Prince Harry's Deployment In Iraq May be Cancelled ...

edanto

He should go. That might give the imperial forces a motive to find a peaceful solution. What is being done to end this war? Sending more troops? Since when did that end a war peacefully?

edanto

InFront wrote:

Siegfried Sassoon

The mention of him reminds me of Robert Newman's History of Oil.

Does anyone know the story of the British in Basra?

It might well be fitting for the young prince to be sent there, just in time for the 100th anniversary of the occupation of the city.

Roll of Honour wrote:

During the First World War, Basra was occupied by the 6th (Poona) Division in November 1914, from which date the town became the base of the Mesopotamian Expeditionary Force.

Roll of Honour site

Zambia

Deleted User wrote:

Zambia, could you give me a link?! Cheers!

there you go

http://www.imharry.com/

Mick86

newby.204 wrote:

The US killed any north korean they could find just incase they colaborated with the VC or the NVA!!!.

North Koreans collaborating with the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese Army?

newby.204 wrote:

What it means is if Country X invades Ireland and irish people join them for whatever reason, then it wouldnt be too long before they were being shot at aswell as County X's soldiers!!!

Or if they've got a nice house, a bit of land, they go to the wrong church or they annoy you in some way then you label them an informer and murder them. Happened before in Ireland.

Judt wrote:

Problem with sending the guy is that you could end up seeing his mates getting killed because he's there and he's being targeted.

All British troops are targets anyway. It's unlikely that the terrorists will be able to target an identified soldier. They might make efforts to attack every single British vehicle but then they leave themselves open to increased casualties.

Manic Moran wrote:

I said 'Colonel-in-Chief', not 'Commander-in-Chief.' There's a difference. Anyone can be a Colonel-in-Chief, for example, the Colonel-in-Chief of the TA unit I went on exchange with is Prince Edward.
It's a titular, not a command position.
NTM

Just as well since he bottled out of his military service.

DublinWriter wrote:

Like Andrew Windsor?

Who is Andrew Windsor?

robinph wrote:

Not sure that driving a minehunter around the British Isles could be considered that dangerous though.

Edit: Apparently that ship was a wooden hulled one.

Have you seen one of those things, I wouldn't cross Bantry Bay in one.

FTA69 wrote:

Apologies if I'm not full of concern for a foreign aristocrat on his way to participate in an illegal war.

He's not an aristocrat, he's royalty.:p

oscarBravo

Deleted User wrote:

Sorry, were you born a dumbass or did you have to work at it?!

Banned for two weeks for blatant personal abuse.

Zambia

Mick86 wrote:

Who is Andrew Windsor?

to answer a question with a question , what is Harrys second name?

FTA69

Deleted User wrote:

Sorry, were you born a dumbass or did you have to work at it?!

Bad form lad.

You are ware that over 80% of the Officers it produces are from middle class families.

Exactly, which is odd considering most of the British Army consists of those from working-class, urban backgrounds.

All politics aside, Harry is still a human being of our nations closest partner.

He's a human being who carries a gun and expresses a wish to fight in an illegal and immoral war against a civilian population. He is a soldier, and he has made the conscious decision to fight in Iraq, if he happens to get whacked tough sh*t for him, its not as if he's out there doing aid-work.

Judt

He's a human being who carries a gun and expresses a wish to fight in an illegal and immoral war against a civilian population. He is a soldier, and he has made the conscious decision to fight in Iraq, if he happens to get whacked tough sh*t for him, its not as if he's out there doing aid-work.

Goes to show how little you know about modern military "occupations." You may or may not have noticed that suicide bombers have driven the likes of the Red Cross and the UN out of Iraq. Who does most of the rebuilding, and protects those rebuilding in Iraq? The evil foreign militaries. Then the "freedom fighters" from whichever group you like come along, blow up the local power station and make sure to murder a couple of women and kids in the process.

You might want to reevaluate who is the great satan in Iraq right now. At least the average squaddie is there to help the Iraqi's, not kill them and start a civil war.

