2006-12-15 05:04:32 · 12 answers · asked by $Sun King$ 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Sure, that's why there's a spare heir.
2006-12-15 05:09:45 · answer #1 · answered by Snowshoe 3 · 1⤊ 4⤋
i presumed they have been occurring approximately Harry being the single to desire to circulate. i understand William chop up up along with his G/F yet that may not a physically powerful reason to deliver him. i think of that the armed forces are in contact he (harry/William) would be a lots extra effective objective than the traditional soldier, and those in his instant place additionally. besides the very incontrovertible fact that i will see how the 'bait' tactic may be clever to that end it particularly is probably no longer ethical. particularly if it have been to take place it may be efficient if the tabloids did no longer announce the very fact to something of the international and all could be assassins.
2016-10-15 00:19:08 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Shouldn't even be a question of course he should go. His father and uncle went to the Falklands. Why shouldn't William go to Iraq he chose the army it's his obligation. As far as I know the monarchy hasn't sheltered it's family from military service in the past. So I doubt it will now.
2006-12-15 05:13:59 · answer #3 · answered by brian L 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Well, he probably would like to. But the government isn't going to let him and here's why.
Someone in his position would not be able to hide his identity. He would be hunted down and tortured. That is why Bush's daughters can't go as well, even though they otherwise likely would.
That, then makes this a rather dumb question.
2006-12-15 06:59:28 · answer #4 · answered by Jade 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. If he goes then he will be little more than a 'high value target' for the enemy. The danger to himself and to the soldiers around him would be too great to justify the symbolic value of his being there.
In the Falklands you were fighting a civilized enemy.
2006-12-15 06:59:25 · answer #5 · answered by MikeGolf 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
He certainly shouldn't be exempted just because of his position within the royal family. Andrew went to the Falklands (ok, it's not exactly the same thing) but why is the life of an unknown more expendable than his?
Of course, the war is illegal and no-one should be there but that's another question.......
2006-12-15 05:15:29 · answer #6 · answered by Katya-Zelen 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Yes and Afghanistan
2006-12-15 17:52:50 · answer #7 · answered by brainstorm 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, he's a solider. He should be treated no different.
If his unit gets deployed. He should deploy.
2006-12-15 07:59:16 · answer #8 · answered by larry m 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes; as a common foot-soldier in the most life-threatening job possible.
2006-12-15 05:13:26 · answer #9 · answered by Dwain 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
If his unit is going, yes he should. If he doesn't it sets a terrible exaple for his men.
2006-12-15 05:42:08 · answer #10 · answered by DOOM 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No, and everybody there, they all need to come back home.
2006-12-15 05:41:32 · answer #11 · answered by cat 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