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

HelterSkelter

dulpit wrote:

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) .

How can you say he is risking his life for his country? Risking your life for your country is defending it from an invading force. Harry is helping the invading force, how does that make him brave??? And you can't say forget about the reasons his country is at war, that is a major factor in deciding if he is brave or just going along with the bully. If he was really brave he would say I am not going to Iraq because it is an unjust war. If he was brave he would have the balls to stand up against Blair. Muhammad Ali was a brave man because he refused to go to war. Harry should take a leaf out of his book.

odonnell

HelterSkelter wrote:

How can you say he is risking his life for his country? Risking your life for your country is defending it from an invading force. Harry is helping the invading force, how does that make him brave??? And you can't say forget about the reasons his country is at war, that is a major factor in deciding if he is brave or just going along with the bully. If he was really brave he would say I am not going to Iraq because it is an unjust war. If he was brave he would have the balls to stand up against Blair. Muhammad Ali was a brave man because he refused to go to war. Harry should take a leaf out of his book.

youre missing the fact that as a member of her majestys armed forces - he has no opinion on whether what the MOD does is right or wrong - he is a soldier now, and has no say - he merely IS.

and besides...risking your life, is risking your life - no matter which side its on.

Bang - hes dead ..... but because he was part of an invasion force - hes not REALLY dead... he didnt REALLY risk his life.....

thats ludicrous.

Also - Muhammed Ali was drafted - harry enlisted - there can be NO comparison, as by enlisting....you CHOOSE to join the forces. Its just not up to you from then on where you are deployed - otherwise youd never join up in the first place, or you VW (voluntarily withdraw) in the first few weeks of basic training.

Zambia

HelterSkelter wrote:

How can you say he is risking his life for his country? Risking your life for your country is defending it from an invading force. Harry is helping the invading force, how does that make him brave??? And you can't say forget about the reasons his country is at war, that is a major factor in deciding if he is brave or just going along with the bully. If he was really brave he would say I am not going to Iraq because it is an unjust war. If he was brave he would have the balls to stand up against Blair. Muhammad Ali was a brave man because he refused to go to war. Harry should take a leaf out of his book.

Oh my , oh my Harrys doing what he thinks is his duty and is prepared to die doing it to me that indicates a level of bravery.

You on the other hand are just saying he is not brave , as he is not refusing to go because you think the Iraq war is wrong.

Mohammed Ali did not go to war as he thought it was wrong. Harry is going to war because he thinks its right. So in essence both men are following their convictions. I dont see the difference.

RalphCifaretto

The very fact that this thread is 5 pages long speaks volumes. :rolleyes:

Judt

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.

If you also look into the science of warfare you'll discover that better educated men from stable family backgrounds make better soldiers and leaders. In an ideal world anyone could have a crack at being an officer, but in reality it's a middle-class occupation because most of the educated types are middle-class. However most leaders on the battlefield are NCO's, so I don't see what you're getting at about working class people not being allowed to lead in the army.

It's the same as civvie street. We're all supposed to have a fair chance, but if your dad was a bank manager on £90,000 a year and my dad was a window washer, you're more likely to be the officer. Still, joke's on the officers you later outearn in civvie street through all those enterprising skills you learned as an NCO

Manic Moran

If you also look into the science of warfare you'll discover that better educated men from stable family backgrounds make better soldiers and leaders. In an ideal world anyone could have a crack at being an officer, but in reality it's a middle-class occupation because most of the educated types are middle-class. However most leaders on the battlefield are NCO's, so I don't see what you're getting at about working class people not being allowed to lead in the army.

Most combat arms soldiers in the US Army tend to be well enough educated, with a fair portion of junior NCOs having college degrees, and the large majority of the more senior NCOs. The reasoning being that the people joining for the college bennies and/or to learn a trade tend to go into the rear echelon roles, whilst people joining infantry/armour tend to be doing so as much for the nature of the job as any possibilities to further their education. Face it, if I'm from an undereducated group, I can learn more useful skills as a helicopter mechanic than as a rifleman. Testing standards for line troops are a little tougher than for support troops as well. Much has been made of the recent lowering of standards of entry into the US Army as a result of the recruiting shortfall, but few reports note that the standards for entry into the Combat Arms branches remain the same, the Army wants its most intelligent and educated troops in the combat arms.

How can you say he is risking his life for his country? Risking your life for your country is defending it from an invading force

I don't seem to recall seeing 'defending from an invading force' as being part of my contract. I always thought my role was to act as an executive component of policies as determined by the government, subject to any restrictions imposed by law.

NTM

Mick86

Zambia232 wrote:

Its Windsor or if you push it Montbatten-Windsor

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

He doesn't have a surname.

Judt

Most combat arms soldiers in the US Army tend to be well enough educated, with a fair portion of junior NCOs having college degrees, and the large majority of the more senior NCOs.

True, but the US Army is a different bag of tricks to the Irish/British experience. A degree is available to anyone who wants it down these ends, for example, so joining the army is for different reasons. Etc. You know yourself.

newby.204

Judt wrote:

If you also look into the science of warfare you'll discover that better educated men from stable family backgrounds make better soldiers and leaders. In an ideal world anyone could have a crack at being an officer, but in reality it's a middle-class occupation because most of the educated types are middle-class. However most leaders on the battlefield are NCO's, so I don't see what you're getting at about working class people not being allowed to lead in the army.

