do you think its right that prince harry will not serve?

Question

me myself i am disgusted that he is not allowed!
ok i dont think war is right , but he wants to go to iraq then let him go.
everybody is worried about his saftey, but what ever happend to dying with honer while fighting for your country?

i say let him serve if that is what he wants.

while im at it if they dont want him to go for fear of his saftey.
then all the soldiers out there should be allowed to come home if they want.
as no human life is more valueble than the next, we are all equals in this world no matter of race, sex, colour, weight or status!!!!!

Answer 1

if they did not want him to fight in a war, they should not have allowed him to join the army.

Answer 2

The Brits have chosen a Monarchy to represent them, and Harry is a member of the Royal family. In great Britain, exception is made for their Royal family, and in this case even Harry has little voice in this decision.

As a Royal in-line to the throne Harry must put his priorities in order. Queen Elizabeth's own father King George, was in the same position as Prince Harry and he ascended to the throne when his brother, the Duke of Windsor, abdicated. So, it's not hard to realize that Prince Harry is closer to the throne than most people realize.

The ragheads in Iraq are chomping at the bit to get a piece of Harry, and a lot of innocent British troops could fall victim to their dirty deeds. Why give them the fodder they want, to get back at the British Empire, let them gargle sand if they need to do something stupid !

Answer 3

I myself do not necessarily applaud this decision by the British General but when i think about some factors, I do think that it is a right choice. Here is my opinion why. I think it's a great idea that Prince Harry wants to serve. He is very patriotic and instead of dwelling the riches as being a prince, he thinks about the hardships of the British soldiers having to fight in Iraq due to the problems of the Bush Administration. He says its not right while i sit my butt down here and do nothing but watch as our boys are fighting in Iraq. The major problem here is not really his safely. Its the idea of war itself. His wanting of going to Iraq has made big news. Terrorists and Insurgents in Iraq were to divert all attention to capturing him and holding him hostage in Iraq telling the British army to withdraw from Iraq. It would obtain International news and could create a massive uprising. If this thing were to happen it could in some way put a massive impact on the Iraq war putting it into even more chaos. Even though the general said no. Truly I believe that if Prince Harry really wants to go to Iraq, just like you said, let him go. I applaud your statement.

Answer 4

I'm sorry, but your badly written rant is wrong in most regards.

First of all, look around you. We are not all equal. Not all human lives are equally valuable. Can you really believe that the life of a thieving heroin addict is of equal value to that of a top children's heart surgeon? Remove the life of each and look at the impact on others.

I think that the Monarchy is an anachronism that we could well do without. But we have them, and we place more value on our royal family than on the rest of us commoners. If we don't, why do we have them?

Right or wrong, British troops are in Iraq to do a job. If Harry's presence makes that job more difficult or dangerous to his men than it would otherwise be, then he should not go. This should be an operational decision. There is no question of cowardice on his part - his superiors just believe that his presence endangers others.

Imagine the propaganda coup if the Queen's grandson were killed, or worse still captured by enemy forces.

The Army have made the right decision for the right reasons, and I'm sorry that you can't understand that.

Answer 5

Prevention is better than cure. After all, he's Britain's 3rd in line for the throne. And after all, Charles merely married Diana to deliver heirs for the throne. She did her job, and died unnecessarily at such a youthful age! If Charles had married his true love, Carmelia, there wouldn't be any heirs produced by him. Prince William would be foolish to go to Iraq, especially as Britain already has plans to draw its Troops gradually out of Iraq. Prince William might be foolish enough to want to risk his own life, but he has not the ethical and moral right to risk the lives of the other soldiers with him. There have been too many threats to go after him if he were to be present in iraq. The 'dying with honor' statement would be merely "suicide attempt" on his part if he's arrogant enough to reject threats and warnings to insist in walking into a danger zone. After all, the Iraq war is an errornous war, manipulated with false intelligence, that has brought the Brits more headaches than the years prior to 2003! All because, Blair chose to be Bush's poodle. It would be interesting to see where Blair would land up! The Pyramid of Power of the Bush Dynasty - The Carlye Group?

http://news.com.com/5208-1008_3-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=1877&messageID=35729&start=-1

What were really the Carlyle's Plan at the onset of 2003 ith respect to Iraq?
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0404-13.htm

Answer 6

In theory, I agree with you. Prince Harry should be allowed to serve his country if he wants to, and no he is not more valuable than any other soldier. However, I think they are trying to look out for the safety of the folks who will be serving with him. Because of his status he puts those around him at unnecessary risk. It's a tough call to make.

Answer 7

Absent active service in battle Prince Harry is a coward or a poltroon undeserving to wear a military uniform - much less one festooned with medals. He would do well to lose an arm or a leg in battle. Heads of State should be reluctant to send others into the meatgrinder without just cause.

The difference between a soldier and a REMF is live rounds.

Answer 8

Not at all. I have always maintained that as a potential future King of England he would have been the ultimate prize for the Iraqis. But the army knew who and what he was when he enlisted. If they had a problem with it, they shouldn't have accepted him. Every soldier is trained for combat and every soldier has the right to fight for their country, this is their whole raison d'etre. Harry, bless him, was adamant he wanted to go, this is not his fault, it's the M.O.D.'s.

Answer 9

If what you've said is true, there would be more "rich kids" in the military instead of so many middleclass people. No one is equal in this world. Let Paris Hilton go and serve in the military for 45 days. Let her serve in Iraq for 30 days. Name me one rich or famously rich person involved in the war. At least Harry is actually in the military. Your president/vice presidents didn't even see any type of action period.

Answer 10

Lets be honest, Blair wanted the war but did he send any of his family into the army to go to Iraq ?

It's more than just "another bloke" issue. There's a lot of political and propaganda reasons behind it if he's killed or caught.

Answer 11

I dont think they should have even let him join, they knew they wouldnt allow him to fight. He is 3rd in line!!! Besides, if they let him go over, they will spend more time protecting him than fighting enemies, he is too much of a target, he would only put other peoples lives in danger.