interesting situation actually... my intial thoughts where.. yes he should do his bit, its what he signed up for..

 

but... now im not so sure. not for his safety, but of those out there with him. his presence might just put others at greater risk of being attacked..

 

over to you!

I think he should tbh, if getting bombed in WWII was the then royal family's way of being able to 'look the East End in the face', Harry's presence will give them experience of what it is like for all the other families with relatives in action. And, in the event that he is killed, hopefully his death wouldn't be in vain and it might actually trigger the government into doing something about this, like withdrawing our troops...<_<

interesting situation actually... my intial thoughts where.. yes he should do his bit, its what he signed up for..

 

but... now im not so sure. not for his safety, but of those out there with him. his presence might just put others at greater risk of being attacked..

 

over to you!

 

It should be his personal choice, William is different as he is heir to the throne but Harry will never be king so if he wants to fight on the front line then he should, he knows the risks, his father served on the front line in Desert Storm so yeah up to him

 

As for your second point about the greater risk war is risky business anyways and no one should join the army unless they are prepared to die for their country

Edited April 26, 200718 yr by Vic Vega

It should be his personal choice, William is different as he is heir to the throne but Harry will never be king so if he wants to fight on the front line then he should, he knows the risks, his father served on the front line in Desert Storm so yeah up to him

There is a chance that he will be king, King George VI never expected to be king, as well as a few others, but sudden deaths or abdications could lead to that...although I do agree that it is less risky putting him on the front line than William

Prince Andrew was a helicopter pilot in the Falklands war too, flew several sorties on the front line, I would class Andrew about the same level of Harry tbh, brother of the heir to the throne

Edited April 26, 200718 yr by Vic Vega

I'm not so sure. Not because he's a 'royal' but because I have the hunch every terrorist in the area will be converging on the British Sector to take potshots at any British Serviceman in the hope they 'hit the jackpot'. UK servicemen are in enough danger as it is. <_<

 

Of course they could always announce he isn't going and then send him anyway. Without any publicity. ( Just need to employ a lookalike to stagger out of a few London clubs at 4am.)

I'm not so sure. Not because he's a 'royal' but because I have the hunch every terrorist in the area will be converging on the British Sector to take potshots at any British Serviceman in the hope they 'hit the jackpot'. UK servicemen are in enough danger as it is. <_<

 

Of course they could always announce he isn't going and then send him anyway. Without any publicity. ( Just need to employ a lookalike to stagger out of a few London clubs at 4am.)

 

Can see where you are coming from but I still think Harry's wishes should be respected, he could have gone into banking or insurance or anything but he decided he wanted to join the army and fight for his country so if he wants to go he should be allowed to go IMHO

 

No one made Prince Andrew take a role behind a desk in the Falklands war he was given permission to command a helicopter as that was his wish and I think Harry's wishes should be respected, it is far easier to bring down a helicopter than blow up an armour plated patrol vehicle

 

He should be allowed to serve in the front line, if he chose to join the armed forces then he should have to, if you sign up, what do you expect, cleaning the streets of London? Help old women across the road?

 

As said earlier, Prince Andrew served in the Falklands, so why shouldn't Harry serve in Iraq (Or is it Afghanistan)? It is so unlikely with the amount of medicine that is available now that someone is going to die suddenly, Harry won't be king, ever. There is a small chance he might get captured, its not like they're going to recognise him and go "Oh, Prince Harry!" is it? Its not like they are going to know what regiment he is in and where he is serving, thats confidential information. Anyway, these insurgents are hardly the sharpest tools in the box are they!!

 

And if he did die in Iraq, he shouldn't be treated any different to "Private Smith" who also died.

Sorry I do not agree with the majority of comments here, firstly THIS is a different type of war to the Falklands, World War 1 and 2 and every other god damed war inbetween. There is no code of honour with these insurgents.

 

Prince Harry should NOT go to Iraq, he would be head hunted and targeted or possibly kidnapped to parade on TV to humilate our Country and our Forces plus suffer the unimaginable, that I cannot put words too, more risk than any other rank and file soldier sadly has to face daily in their duties and that is bad enough.