Manic Moran

Zambia232 wrote:

to answer a question with a question , what is Harrys second name?

I have no idea. Does he have one?

Even his surname is a subject of some debate. If it were clearly 'Windsor', it would be such on his name tag, but his name tag says 'Wales.' This indicates that any surname is completely arbitrary or non-binding. I guess when you're in line for the throne, just saying 'Prince Harry' should be good enough.

NTM

FTA69

Judt wrote:

Who does most of the rebuilding, and protects those rebuilding in Iraq? The evil foreign militaries.

The Iraqi resistance isn't homogenous, it consists of thousands of different groups, from nationalists to communists, Muslims to athiests, Shia to Sunni to Kurd. The Al Qaeda types aren't representative of the larger trend.

At least the average squaddie is there to help the Iraqi's, not kill them and start a civil war.

Oh right, sure no Iraqis have been killed by the coalition at all. :rolleyes:

Do you honestly believe that the Brits in Iraq are motivated by any concept of helping the people of Iraq? Most people join that army as a result of boredom, the seeking of adventure and to simply get a job. They aren't motivated by any lofty ideals of helping the world. To try an portray them as concerned citizens is to ignore the laegacy of brutality that that army has left on every continent.

odonnell

FTA69 wrote:

Judt wrote:

The Iraqi resistance isn't homogenous, it consists of thousands of different groups, from nationalists to communists, Muslims to athiests, Shia to Sunni to Kurd. The Al Qaeda types aren't representative of the larger trend.



Oh right, sure no Iraqis have been killed by the coalition at all. :rolleyes:

Do you honestly believe that the Brits in Iraq are motivated by any concept of helping the people of Iraq? Most people join that army as a result of boredom, the seeking of adventure and to simply get a job. They aren't motivated by any lofty ideals of helping the world. To try an portray them as concerned citizens is to ignore the laegacy of brutality that that army has left on every continent.

so history and past actions of the empire (no matter how aged) is now a gague of your average squadies morals? If the squadie, the marine, the para, etc - are not there with the iraqis best interests at heart, lets not make them responsible for the past deeds of the british empire too eh?

csk

Zambia232 wrote:

to answer a question with a question , what is Harrys second name?

He goes by the name Wales in the Army I think

Mick86

Zambia232 wrote:

to answer a question with a question , what is Harrys second name?

Charles

Zambia

Its Windsor or if you push it Montbatten-Windsor

CSK is right though he does go by the title Wales in the Forces.

As for the Average Squaddies being working class and the average officer being middle class. Well considering being a squaddie is a working class occupation and an officer is a middle class one I cant see how any inference can be drawn. Its a bit of a chicken and egg scenario.

FTA69

so history and past actions of the empire (no matter how aged) is now a gague of your average squadies morals? If the squadie, the marine, the para, etc - are not there with the iraqis best interests at heart, lets not make them responsible for the past deeds of the british empire too eh?

The past actions of the British Army are indeed reprehensible, but so are their current ones. It was only recently we saw images of British troops savagely beating a pair of Iraqi teenagers in Basra and the fact remains they form a valuable part of an illegal and oppressive occupation. There are also twice the amount of British soldiers in Ireland as there are in Iraq, and their present and past actions in this country speak for themselves.

Zambia,

Well considering being a squaddie is a working class occupation and an officer is a middle class one

So leadership is an exclusively middle-class occupation? In the US Army, leaders are drawn from the basic ranks if they show the necessary qualities, not just because they are rich and went to a specialist academy. Leadership can rarely be taught, it is an ability which some people inherently have and some people inherently haven't.

Fratton Fred

FTA69 wrote:

The past actions of the British Army are indeed reprehensible, but so are their current ones. It was only recently we saw images of British troops savagely beating a pair of Iraqi teenagers in Basra and the fact remains they form a valuable part of an illegal and oppressive occupation. There are also twice the amount of British soldiers in Ireland as there are in Iraq, and their present and past actions in this country speak for themselves.

