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).

 

Regardless of whether WMDs were found or not, I would still not have supported the war, period... I dont think it's up to the West to act as some kind of moral judge and jury or as some kind of Global police force, we dont have the right, full stop.. It's not as if the US's actions, or motives have ever been exactly pure - Vietnam, Grenada, supplying WMDs to Israel (the ONLY reason that Iran wants to develop their own by the way is because Israel has them, the US/Israel has created the Nuclear arms race in the ME. If I was an Iranian I would want us to have a nuke, even if I hated my Govt, simply because a hostile nation has them targeted at my country....), Panama, the covert wars and right wing coups the CIA initiated in Central and South America in the 80s, support of murdering b/astards like Pinochet.... The list goes on really.... And the Brits have happily just gone along with all this bullsh!t, oh and of course there is the small matter of our involvement in a terrorist attack on Libya in the 1980s which resulted in a retaliatory strike upon the small Scottish town of Lockerbie.... <_< <_< Now of course it's all great mates with Gaddaffi, whereas before it was he that was the 'bogeyman'...

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!

 

You're pretty much correct in that assessment TiP... But I dont support a war against Iran, and frankly I dont care if they want to develop Nukes or not, we dont even know for 100% sure that's even what they're gonna do anyway.... What they are actually doing is enriching uranium, well......you kinda have to do that in order to develop nuclear power... I reckon the only reasons that Iran might want a nuke is firstly because the Israelis have them and are likely pointing them directly at Tehran (reason enough if you ask me, Thatcher used the fact that Moscow was pointing nukes at US as a justification for having Cruise missiles, so if it's sauce for the goose, it's sauce for the gander if you get my drift...) and secondly to prevent a possible US/UK invasion (again, a very strong justification I feel, given the fact that US/UK has already embarked on one illegal war in the region on a country that did NOT have WMDs...), so by their logic if they did have a nuke, it would prevent an invasion taking place and would force US/UK to the negotiating table.. The facts are, we have never understood the Arab mind-set and have always fukked them over in all our dealings with them... So, frankly, I cant in my heart really blame them for hating our guts, we have never played fair with the Arabs, and this goes back to the days of "Lawrence of Arabia" and the Europeans (mainly UK and France) carving up of the region in the 1920s, right on through the Suez crisis, then the ongoing Palestinian problem, and now Iraq.... A catalogue of shameful catastrophe that has wrought nothing but misery upon the Arab people.... They've had almost 90 years of bullsh!t heaped on them by the West and 60 years of bullsh!t from the fukkin' Israelis, and we p!ss and moan about 9/11 and the London bombings, as if British and American lives are somehow more important than Arab ones....

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!!

A heart attack counts as a pretty sudden death wouldn't you think? Not exactly an uncommon death, there's a chance it could happen, it's not likely he'll become king but there's still the chance. Also, you're wrong on the 'small chance' of capture, insurgents are apparently getting ready to target him - if he was captured, he'd go the same way as any soldier that is captured - he'd be KILLED :rolleyes: And you're wrong on the regiment/serving 'confidential info', a simple internet search reveals he's in the Blues & Royals, patrolling the Iran/Iraq border with Scimitar tanks - not exactly the easiest of people to get hold of but there's a big chance he will, and Scimitar tanks were involved in the most recent British death, so if he is found ad bombed he doesn't have much protection.

 

And you SEVERELY underestimate the insurgency if you believe them to be stupid -_- They will know who Prince Harry is.

A heart attack counts as a pretty sudden death wouldn't you think? Not exactly an uncommon death, there's a chance it could happen, it's not likely he'll become king but there's still the chance. Also, you're wrong on the 'small chance' of capture, insurgents are apparently getting ready to target him - if he was captured, he'd go the same way as any soldier that is captured - he'd be KILLED :rolleyes: And you're wrong on the regiment/serving 'confidential info', a simple internet search reveals he's in the Blues & Royals, patrolling the Iran/Iraq border with Scimitar tanks - not exactly the easiest of people to get hold of but there's a big chance he will, and Scimitar tanks were involved in the most recent British death, so if he is found ad bombed he doesn't have much protection.

 

And you SEVERELY underestimate the insurgency if you believe them to be stupid -_- They will know who Prince Harry is.

