one rule for them another for us?
2007-05-16 22:42:46 · 27 answers · asked by lifeboat51 1 in Society & Culture ➔ Royalty
I think the right decision was made for the good of all other British soldiers either there already or going in the future.
Even though the Iraqis didn't know exactly where he was, they would target every unit of British soldiers in the off-chance that they get Harry. And, if they captured him, it would be a feather in their cap to have a member of the royal family.
This decision was not taken to save Harry, but also to save the hundreds of British casualties that would come from the ensuing bloodbath.
To kittygangar - exactly how do you think it would be easy to protect him in Iraq? Are you an expert on hand to hand combat or have you some other claim to fame that makes you qualified to say that?
2007-05-17 07:05:04 · answer #1 · answered by monkeyface 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I am appalled at the decision reportedly made by Gen. Sir Richard Dannett that Prince Harry should not go to Iraq. He is a British soldier, he has worked hard for and trained for months with his unit and his 'lads', and if they go, he should go. He is no different to the rest of them who go, who fight and some die. It would be easy to make sure any attack did not end in Harry's capture. His death, whilst tragic for his family and friends (as is any death in action) would not be a disaster for our Country. His not going might be.
We are crediting these insurgents with far too much intelligence - how are they to tell which of the many British vehicles is the one containing Harry? All the troops have bought 'I'm Harry' T-shirts with a target printed on it - shows how afraid they are doesn't it?
I am ashamed of the Army and the Government and feel they have handed a propaganda victory to scum - just like they did when the sailors/marines were captured. Just for once why can't we make the brave decision and not always back away?
I am ashamed that political decisions are being allowed to ruin the reputation of a Military I was once proud to be a member of.
2007-05-17 00:59:36 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
If Prince Harry was sent to Iraq, it would be so that he could do his job. He is as willing as the next man to put his life in danger... he should have been sent but without the media hype and knowledge, then if no-one knew, there would have been no more threat than there normally is to Jo public.
2007-05-16 22:54:53 · answer #3 · answered by Heidi. 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Sending Prince Harry to Iraq would simply cause more problems than it is worth. Someone would try to kill him just to get revenge on England. Then what would happen? I think it is a good thing they don't send him to Iraq.
2007-05-16 22:48:09 · answer #4 · answered by dxle 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I think the decision not to let Prince Harry go to Iraq is wrong, he wants to go with his men. Let him go! Will his men be sent without him, how very cruel!
No one soldier's life is worth more than another.
What is the point of spending all that money (taxpayers) training him to fight and defend his country if he is not allowed to go and use his skills.
Go on Harry stand up for yourself.
2007-05-17 00:46:28 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
All I can say is thank God that King Harry (the fifth) was allowed by the 15th century establishment to fight at Agincourt.
Otherwise one of our greatest moments would never have happened!
As for the present. This is just another example of what a third rate country we have now become!
2007-05-17 08:56:48 · answer #6 · answered by pagreen1966 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Unfortunately for Harry, I think it is the wisest choice. This war is totally unlike the Falklands.
Harry is in an invidious position, he's damned if he goes, and he's damned if he doesn't. If he goes, he is exposing his men to extra danger. If he doesn't, he is accused of preferential treatment.
It's a "no win" situation for him. I'm afraid it will be bitterly disappointing to him, and I hope he can make something positive out of the situation.
2007-05-17 00:52:55 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yeah i can see your point but his unit would have been probably the most targeted unit in basra given the fact prince Harry would have been there,the terrorists would have done everything they could to kill or capture him therefor putting the whole unit at greater risk than normal.
2007-05-16 22:48:30 · answer #8 · answered by ? 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
He might as well wear a target symbol on his hat & top cos that is wot he would be...would u wanna be near him out there (its hard enough there without him standing next to u!!!
He should serve his country but he will could make things worse (if thats possible) out there..
Although wot about all the other men & women out there who are fighting...many have lost there lives, so wot makes him any different..he trained to fight so maybe he should do wot he does best!!!
2007-05-17 06:24:26 · answer #9 · answered by bakebeanie 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think his presence would endanger his troops. However, Prince Andrew did fight in the Falklands. I suppose that this decision was taken because of the personal threats by extremists against him.
2007-05-16 23:05:29 · answer #10 · answered by True Blue Brit 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