 

I realise others take the risk every day, and I can understand comments that he should do what he went into the Army to do, but the price is too high, to him, to his unit and to this Country and to say anything different is unbelievable and uniformed.

 

Why the hell are we in Iraq in the first place anyway..just one big disaster from the out set, all for the sake of glory seeking and US interest in Oil. I think the two "B"'s (Bush and Blair) legacy will be tarnish as a result of this fiasco.

 

There should be no further life lost as a result of this tragedy. I would pull our forces out tomorrow and have done with it.

 

Sorry if I come over strong in my opinion, I do feel strongly about it, very much so and for my own particular reasons.

 

If I come across angry its because I am, and reading some of your thoughts has made me even more so. Unbelievable.

Edited April 26, 200718 yr by Susie

I realise others take the risk every day, and I can understand comments that he should do what he went into the Army to do, but the price is too high, to him, to his unit and to this Country and to say anything different is unbelievable and uniformed.

 

Why the hell are we in Iraq in the first place anyway.. just one big disaster from the out set, all for the sake of glory seeking and US interest in Oil. I think the two "B"'s (Bush and Blair) legacy will be tarnish as a result of this fiasco.

 

There should be no further life lost as a result of this tragedy. I would pull our forces out tomorrow and have done with it.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

 

If Iraq had chemical weapons, you'd be supporting the war I guess? Of course, they didn't, but oh lets walk out now shall we...? So you're saying the 100's of British troops have died for nothing? Just to walk out now with a half job done? Leave a country with a huge civil war, killing thousands of people each year? I know you'll say "It's nothing to do with us" but, we caused it, we should solve it.

I didn't need hindsight from the day dot, I can't believe that the idiots were misled by their own intelligence, and no I wouldn't have felt any different if what they went in for was found.

 

If I thought for one minute that we could solve the problems we have created I would agree with you, but never in a million years will it be solved, we have just made it worse.

 

This is a war that cannot be won as it's being proved now even though the hand over has began to Iraqs own Security Forces, and sadly YES our troops in my opinion are dying for what.

Edited April 26, 200718 yr by Susie

I didn't need hindsight from the day dot, I can't believe that the idiots were misled by their own intelligence, and no I wouldn't have felt any different if what they went in for was found.

 

If I thought for one minute that we could solve the problems we have created I would agree with you, but never in a million years will it be solved, we have just made it worse.

 

This is a war that cannot be won as it's being proved now even though the hand over has began to Iraqs own Security Forces, and sadly YES our troops are dying for nothing.

So you wouldn't have gone in if they had nuclear weapons? I suppose you're right, I doubt we'd have been a target as the UK.

 

Although, I can see what you're saying with the troops dying for nothing thing, what would you regard as nothing? The troops that died in the trenches died for nothing! Britain got no gain outta WWI. Similar to what they have now.

 

There will be an end, I don't recall of any "guerrilla" war going on for hundreds of years. They will concede to diplomacy eventually, or they will all die out.

So you wouldn't have gone in if they had nuclear weapons? I suppose you're right, I doubt we'd have been a target as the UK.

 

Although, I can see what you're saying with the troops dying for nothing thing, what would you regard as nothing? The troops that died in the trenches died for nothing! Britain got no gain outta WWI. Similar to what they have now.

 

There will be an end, I don't recall of any "guerrilla" war going on for hundreds of years. They will concede to diplomacy eventually, or they will all die out.

 

Nobody should gain out of wars regardless of the reasons why they came about, but this war is a different kind of war, the internet has moved the goal posts, the surveilance and the motivation it affords so readily and easily is downright a weapon in its own right.

 

I cannot see diplomacy winning and I really wish it could. Thank you for talking to me.

Edited April 26, 200718 yr by Susie

Nobody should gain out of wars regardless of the reasons why they came about, but this war is a different kind of war, the internet has moved the goal posts, the surveilance and the motivation it affords so readily and easily is downright a weapon in its own right.

 

I cannot see diplomacy winning and I really wish it could.

