prince Harry cannot go to iraq he cannot go to afganistan so why have the british people been subsidising his wages to serve and train as a soldier if he is not allowed to go to war like every other young man who has done the same training as him. Yes he is the queens son, But every soldier has a mother a family, they are all precious
2007-05-16 10:51:07 · 23 answers · asked by murinty 2 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
I agree with you 100%. Unfortunately not all our serving soldiers were born with a silver spoon in their mouths.
2007-05-16 10:57:15 · answer #1 · answered by JillPinky 7 · 0⤊ 3⤋
He joined the Army didn't he? Do you expect him to have a symbolic enlistment or would you rather it meant something to him? It would be insulting to his unit to hold them out of danger because of the Prince (not to mention the insult to the Prince). I'm sure he'd rather not go through life with the reputation of being a toy soldier. Yes, it would be great PR for al-Qaida if they could grab him, but just how likely do you think that is? And if they somehow managed to capture him, do you think the British Army will just sit there and wring their hands? The vast majority of British troops serve their time in Iraq and come home just fine. The Prince's tour will be no different (except for the publicity).
2016-03-19 06:30:37 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
What a load of crap! so this country is saying hes more important than all the other guys fighting out there?? and they say he might become a target?? at the end of the day, do we want people to lead us? icons that set examples? someone who stands up and says they are who they are and no enemy will let them feel they cant do their duty?? Ive also wondered if Prince Harry was every going to go anyway!! is this all just a big front to make out he was the big man than got stopped from doing what he had to do?? tell the familys who lost their loved ones in this war!! ask them if they think its fair? anyway, as hes not going? why bother with the training! plus! right from the start! when he first started, there must have been talks about him not fighting! war is a bad thing, people get killed! and its insulting for silver spoon boys to get so much attention!! all this talk about if he should or should not go?? damn! does the other troops have a choice! the army is an army! if Harry is too valuble! the let him go join a tennis club instead!! and shut up you royal freaks! look at the history of war!! there was loads of figures who put their lifes on the line! of course the enemy would love to have a peice of the royal family or the leaders etc!! who said this was new??
2007-05-17 01:33:09 · answer #3 · answered by artist26uk 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Jb has hit the nail on the head. Harry is too much of a target, which means everyone around him is in increased danger of jihadi nutters trying everything possible to either kill him, or better still, capture him.
Even an army sergeant said on the news earlier that he wouldn't want to be anywhere near Harry in Iraq because of the risk he poses to his men. And just imagine the uproar if he went the same way as Ken Bigley.
He's not getting 'special treatment', or having strings pulled by the Queen. This is not your average conflict, and these people don't play by any rules. This is a measured decision based on risk posed not only to Harry, but to the men around him. It wouldn't be hard to identify Harry on the battle field - he'd be the one with all the missiles, grenades, and men with explosives strapped to them flying at him.
This was a good decision, and made for all the right reasons.
2007-05-16 11:55:24 · answer #4 · answered by helly 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The Armed Services are a Royal tradition. Prince Phillip served with distinction during WWll and Prince Andrew did so during the Falklands War. Prince Charles served as a Lt Cdr in the RN and a Wg Cdr pilot in the RAF. Harry joining the Army is nothing new. We, are, however, fighting a different kind of war and I think that Gen Dannatt is absolutely right to safeguard (as much as he can under the circumstances) the troops that would come under extra attack were Harry to be serving alongside them. I am not botherred about Harry (he can spend more time in Boujis) but I am glad, for his comrades' sake that he will not be in Iraq.
2007-05-16 11:00:30 · answer #5 · answered by Beau Brummell 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
If they ever had any intention of sending him they would never has annouced it so openly in the press.
Lets be honest, those two boys are about as much use a chocolate teapot!
You only have to open the papers every day to see them falling out of clubs tanked up up £500 bottles of champagne being carried back to their chauffer driven Range Rovers by a team of minders. Harry 'going to Iraq' was more about building a better profile for his somewhat lacking character than anything else. From the begining the press were saying that they would need a crack team of SAS just to protect him and that his presence would endanger the entire company as he would be such a prime target, so realistically he was never going to go.
He should stick with what he's best at - wearing Nazi uniforms and propping up the bar at Bijous.
2007-05-16 22:38:58 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Prince Harry and his platoon would be walking around with a bulls eye circle on their backs and used for the news media attention..... If he gets killed the news will be in biblical political proportions.
He can serve the royal army in administrative or training services.... Hell he can clean the toilet at boot-camp if you know what I mean!
The royal family gets millions of pounds (dollars) every year so prince Charles can romance all the high society woman in London and every where he wants...... They are like leaches to that government and they don't do a dam thing. What a life!
2007-05-16 11:33:00 · answer #7 · answered by 2u-sister 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
All of you naysayers need to wake up. Here in the Military not every soldier that trains and is "subsidized" by the people goes to war either. What about those who stay behind to get supplies and mail to the soldiers in the frontlines? There are plenty of jobs in any military service that are not frontline. as a matter of fact there is a name for people who stay "behind the lines", REMF-can't tell you what it means cuz I'd get busted for bad language but suffice it to say it's someone who is in the rear eschelon. By the way, Harry is not the Queen's son, he is Princess Di's son. God rest her beautiful soul. He is 3rd in line to the throne so just as we wouldn't put the VP f the US in the same plane as the Prez, they won't put Harry in a position where it's guaranteed he's a target.
2007-05-16 16:53:27 · answer #8 · answered by Rae 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I can understand why they don't want Harry to go - it puts other people at risk. I think that media have a large role to play in this. If they had not splashed it all over the front pages that Harry was going who in Iraq would have known. The media needs to think long and hard about the long term effects of their actions - look at them convicted this English person over Maddies disappearance. I think its disgusting , they are like a pack of sharks.
2007-05-16 23:57:48 · answer #9 · answered by Darmok 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The Royals get to play at soldiering only. They don't get put in danger. In 20 years time he'll be a general with a chest-load of medals without ever going near a battlefield.
No he's not the queen's son. He's Diana's son.
There's some debate as to who his father is.
2007-05-16 11:05:08 · answer #10 · answered by nic nac 5 · 6⤊ 1⤋
It is not poor Harry's fault I bet he has had a dicky fit over this as he did want to go.
IF the media had kept their big mouth shut as to where he was going we would not have this situation now.
I have been out with army men in past and they are NOT allowed to say where and when they are going especially when they are higher command.
So blame the media for their big mouth.
2007-05-16 11:01:05 · answer #11 · answered by momof3 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