It's the same as civvie street. We're all supposed to have a fair chance, but if your dad was a bank manager on £90,000 a year and my dad was a window washer, you're more likely to be the officer. Still, joke's on the officers you later outearn in civvie street through all those enterprising skills you learned as an NCO

Judt i get the awful feelin you are/were in the PDF???:D "enterprising" i like that!!!

Judt

newby.204 wrote:

Judt i get the awful feelin you are/were in the PDF???:D "enterprising" i like that!!!

I don't know what you're implying. Especially if you are/were a PA

newby.204

Judt wrote:

I don't know what you're implying. Especially if you are/were a PA

No Plz do not insult me!!!! im a techy no need to worrie!!!

Judt

newby.204 wrote:

No Plz do not insult me!!!! im a techy no need to worrie!!!

Do you take sugar?

newby.204

Judt wrote:

Do you take sugar?

3 thanks:D and a mars if its going!!!

Judt

newby.204 wrote:

3 thanks:D and a mars if its going!!!

What, without even checking to see who's on the gate? Gutsy.

newby.204

Judt wrote:

What, without even checking to see who's on the gate? Gutsy.

Ha Ha

Zambia

Mick86 wrote:

He doesn't have a surname.

He just does not use it

Mick86

Zambia232 wrote:

He just does not use it

Well if his surname is Mountbatten-Windsor which his grandmother said it should be on occasions when surnames are required then why is he called Wales in the Army. Obviously his father is Prince of Wales and thats where it derived from so it follows then that he can call himself Bloggs or Jones or Saxe-Coburg-Gotha if he wants. It also follows that he does not have an official surname. Grandmother's wishes have no application in law.

Interesting as this trivia is it's getting away from whether he should do the job he's paid to do.

Zambia

Mick86 wrote:

Interesting as this trivia is it's getting away from whether he should do the job he's paid to do.

Ok to end it then...

The prince's official family name is that of Windsor, according to his grandmother's royal proclamation of 1960, but some of the descendants of Queen Elizabeth II appear to use the surname Mountbatten-Windsor as personal preference.

Source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_harry

And yes he should go , he joined the army of his own free will hence he goes where they tell him.

Mick86

Zambia232 wrote:

The prince's official family name is that of Windsor, according to his grandmother's royal proclamation of 1960, but some of the descendants of Queen Elizabeth II appear to use the surname Mountbatten-Windsor as personal preference.

Source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_harry

Another source. Bit confusing really since Wales contradicts the Royal Decree. There's also a contradiction in the article.

http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page5657.asp

The Royal Family name of Windsor was confirmed by The Queen after her accession in 1952. However, in 1960, The Queen and The Duke of Edinburgh decided that they would like their own direct descendants to be distinguished from the rest of the Royal Family (without changing the name of the Royal House), as Windsor is the surname used by all the male and unmarried female descendants of George V.

It was therefore declared in the Privy Council that The Queen's descendants, other than those with the style of Royal Highness and the title of Prince/Princess, or female descendants who marry, would carry the name of Mountbatten-Windsor.

This reflected Prince Philip's surname. In 1947, when Prince Philip of Greece became naturalised, he assumed the name of Philip Mountbatten as a Lieutenant in the Royal Navy.

The effect of the declaration was that all The Queen's children, on occasions when they needed a surname, would have the surname Mountbatten-Windsor.

For the most part, members of the Royal Family who are entitled to the style and dignity of HRH Prince or Princess do not need a surname, but if at any time any of them do need a surname (such as upon marriage), that surname is Mountbatten-Windsor.

The surname Mountbatten-Windsor first appeared on an official document on 14 November 1973, in the marriage register at Westminster Abbey for the marriage of Princess Anne and Captain Mark Phillips.

A proclamation on the Royal Family name by the reigning monarch is not statutory; unlike an Act of Parliament, it does not pass into the law of the land. Such a proclamation is not binding on succeeding reigning sovereigns, nor does it set a precedent which must be followed by reigning sovereigns who come after.

Unless The Prince of Wales chooses to alter the present decisions when he becomes king, he will continue to be of the House of Windsor and his grandchildren will use the surname Mountbatten-Windsor.

SeanW

Ok now that we're done with the surnames, back to business.

Zambia232 wrote:

And yes he should go , he joined the army of his own free will hence he goes where they tell him.

That's not in question becasue Harry is seeking to go to Iraq.

The point of this thread was (what I see as) the stupidity by the MoD to SEND him there (to be targetted and perhaps killed) and potentially handing a major victory to any one of the zillions of murderous nutcases running around there.

What happens if he gets captured by some jihadist who posts a video of him with a demand that the UK pull out of Iraq or "we kill your Crusading Prince?"

It has FIASCO written all over it.

Manic Moran

SeanW wrote:

What happens if he gets captured by some jihadist who posts a video of him with a demand that the UK pull out of Iraq or "we kill your Crusading Prince?"