 

To quote Dolph Lundgren in Rocky 4 - "if he dies he dies"

 

Harry is to me just another soldier, when he is in uniform his life is no more valuable than any other soldier serving in Iraq, he might be more famous than the average squaddie but if he dies his death would be no less tragic than the death of any other serving soldier, it would merely give the press a field day but I would care no more for his death in Iraq than I would that of any other soldier, that said I hope he doesn't die but I feel the same way about every serving soldier out there, Harry's life is no more valuable than that of a 17 year old private.

I'd be concerned to be honest, if I was with him if he did fight ... If he was targeted, which I suppose there IS likelyhood of. I'd be worried enough about the danger I'm in without the added danger of being with a potential target.

 

I guess if he doesn't go it'll be all "it's only because he's royal he's not put at risk" ... but then if he does go it'll be all "my son's at risk because he went" ... it's his personal choice I guess.

 

I don't really see the fact that it's confidential information would stop people finding him ... it's illegal to murder people, but people still die? If they wanted to know badly enough, they'd find it out.

Edited April 27, 200718 yr by Andrewy

To quote Dolph Lundgren in Rocky 4 - "if he dies he dies"

 

Harry is to me just another soldier, when he is in uniform his life is no more valuable than any other soldier serving in Iraq, he might be more famous than the average squaddie but if he dies his death would be no less tragic than the death of any other serving soldier, it would merely give the press a field day but I would care no more for his death in Iraq than I would that of any other soldier, that said I hope he doesn't die but I feel the same way about every serving soldier out there, Harry's life is no more valuable than that of a 17 year old private.

 

 

...but he isnt just another soldier, although he wants to be treated that way. he is 3rd in line to the throne, hes royalty (like it or not) and he would be targeted by insurgents.

 

him being there would put him as an individual soldier at a much higher risk of capture and death then any other tommy.

 

im begining to think he shouldnt go.

A heart attack counts as a pretty sudden death wouldn't you think? Not exactly an uncommon death, there's a chance it could happen, it's not likely he'll become king but there's still the chance. Also, you're wrong on the 'small chance' of capture, insurgents are apparently getting ready to target him - if he was captured, he'd go the same way as any soldier that is captured - he'd be KILLED :rolleyes: And you're wrong on the regiment/serving 'confidential info', a simple internet search reveals he's in the Blues & Royals, patrolling the Iran/Iraq border with Scimitar tanks - not exactly the easiest of people to get hold of but there's a big chance he will, and Scimitar tanks were involved in the most recent British death, so if he is found ad bombed he doesn't have much protection.

You're using the word "chance" too often... There is a chance I might get killed tomorrow, there is a chance that Buzzjack will get hacked in the next day, there is also a huge chance that Harry will never become king, or get killed in Iraq.

 

If I had to put odds on him getting killed, lets say there is 6000 British troops in Iraq, 1000 are in low-risk areas. So, lets say 1 troop dies per day. That's a 5000/1 CHANCE that he will get killed if we use probability, but in truth it'd be at about 1000/1.

 

As someone else said, he should be allowed to fight if he wishes, and if he didn't, he should be dismissed for cowardice. There is also the arguement that the Monarchy have no use at all, except from abit of publicity now and again, but thats another kettle of fish...

You're pretty much correct in that assessment TiP... But I dont support a war against Iran, and frankly I dont care if they want to develop Nukes or not, we dont even know for 100% sure that's even what they're gonna do anyway.... What they are actually doing is enriching uranium, well......you kinda have to do that in order to develop nuclear power... I reckon the only reasons that Iran might want a nuke is firstly because the Israelis have them and are likely pointing them directly at Tehran (reason enough if you ask me, Thatcher used the fact that Moscow was pointing nukes at US as a justification for having Cruise missiles, so if it's sauce for the goose, it's sauce for the gander if you get my drift...) and secondly to prevent a possible US/UK invasion (again, a very strong justification I feel, given the fact that US/UK has already embarked on one illegal war in the region on a country that did NOT have WMDs...), so by their logic if they did have a nuke, it would prevent an invasion taking place and would force US/UK to the negotiating table.. The facts are, we have never understood the Arab mind-set and have always fukked them over in all our dealings with them... So, frankly, I cant in my heart really blame them for hating our guts, we have never played fair with the Arabs, and this goes back to the days of "Lawrence of Arabia" and the Europeans (mainly UK and France) carving up of the region in the 1920s, right on through the Suez crisis, then the ongoing Palestinian problem, and now Iraq.... A catalogue of shameful catastrophe that has wrought nothing but misery upon the Arab people.... They've had almost 90 years of bullsh!t heaped on them by the West and 60 years of bullsh!t from the fukkin' Israelis, and we p!ss and moan about 9/11 and the London bombings, as if British and American lives are somehow more important than Arab ones....