Get over it. Every major army in the world has a reprehensible past. It's how the modern world was formed.

Maybe the reason there are twice as many soldiers in NI is because that is where a lot of them are based?

Lemming

FTA69 wrote:

The past actions of the British Army are indeed reprehensible, but so are their current ones. It was only recently we saw images of British troops savagely beating a pair of Iraqi teenagers in Basra and the fact remains they form a valuable part of an illegal and oppressive occupation.

And if I recall, those squaddies were taken to task over the beatings. Or are you referring to the "posed" images from about two years ago which were found out to be a hoax, shot back in a barracks in the UK?

As for the rest, calling it "oppressive" is a push given most of the killing going on is Iraqi/Non-Iraqi-Muslim on Iraqi, with the US/UK playing piggy in the middle.

There are also twice the amount of British soldiers in Ireland as there are in Iraq, and their present and past actions in this country speak for themselves.

Tell me .. what "present" actions in N.ireland have been reprehensible? By "present", restrict yourself to the last 5 years, as opposed to say .... 40 years ago ...

FTA69

Get over it. Every major army in the world has a reprehensible past. It's how the modern world was formed.

Does that mean they are entitled to have a reprehensible present too? And what does "getting over the past" have to do with opposing an occupation in 2007?

Maybe the reason there are twice as many soldiers in NI is because that is where a lot of them are based?

Your point being? They are also based there because at one stage there was 30,000 armed British troops in this country and that has only been scaled down as a result of recent developments. There is no practical reason for British troops to be in this country, never mind the fact they shouldn't be there in the first place.

OS119

FTA69 wrote:

So leadership is an exclusively middle-class occupation? In the US Army, leaders are drawn from the basic ranks if they show the necessary qualities, not just because they are rich and went to a specialist academy. Leadership can rarely be taught, it is an ability which some people inherently have and some people inherently haven't.

leadership is not a 'middleclass' trait, however - sadly - having a degree is.

degrees are not neccesary for being commisioned, but they are favoured.

you, of all people, should understand why students from poorer backgrounds are less likely to have the non-compulsory post 16 education qualifications that Army Officer selection requires.

you might also like to know that the British Army contains a significantly greater percentage of officers commisioned from the ranks (and not just after 22 years service and attainment of WO rank) than the US Army, known as it as one of the most rank/status conscious organisations on the planet.

you may also wish to address your ignorance - perhaps willfull? - regarding the occupation of Iraq being lawful or unlawful. while the jury is out - having never been called - over the initial invasion, the occupation of Iraq is mandated both by repeated resolutions of the UNSC and by the Geneva Conventions relating to the responsibilities of military authorities in occupied territories. you may not like that, but fortunately we still live in a world where fact cannot be over-ruled by some party apperachnik in favour of the ideologically convenient line.

as for Harry himself, he is a young man born into enormous privilige, yet he - and his brother - have chosen to untertake a profession which is often dangerous, tiring and has long hours when he could easily have slipped into the world of the playboy spending months on expensive boats in the sun, snorting coke and shagging models. how very odd that a socialist of all people should condemn a young man over his background - over which, like the poor you so galantly campaign for - he has no influence or responsibility, yet race to condemn the same prejudice when directed at those who are poor, or of a different race or religion.

double standards. if you can't see them then you're, well, not very asute politically, if you can see them but still employ them you're no socialist.

FTA69

And if I recall, those squaddies were taken to task over the beatings.

Because they were nabbed on camera and they caused an embarrasment, you can be sure that it wasn't the only incident, such is the nature of military occupation. The people at Abu Ghraib were "taken to task" too and made scapegoats, I don't anyone would be naieve enough to assert that the torture was simply off their own bat though.

the US/UK playing piggy in the middle.

Its amazing how the invader always ends up like that isn't it? Sure they were piggy in the middle between us mad paddies killing ourselves over religion as well, they were PITM between the mad Indians at one stage. You usually end up with such problems when you unilaterally invade a country and destroy its social and economic infrastructure. Of course killing quarter of a million odd Iraqis didn't help matters either.

