It was reported in the news that Prince Harry will not be deployed to Iraq - despite his wishes - as the Army feels his presence poses a threat to the safety of his regiment. Were the Army right to do this? Or are there other reasons that we are not aware of?
2007-05-16 21:50:08 · 40 answers · asked by HiFi 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
He would have been a "target", and would have put the lives of his fellow soldiers in danger! I think it is best that he stay out of the war.
2007-05-16 21:53:28 · answer #1 · answered by zowar1363 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Im not a member of the armed forces however i have spent almost 30 months working in iraq and I have recently returned due to the increase in bombings upon the british bases. Part of me agrees that Prince Harry should go to Iraq to boost morale for the troops that are already there. However I do agree that there will be an increase in threat not only to himself but for fellow troops around him and also the military bases. Why does our country have to broadcast everything that the Princes do? If our country just sent him out there and got his tour over and done with then I believe that the threat increase would not be as great as it is now. I would like to wish Prince Harry a safe tour along with the rest of the British troops and all the civilian personnel that are currently working in Iraq.
2016-05-20 17:53:35 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes they were. But everyone is blameing Prince Harry and the British Army for not sending him to Iraq, when in fact its the media's fault. These days because of the media, the terrorists know what is happening before the british troops do and that is dangerous. The media should not report on things like this until its long over.
2007-05-17 02:14:24 · answer #3 · answered by medic041282 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I am not a Royalist and never will be,I have no time for the Royals. But to give Harry his due, he did want to go but the Powers that be decided against it, "what a surprise". Again using the Uniform as a Status symbol. When are they going to realise that wearing a bloody uniform does`NT make you a soldier, doing the job does, and the people who are saying that it would put the guys out there at greater risk is hogwash, I was a Para for fifteen years and believe me the guys out there would give him no more preference than any other soldier, in other words he would have to take his chances like all the other guys do. AS for him getting shot, that's the chance you take being a soldier. I think he would have been in more danger from the Americans than the Iraqis.
Good on you Harry for wanting to give it ago mate, its not your fault the morons in Whitehall put the blockers on it.
If they had no intention of letting him do his job then he should never have been allowed to join the Army in the first place, its an insult to all the guys out there.
2007-05-20 12:01:01 · answer #4 · answered by Geoff S 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes they were right. Sending him to Iraq would be playing into the jihadist hands. Extremists would try to target people close to the Prince and the base. If they succeeded in doing anything at all it would probablyt appear on those crazy jihadist websites as some kind of brave act. There's no point feeding the jihadist terrorists with new targets. It would also be a bad idea sending "foriegn" royals to an independently soveriegn Iraq. We're aiming for Iraqis to run their own country and the presence of foriegn leaders taking position of power would give out the wrong signals. People try to make UK government and troops look bad but we're not the ones planting the clorine and suicide bombs that kill people every day.
2007-05-16 21:55:45 · answer #5 · answered by private 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes, he would be a threat to the safety of those around him. Its fine people saying that he would be well hidden , but , with th enumber of wops around and the reward that is offered, any of the cleaners the army employ, would tellwhere he is.
His agenda is already known and the normal patrol routes are well defined.
The vehicles he would be commanding, the Buldog FV432 and the Sparten are not the best armoured in the world, note the numer of blow ups in the last few weeks. The new weopens from Iran (via Russia/China) are the most devastating. They have been buying these vehicles and working on them to find the best explosive to blow them up.
2007-05-20 19:50:24 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Suspect this story is far from finished and will turn out to be a major balls up.
Historically, it was the role of kings to lead their forces on the battlefield. In modern times, our royal family has fought in some form in every major conflict, often in the front line.
This is so obviously a political decision and possibly against the wishes of the Army. Esentially it's saying it's too dangerous for Harry to go. Doesn't that destroy the government lies that Iraq is "settling down" and the "insurgents" are on the run?
As far as I'm concerned, if it's too dangerous for Harry, it's too dangerous for everybody elses sons (and daughters) The war is illegal, totally based on lies - the political whim of B-liar and GW and his neo-con warmongers.
We should be out of there NOW and putting our efforts into prosecuting B-liar and GW as the war criminals they so obviously are.
2007-05-16 22:06:22 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
It would obviously increase the danger to his fellow soldiers to an unnecessary degree and that is unacceptable. The army despite all the media hype is just a pastime to the Royals who have no real intention of making a career out of it. In any case with their pampered guarded lifestyles how in all fairness how could they?. Despite all the stories about his Uncle Andrew it was a different situation in the Falklands and he had no call to get involved in the land based fighting. What he actually did we will probably never know as it is an 'official secret'.
Could someone interperet Solo Kin's rant for me please?.
2007-05-16 22:04:32 · answer #8 · answered by Rob Roy 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Its wrong of the army to make harry not be able to fight, there have been many members of his famliy have been in many wars etc. I can not remeber who but i think one of his uncles was a pilot in the Falklands and was almost shot down on many missions. This leads the the secound fact that the army know that the war is pointless, and do not wish for him to be killed. If this is true, which it proberly is, the rest of the army should not be there.
2007-05-16 22:11:49 · answer #9 · answered by neajam99 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think the right decision was made. As I watched the news last night and listened to parents ask why their sons and daughters had to go, just because their name wasn't 'Harry', I felt they had really missed the point. Surely the lives of their sons and daughters will be in less jeopardy without Harry being there? I don't think for one minute he's receiveing preferrential treatment. The reality is Harry would be a huge trophy for any opposing army or militia just because of who he is.
2007-05-16 22:05:43 · answer #10 · answered by steph c 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The whole purpose of the British army is to protect his citizens and, especially, the king, when they be one, and the queen of England.
Prince Harry would fail at meeting his purpose and basically spit in the face at the British army at saying, i want to go fight the war, those man train and give their lives so he doesn't have too, and hi is not living to what is he suppose to be, the royalty and heir to the British throne.
2007-05-24 14:42:19 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