I guess its perfectly fine to send a few thousand British millitary personell into harms way, but when one of the ruling elite feel like putting their money where their mouth is, the blue-bloods pull the strings to protect him!
Typical of the rich, ruling class in all nations, send someone else's kid to die for their war.
Ps. I support Prince Harry wanting to do the right thing and fight for a war his nation supposedly believes in. The generals and the politicians should be ashamed of themselves for giving preferential treatment to him. All their troops are in constant danger, either it is ok for all of them or it isn't.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070516/ap_on_re_eu/britain_prince_harry
2007-05-16 06:15:03 · 8 answers · asked by truthspeaker10 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
good for him, he should be treated as any other military grunt, you think there are any U.S senators sons over in iraq right now?
I don't think they would go even if drafted.
2007-05-16 06:19:43 · answer #1 · answered by sobrien 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I think that it was the right thing to do. I'm sure Prince Harry isn't happy about the decision that's been made, he made it clear that he wanted and expected to go to Iraq with his unit. However, sending Prince Harry to Iraq would paint a big target on all troops over there, not just his unit. I have no doubt that he'd be captured within weeks and beheaded on Al-Jazeera in front of the whole world. It's not preferential treatment that's kept him from going....it's common sense.
2007-05-16 13:23:24 · answer #2 · answered by rockjock_2000 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Is it fair to keep him safe? No.
But I don't think that was the issue.
Is it fair to put all members of his troop at additional risk by asking them to serve with a prime target? No.
But it might have been a military choice.
And then there's trading off the propaganda values:
Of him going, of him not going, and of the possibility of him being killed.
A simple choice? Hardly.
And as for a war Britain believes in... hardly that, either.
The majority of the British public was against the war *before* it started.
The upswell of support for the committed troops changed that for the first couple of years of the war.
"If they are there, we must back them". The pictures of Saddam's statue toppling didn't hurt either.
Now it's back to a big majority against.
2007-05-16 13:46:18 · answer #3 · answered by Pedestal 42 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
strategically speaking they shouldn't send him. He already has a huge target on him, can you imagine the chaos especially if he was captured. That would definitely give the insurgents the upper hand. Sending him would just put others in more danger than need be.
2007-05-16 13:19:20 · answer #4 · answered by Chrissy 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I guess you haven't managed to figure out that having Harry in Iraq would be more dangerous to the OTHER soldiers in his unit than it would be to him.
His presence there would be like lighting a lamp in a room full of moths -- as soon as the jihadists and insurgents knew he was there, every one of them would be going hell-bent for leather to be the one to claim they'd killed the son of the royal family. What a PR coup that would be for al-Jazeera.
2007-05-16 14:39:28 · answer #5 · answered by Dave_Stark 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I feel for him, because he wants to be a man and go with his regiment, but it would put an even bigger target on the them all.
He needs to think of the safety of the other men. He shouldn't go.
2007-05-16 13:24:33 · answer #6 · answered by maxmom 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Hey if he would be a target wouldnt that bring the enemy to them so they could destroy them makes sense you dont have to go find the enemy they will come to you. LEAD FROM THE FRONT NOT THE REAR
2007-05-16 13:25:30 · answer #7 · answered by Grunt 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I wouldn't want him anywhere NEAR me. Like I would want to become even a bigger target....mmmmm me thinks not.
2007-05-16 13:17:38 · answer #8 · answered by beeze 4 · 4⤊ 0⤋