Tell me .. what "present" actions in N.ireland have been reprehensible? By "present", restrict yourself to the last 5 years, as opposed to say .... 40 years ago ...

Righto.

The British Army has been invovled in forcing triumphalist marchers through Nationalist districts. They have discharged shots in civilian areas. They have practised regular helicopter flights including "buzzing" (low flying) certain housing estates which culminated in a crash in a residential area in Crossmaglen only two months ago. They have made border incursions into Louth in the past 5 years. In 2002 they also invaded the Nationalist area of Short Strand (which was under sustained Loyalist attack at the time) and at one satge themselves and the PSNI managed to beat Paul Devenney into a coma.

And if we want to look at the broader British establishment the interesting case of Denis Donaldson comes to mind, and the fact that the centre of so-called "Stormontgate" was a British agent working to their agenda.

My point being that the British Army has no place in this country, serves no purpose and simply acts as a catalyst for trouble.

Fratton Fred

FTA69 wrote:

Does that mean they are entitled to have a reprehensible present too? And what does "getting over the past" have to do with opposing an occupation in 2007?

I think Lemming has covered that.

FTA69 wrote:

Your point being? They are also based there because at one stage there was 30,000 armed British troops in this country and that has only been scaled down as a result of recent developments. There is no practical reason for British troops to be in this country, never mind the fact they shouldn't be there in the first place.

Are the Royal Irish Regiment not based in Ballymena? Not sure how many though.

FTA69

OS119 wrote:

leadership is not a 'middleclass' trait, however - sadly - having a degree is.

And why should a college degree be necessary for a military office?

you might also like to know that the British Army contains a significantly greater percentage of officers commisioned from the ranks (and not just after 22 years service and attainment of WO rank) than the US Army, known as it as one of the most rank/status conscious organisations on the planet.

Possibly, but I do also know that it is possible to rise to supreme ranks in the US Army by starting from the bottom. There was a saying I heard once on the the issue of leadership, "if you want a leader, look for someone with followers". And while the US Army is indeed obsessed with rank, it doesn't seem to have the same initial segregation between middle-class officers and working class grunts.

while the jury is out - having never been called - over the initial invasion, the occupation of Iraq is mandated both by repeated resolutions of the UNSC and by the Geneva Conventions relating to the responsibilities of military authorities in occupied territories.

And did those two bodies/documents mandate the intial invasion of iraq in the first place?

how very odd that a socialist of all people should condemn a young man over his background - over which, like the poor you so galantly campaign for - he has no influence or responsibility, yet race to condemn the same prejudice when directed at those who are poor, or of a different race or religion.

Of course he has influence over his own destiny, he could renounce his titles if he so chose, it has been done before. I also find it laughable that you question my socialism because I disagree with Harry Windsor and his actions. Socialism would advocate the removal of all royal privilige and the non-participation in imperialist enterprises, two things which Windsor has embraced fully. Socialism is an economic and political theory, it is not a Liberal philosophy which preaches tolerance for royalty and whatever actions they may commit.

As for picking a dangerous profession? You can be a lot sure life in Iraq is much more dangerous for the average civilians who were on the recieving end of the US and British Armies. I can see why the average squaddy may end up joining the British Army, but I can't tolerate royals running off to play soldiers.

double standards. if you can't see them then you're, well, not very asute politically, if you can see them but still employ them you're no socialist.

Again, my socialism is not one of double standards just because I disagree with 1) The British Royal Family and 2) The British Army's role in Iraq.

FTA69

I think Lemming has covered that.

No he/she hasn't, he/she has opined that the Brits and Americans are "piggies in the middle" despite the fact they invaded the country in the first place, killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and made the place into the biggest warzone in the Middle East.

Are the Royal Irish Regiment not based in Ballymena? Not sure how many though.

They've been disbanded I believe, or else its an ongoing process.

Zambia

FTA69 wrote:

They've been disbanded I believe, or else its an ongoing process.

The Home regiments have there still in Edinburgh.