My guess is that there is going to be much umbrage, refusal by the Brits as a nation to be held hostage, and he'll have his head lopped off. As the Brits seem in general to be rather fond of the guy, this will result in a desire for retribution, and the current down-sizing of the British involvement in Iraq will stop, possibly reverse, until the jihadist in question meets a messy end.

NTM

Zambia

SeanW wrote:

That's not in question becasue Harry is seeking to go to Iraq.

His unit is being sent he just wants to go with them

Mick86

SeanW wrote:

The point of this thread was (what I see as) the stupidity by the MoD to SEND him there (to be targetted and perhaps killed) and potentially handing a major victory to any one of the zillions of murderous nutcases running around there.

His life is no more precious than the life of anybody else's son or daughter. When he joined the army the MOD knew he would be sent to war so they should have pre-empted the fiasco then. It would be a greater fiasco if he was seen by the rest of the Army to get preferential treatment on the basis of his rank. In fact it would undermine the whole ethos of the BA where JNCOs and Junior Officers lead from the front. Wacking Harry would actually speed up the defeat of Al Queda in Iraq because killing one of their Princes would piss the the Brits off. And anybody who has pissed off the Brits in the last few hundred years has paid the price.

SeanW wrote:

What happens if he gets captured by some jihadist who posts a video of him with a demand that the UK pull out of Iraq or "we kill your Crusading Prince?"

It has FIASCO written all over it.

He dies just like any other misfortunate SOB that falls into the hands of the jihadists. See above for the rest.

Diogenes

Manic Moran wrote:

My guess is that there is going to be much umbrage, refusal by the Brits as a nation to be held hostage, and he'll have his head lopped off. As the Brits seem in general to be rather fond of the guy, this will result in a desire for retribution, and the current down-sizing of the British involvement in Iraq will stop, possibly reverse, until the jihadist in question meets a messy end.

NTM

With respect I think you completely misjudge current public opinion for the war in Iraq in the UK, people arent as gungho as they were with the falklands, even the most rightwing of tabloids has voiced concern, and recent articles have pointed out that recruits in Iraq's among british forces is the youngest among all NATO members.

Iraqi insurgents have claimed that a recent attack on a sorpicion was a dry run for an attack on Harry. Furthermore one needs only to look at the Queens speech, in Washington, so restrainted on the War on Terror, while Bush's so gung ho. Finally Theres the change in government, coming neither Cameroon or Brown would dare capitalise on Harry's death but it would shape their opinion on the war.

Frankly the british aren't in a spirit of the blitz moment, if he was to die it would draw people not atypicaly anti war into the protests and could hasten a troop withdraw

Manic Moran

Diogenes wrote:

With respect I think you completely misjudge current public opinion for the war in Iraq in the UK, people arent as gungho as they were with the falklands, even the most rightwing of tabloids has voiced concern, and recent articles have pointed out that recruits in Iraq's among british forces is the youngest among all NATO members.

This would have absolutely nothing to do with the British opinion on Iraq. The Brits are rather fond of their Royal Family, the Camilla/Charles thing notwithstanding, and their feelings on having one of the Family at knifepoint will, I think, outweigh their opinions on Telic. It just doesn't seem to be in their psyche to look like their caving to an outside demand, especially if one of the Royals is involved. If the insurgents want the Brits out, the best thing they can do is leave the British alone, and they'll pull out on their own. They're already dropping to half-strength, I'll wager the rest won't be far behind.

NTM

luckat

Why are we talking about this foreigner?

Zambia

luckat wrote:

Why are we talking about this foreigner?

We are talking about him , you are just interjecting with silly comments.

oscarBravo

luckat wrote:

Why are we talking about this foreigner?

Because he's the topic of the thread. There's nothing in the charter about only discussing Irish issues.

Diogenes

Manic Moran wrote:

This would have absolutely nothing to do with the British opinion on Iraq. The Brits are rather fond of their Royal Family, the Camilla/Charles thing notwithstanding, and their feelings on having one of the Family at knifepoint will, I think, outweigh their opinions on Telic.
NTM

No sorry British public opinion aganist the war, makes the US distaste for the war, seem postively flag waving. There's no way that the British could spin this to make the public go pro war, in fact Harry's death would be totemic for the anti war movement, allowing people like Cameron to justify an pull out immediate pull out.

You need to understand that the Monarchy isn't the British government, and are often at odds with each other. Harry's death would allow "establishment types" to come out and be strongly anti war while still being patriotic.

Zambia

Diogenes wrote:

No sorry British public opinion aganist the war, makes the US distaste for the war, seem postively flag waving. There's no way that the British could spin this to make the public go pro war, in fact Harry's death would be totemic for the anti war movement, allowing people like Cameron to justify an pull out immediate pull out.

You need to understand that the Monarchy isn't the British government, and are often at odds with each other. Harry's death would allow "establishment types" to come out and be strongly anti war while still being patriotic.

I would see it as a cowardly act and would back either Brown or Cameron in a not backing down. I dont see how the death of a Royal would justify a pullout when the weekly deaths of troops dont.