nation's already low reputation and the safety and peace of our own streets. A race war is the last thing we need - especially considering who imports all the heroin into the country and is better armed and resourced. E

meatcleaver -> RE: Prince Harry to not serve in Iraq (5/18/2007 7:00:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: UtopianRanger quote: However, the Royals, in my opinion hold special status beyond that of the normal celeb. That makes them a greater target. The greater the target, the greater chance of injuring and killing your troops - those that you are there to lead and protect. I am not saying he shouldn't go necessarily, but not necessarily in his current capacity. Liaison at HQ, Morale builder, something might be a better plan. Especially in an unconventional war. In a conventional war, I don't see the problem as being so great. In a conventional war, specific units are generally not targeted, area targets are more important. Just my 2 cents You miss the whole underlying point KenDckey. The day the children of the dilatants, dignitaries, presidents and kings start riding shotgun in Humvee's like the rest of us peasants, is day we will stop seeing these useless, stupid-ass wars like we have in Iraq--and possibly Iran next-- that seem to benefit just a minute bloc of the population. You are right UR, those that start the wars should fight in them or at least their kin should. The last monarch to lead troops into battle was William III (William of Orange or know by the protestant Irish as Good King Billy) at the Battle of the Boyne in 1690. That was basically to secure his crown against the overthrown James II. However, it hasn't happened since because the monarch has no political power (though he only had power then through Parliament). The President of the US has political power and as the Commander in Chief of US forces it seems only right he should have some sort of military obligation like fight in the wars he starts. The British prime minister has the power to send British troops to war so it is more fitting the Prime Minister's son(s) go to war than Royalty's.

seeksfemslave -> RE: Prince Harry to not serve in Iraq (5/18/2007 7:06:05 AM)
I noticed that the gnashing of teeth and weeping and wailing of some of the public at lady Di's funeral etc was definately proportional to whether or not the weepers and wailers thought they were in view of a TV camera. Lady Di had big feet. Sorry, but its true !

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

3.100586E-02