should prince harry be sent to war
2007-05-01 06:19:57 · 25 answers · asked by sly dog 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Royalty
you notice evry body said yes but goverment said no
2007-05-01 06:28:37 · update #1
Yes, he should go. His Uncle Andrew went to the Falklands War in the 80s. That's part of his job. He has said he wants to go and serve with his mates. Good for him.
2007-05-01 06:23:15 · answer #1 · answered by Daisy 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Prince Harry has as much chance of going to war as the Bush Twins. Not going to happen.
2007-05-05 00:47:50 · answer #2 · answered by DeCaying_Roses 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It would be very frustrating for Harry to be denied the right to go with his battalion. On the other than, it would be very foolish to send out someone who has already been marked as a special target. It would make life much more dangerous and difficult for his mates.
Why don't we just call off the war instead?
2007-05-01 18:34:55 · answer #3 · answered by old lady 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Harry wants to serve;his uncle,Prince Andrew,Duke of York served during the Falklands war as a helicopter pilot.The government doesn't want anything to happen to Harry,or to happen because Harry is considered a target.Harry let it be known that he just didn't want to be a token army officer so they should be sending him over to serve.
2007-05-01 15:42:46 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes. Most youth in Europe serve at least a short term as a community volunteer or in the military. If they want to pamper him, they should just keep him away from the battle front, or where the insurgencies are attacking. The chances of him getting killed are pretty slim despite what the media publishes.
2007-05-01 13:26:58 · answer #5 · answered by raztaman420 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It doesn't seem fair to the men who would serve under him, if he's going to be a "special target" of the insurgents, that increases the risk of danger to everyone around him. As a military decision, I think it is a mistake to send him into the war zone. This has nothing to do with whether he "should" serve or not; it's a purely practical, tactical matter. Is it wise from a military standpoint or isn't it?
2007-05-01 13:24:17 · answer #6 · answered by MOM KNOWS EVERYTHING 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I give the man credit. If he's going to be a leader he has to lead from the front. The other side of the coin is his personal security needs. That being said, on the whole he's no more vulnerable than any other person in Iraq who's subject to kidnapping. Given the quality of the British fighting man, I don't think he has much to worry about. Kudos to him. Finally a man of privilege who leads by example. Hooyah!!
2007-05-01 13:30:23 · answer #7 · answered by canela 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
yes he definetely should be sent to war, but I think it's totally wrong to give him special treatment. Other troops should not be put in danger by protecting him. The whole idea of him going over there is to help out, so what's the point if he's just going to be a burden?
2007-05-01 13:24:36 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
He asked too be sent...He is a human and wants to serve his country right..Back in the day Kings always went to war, more princes did too. He is a brave man just like every other man that wants to fight for their country.
So YES!!!!
2007-05-01 13:23:37 · answer #9 · answered by ERICKSMAMA 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
No, he should not. Though I admire his courage, if he really cares about his "boys", he should know better than to join them and make them specially likeable targets. His comrades might not care, but I'm sure their parents do.
I think it's pretty irresponsible.
And imagine if the insurgents manage to kidnap or kill him.
How much morale boost would that give to the insurgents? Why give them that opportunity? Strategically, it's just a poor decision.
2007-05-02 12:42:37 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