Shouldn't the priviledged be the first to go?
2007-05-16 10:51:12 · 10 answers · asked by ranger12 4 in Society & Culture ➔ Royalty
As for him making the other soldiers in his unit targets, it makes no sense as all foreign military units are targets in Iraq and Afganistan, aren't they?
2007-05-17 04:51:34 · update #1
SO HE DOES'NT GET HIS ROYAL *** SHOT OFF. JUST LIKE AMERICAN POLITICIANS AND THEIR KIDS. SEND YOURS NOT MINE. IT'S CERTAINLY NOT BECAUSE IT WOULD MAKE IT MORE DANGEROUS FOR THOSE ALREADY THERE. THOSE KIDS ARE ALREADY FIGHTING FOR THEIR LIVES. WAKE UP AND SMELL THE BLOOD!
2007-05-16 12:35:53 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I think the first concern was that he would be a danger to his fellow soldiers. Which is very true, but then again it sort of seems unfair that others his squad must go over possible facing death.
Prince Andrew and even The Queen severed some time in past wars but I guess in those days it was easier to keep hush hush about where they were, with no internet and not as much world wide Media news.
2007-05-16 11:59:21 · answer #2 · answered by Spread Peace and Love 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
As I read it here in the states, it appears that the general didn't want the others in his unit to be targeted. If he does go over to Iraq, then I think he would be a huge target for something to happen. Privileged or not he is a distraction. Couldn't he go under a alias, or disguise?
2007-05-16 10:55:42 · answer #3 · answered by Mr Mugwump 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There were alot of threats against Prince Harry by terrorist organizations and the British felt like he would make his unit a major target just by being there.
2007-05-16 11:23:09 · answer #4 · answered by Judy M 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, first of all, you know that that would never happen. You know as well as I do that people of influence usually do not have children that have any desire to join the military. Being patriotic is a great reason to join the military, but truthfully, that usually isn't the main reason for joining. Education, medical benefits, a steady paycheck are usually some of the real reasons. Some of the comments made by politicians about the intelligence of military members are disgustingly ignorant. It speaks to the great division of wealth in this country, and it is definitely an ominous sign for the future of the U.S.
2016-05-20 02:30:36 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Think about it a person of royality going to Iraq he will get his squad in danger. Terrorists will either try to whack him or hold him hostage which the demands would be simple "Leave Iraq or he dies" plus the royal family will not risk someone in the royal line no matter how much he whines....I do appreciate his loyality to serve.
2007-05-16 11:00:25 · answer #6 · answered by prodigychild_21 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because the war in Iraq is being lost and there was every possibility that he would be captured and beheaded in which case it would leave only one direct heir to the throne after Prince Charles and that would be William.
If anything happened to William it would be end of the monarchy as nobody else would be acceptable.
2007-05-16 17:09:50 · answer #7 · answered by brainstorm 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I think sending him there would put the men and women around him in greater danger. They are protecting the men and women since if they sent him, he and the men and women who work with him would be a greater target.
No, it was a smart decision to not send him.
2007-05-16 10:54:47 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
He would have put his fellow soldiers at risk.
For this reason I think the officials made a good decision.
2007-05-16 10:53:33 · answer #9 · answered by daljack -a girl 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
do you think they would actually send Daddy's little boy!!!
2007-05-16 11:37:59 · answer #10 · answered by Tired Old Man 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