 

but you talk as if the arabs are the 'poor underdogs, unfairly dumped on by the evil west' ... this goes back much further then lawrence of arabia, it goes back to the crusades in the 11th centuary. like it or not the jewish religion is the oldest established religion in the middle east, christianity the second, it wasnt until the formation of islam in the 5th-6th centuary that the troubles started.

 

of course a deeply religious medieval society would fight for their long established religious homeland.

 

as i see it, the arabs were the ones that started it all by attacking the indiginous jewish/christians in the middle east as their new doctrine spread.

 

im not condoning actions in more recent years, but i dont either regard the arab nation as the innocent underdog either... they aint whiter then white.

 

...but he isnt just another soldier, although he wants to be treated that way. he is 3rd in line to the throne, hes royalty (like it or not) and he would be targeted by insurgents.

 

him being there would put him as an individual soldier at a much higher risk of capture and death then any other tommy.

 

im begining to think he shouldnt go.

 

Surely Prince Andrew was in as much danger 25 years ago if not more danger than Harry will be ?

 

Andrew at that stage as Charles younger brother would have been 2nd in line to the throne yet still flew helicopter missions in the Falklands war and I don't remember anything resembling the fuss there has been with Prince Harry

 

Yes Harry will be at risk but he is at risk at home too, what is stopping someone blowing him up in a nightclub in London or going up to him and stabbing him or shooting him or kidnapping him ? very little, at least in Iraq he will have a platoon of soldiers covering his ass

Surely Prince Andrew was in as much danger 25 years ago if not more danger than Harry will be ?

 

Andrew at that stage as Charles younger brother would have been 2nd in line to the throne yet still flew helicopter missions in the Falklands war and I don't remember anything resembling the fuss there has been with Prince Harry

 

Yes Harry will be at risk but he is at risk at home too, what is stopping someone blowing him up in a nightclub in London or going up to him and stabbing him or shooting him or kidnapping him ? very little, at least in Iraq he will have a platoon of soldiers covering his ass

 

 

not really... how many helicopters were kidnapped? or blown up by roadside bombs?.. harry would be on the ground in a much vaster area then the falklands and would certainly be a massive target. what enemy wouldnt go for him?.. hell, its obvious he would be singled out.

not really... how many helicopters were kidnapped? or blown up by roadside bombs?.. harry would be on the ground in a much vaster area then the falklands and would certainly be a massive target. what enemy wouldnt go for him?.. hell, its obvious he would be singled out.

 

The Argies were a far more sophisticated fighting force than the Iraqi insurgents who by and large are tribesmen and nomads and also given the damage they did to our naval fleet they were very tasty with exocet missiles so given their skill with exocet's downing Andy's helicopter had they located its position could easily have been done IMHO, I would still maintain that Andrew was in no less risk than Harry will be if he is sent to Iraq

The Argies were a far more sophisticated fighting force than the Iraqi insurgents who by and large are tribesmen and nomads and also given the damage they did to our naval fleet they were very tasty with exocet missiles so given their skill with exocet's downing Andy's helicopter had they located its position could easily have been done IMHO, I would still maintain that Andrew was in no less risk than Harry will be if he is sent to Iraq

 

 

no comparison.... we knew where the enemy was.... they had uniforms, units, groups, platoons, and fought like a first world country. these arab insurgents are far bigger threat as they are invisible.

You're using the word "chance" too often... There is a chance I might get killed tomorrow, there is a chance that Buzzjack will get hacked in the next day, there is also a huge chance that Harry will never become king, or get killed in Iraq.

 

If I had to put odds on him getting killed, lets say there is 6000 British troops in Iraq, 1000 are in low-risk areas. So, lets say 1 troop dies per day. That's a 5000/1 CHANCE that he will get killed if we use probability, but in truth it'd be at about 1000/1.

 

As someone else said, he should be allowed to fight if he wishes, and if he didn't, he should be dismissed for cowardice. There is also the arguement that the Monarchy have no use at all, except from abit of publicity now and again, but thats another kettle of fish...

I would say the chances are lower, they're saying now the most recent attack in which a British troop died was a dry run for an attack on Prince Harry's regiment - both use Scimitar tanks, and killing a member of the royal family in 'battle' would be as much a coup for the insurgency as it was in wars back in the medieval times, so they're BOUND to target him. I reckon it would be closer to 100/1.