And in answer to your remark on Middle class officers. If a soldier does well he can become an officer , guess what then by the loose defintion he is suddenly middle class. This is the same for all armys. As for a college degree being necessary it is for all decent management jobs.

There are of course still UK/British troops in NI , they have as much right to be there as the Irish army have to be in Cork. If you disagree with the whole Ulster being part of the UK thats another topic.

FTA69

There are of course still UK/British troops in NI , they have as much right to be there as the Irish army have to be in Cork.

Debatable, but that'd be completely off topic. Even if you stay away from the constitutional issue I'd still inquire as to what their purpose is in the North when they are simply a divisive issue and they are placed amongst people who hate them?

Zambia

FTA69 wrote:

Debatable, but that'd be completely off topic. Even if you stay away from the constitutional issue I'd still inquire as to what their purpose is in the North when they are simply a divisive issue and they are placed amongst people who hate them?

I dont hate them , my mates dont hate them regardless of denomination. I even had mates in the RIR.

FTA69

Perhaps "hate" is too strong a word, but there is no denying that the people of West Belfast, Tyrone and South Armagh are very much opposed to large garrisons of British troops in their home areas.

Zambia

FTA69 wrote:

Perhaps "hate" is too strong a word, but there is no denying that the people of West Belfast, Tyrone and South Armagh are very much opposed to large garrisons of British troops in their home areas.

True enough.

dulpit

Oh i love all this "The war is wrong" "The us and the brits are bastards" blah blah blah... The fact of the matter is that there is a war, nothing we can do about it, and people will just need to realise that...

Also, correct me if i'm wrong but isn't this thread supposed to be about Prince Harry and whether he might or might not be deployed to Iraq, not wther the Biritsh were meanies before or whether the war sucks... My feelings on the whole situation is that he's a brave fecker, there's no way i could ever join the defence forces, let alone the british army where you know that there's a fairly decent shot of you been sent to Iraq... The way everybody seems to be saying that they're pampered out (the royals that is) seems really excessive, Harry is willing to risk his life for his country (forget about whether the war itself is justified - his country is at war and he's willing to fight) That can't be said for most people in the country, let alone those in his situation...

So i think people should leave him alone, if he goes he goes, if he doesn't i don't think he'll be happy...

1 other point would be how easy would it be for the Iraqi insurgents to identify a) Harry's regiment (company whatever) 's location and b) Harry himself... TBH I would think that if Harry is shipped to Iraq he would be in as much danger as every other British troop over there...

odonnell

dulpit wrote:

Oh i love all this "The war is wrong" "The us and the brits are bastards" blah blah blah... The fact of the matter is that there is a war, nothing we can do about it, and people will just need to realise that...

Also, correct me if i'm wrong but isn't this thread supposed to be about Prince Harry and whether he might or might not be deployed to Iraq, not wther the Biritsh were meanies before or whether the war sucks... My feelings on the whole situation is that he's a brave fecker, there's no way i could ever join the defence forces, let alone the british army where you know that there's a fairly decent shot of you been sent to Iraq... The way everybody seems to be saying that they're pampered out (the royals that is) seems really excessive, Harry is willing to risk his life for his country (forget about whether the war itself is justified - his country is at war and he's willing to fight) That can't be said for most people in the country, let alone those in his situation...

So i think people should leave him alone, if he goes he goes, if he doesn't i don't think he'll be happy...

1 other point would be how easy would it be for the Iraqi insurgents to identify a) Harry's regiment (company whatever) 's location and b) Harry himself... TBH I would think that if Harry is shipped to Iraq he would be in as much danger as every other British troop over there...

he would be in MORE danger in my opinion. Just because iraq is a ways away from the shores of the UK doesnt mean the insurgents dont have means of tracking a man. Theyll know exactly what he looks like, and id say he WILL be a target. But the problem i have with him going to the warzone, isnt to do with him getting killed - its the men and women around him he puts in danger by being the target.

Thats why he may find himself behind a desk in a nicely fortified base.