So why do we go to war then? Most wars are for someone to gain something, I know you are taking the moral highground by saying "no-one should" but in the past, present and future, someone will gain from a war, regardless if they want to.

 

 

Prince Harry... should he fight?

 

No, no, no, he should not be allowed to go to Iraq. This war is not about fighting in defence of our country. We should never have been there in the first place as there was NO chemical weapons. America went to war to protect their oil business, now our brave lads are dying over a misjudgement from our British Government.

 

This war created by Bush and helped by Blair is a Terrorist dream today. It is where our soldiers face insurgents, beheadings, torture and parading kidnapped soldiers on website all around the Arab nations and around the world and what a propagander triumph that would be for the terrorist.

 

If they caught Prince Harry it would be a disaster for the UK nation, for the Government and for the Armed Forces. This is not like any war of the past, the internet has changed that. This is ruthless insurgents who will target him higher than any other soldier and in the process put more of our troops at risk, especially those under Prince Harry's command.

 

Prince Harry should not go and the British Armed Forces should pull out NOW and bring our brave lads home and then we can try and help those terribly injured soldiers that never get a mention when they come home and have to live with no limbs and truama for the rest of their lives and of course we will always remember the young soldiers, who once had everything to live for that have paid the ultimate sacrifice, for what? Bush?

Edited April 26, 200718 yr by Jackie

Prince Harry... should he fight?

 

No, no, no, he should not be allowed to go to Iraq. This war is not about fighting in defence of our country. We should never have been there in the first place as there was NO chemical weapons. America went to war to protect their oil business, now our brave lads are dying over a misjudgement from our British Government.

 

This war created by Bush and helped by Blair is a Terrorist dream today. It is where our soldiers face insurgents, beheadings, torture and parading kidnapped soldiers on website all around the Arab nations and around the world and what a propagander triumph that would be for the terrorist.

 

If they caught Prince Harry it would be a disaster for the UK nation, for the Government and for the Armed Forces. This is not like any war of the past, the internet has changed that. This is ruthless insurgents who will target him higher than any other soldier and in the process put more of our troops at risk, especially those under Prince Harry's command.

 

Prince Harry should not go and the British Armed Forces should pull out NOW and bring our brave lads home and then we can try and help those terribly injured soldiers that never get a mention when they come home and have to live with no limbs and truama for the rest of their lives and of course we will always remember the young soldiers, who once had everything to live for that have paid the ultimate sacrifice, for what? Bush?

 

I cannot add anything to this excellent post.

 

Should Prince Harry go out there...? Well, of course not, but then NONE of our soldiers should be out there, should they...? But seeing as how they are, then Harry has to take his chances with the rest of them, simple as.... So, what are we saying here, that somehow his life is more important than any other soldier risking his or her life..? Bollocks it is... And he himself does not see it like that either.... As much as I hate the royals, at least he's got the balls to stand or fall with the rest of his platoon and does not appear to seek special treatment, so he gets my respect for that... If he comes home, then the rest should come home with him, simple as that....

He should if everyone else has too.

well hes reportedly said that hed quit the army if he wasnt allowed to go

 

(dont forget it isnt him saying he shouldnt, he wants too)

 

good point about the chemical weapons.... if they WERE found, who would be supporting the war?.. i would! (ok forget the lies that were told in order to justify it.... and the lies that are still coming out... that rescued woman for instance who says that the armys version of her ordeal was not the truth, they fabricated her story for positive propaganda).

Well if I'd have been online when we did go to invade Iraq, then I would have said the same thing that I'm saying now.

 

Iraq is just a busted flush, it's economy is in a very bad way thanks to sanctions post the invasion of Kuwait in 1991. Saddam Hussein is all talk talk & no substance, if there is/was a destabilising country of evil within the middle East then that is surely Iran.

 

The invasion of Iraq has got bugger all do with WMD's (now known as Whoppers of Mass Deception), but the ego of an imbecile of a President of the USA, who is trying to finish of his father's unfinished business like a Clint Eastwood/Sly Stallone/Chuck Norris movie.

 

Now seeing as Iran is actively trying to become a Nuclear nation, I think I've been proven correct as my family & friends of mine would back me up!