Harry Not Going To Iraq - Page 3

jambutty · 17-05-2007, 13:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by WillowTheWhisp

How come Andrew could go to the Falklands if Harry can't go to Iraq?

Because, as a helicopter pilot, Andrew’s chances of becoming a casualty of war were virtually nil.

If the monarchy had been disbanded years ago as many people thought it should have been, this problem would not have arisen.

The solution today or rather yesterday would have been not to allow any of the royals to join the armed forces.

SPUGGIE J · 17-05-2007, 13:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by jambutty

The solution today or rather yesterday would have been not to allow any of the royals to join the armed forces.

True but we have to find something for these layabouts to do. I dont think being roving ambasadors would help either.

jambutty · 17-05-2007, 13:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by SPUGGIE J

True but we have to find something for these layabouts to do. I dont think being roving ambasadors would help either.

What about a real job like down a coal mine or on the docks or a volunteer care assistant in an old people’s home. Refuse collector springs to mind.

Tealeaf · 17-05-2007, 13:22

He has a real job. The fact is the generals and politicians have stopped him from doing it. Or don't you ever read the news, Jambutty?

Traceyb37 · 17-05-2007, 14:13

They are saying some military figures said he had lost credibility in the service and predicted he would ultimately resign his commission.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/...266152,00.html

Gayle · 17-05-2007, 20:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ianto.W.

The poor chap is in a no win situation as was said earlier, the royalty only pay lip service to the armed forces, to justify the wearing of the uniform on official parades. It is in my opinion a sensible decision as 'our lad's' would only have been placed in a more war escalated position, lets face it the royals are not even safe here never mind in those cesspits. He's done all the 'hard' work after all we all know how tough it is at Sandhurst.

You can certainly say that some of the royals only pay lip service to the armed forces but I really don't think you can say that about Harry. He seems to have been really committed to it and worked hard. Think we have to cut him some slack on this, I don't think it's his fault that he can't go.

cherokee · 20-05-2007, 03:14

I have had rather mixed feelings about this...

first of all when all this came out i was all for him going to iraq.. but as time has materialised im now well and truly against it and the decision made is appropiate.
As you all know my son is in the army and like many other mothers on here who have sons serving then im sure im not alone.
I am more than relieved that harry is not going to iraq, not only for his own safety but mainly for the safety of his fellow lads whom he has trained with and become a family within themselves..

The media have made it impossible for him to go , THEY SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN INFORMED..but i still feel that ,,umm wasnt that the intention of the royal family to let them know ? knowing the outcome...

If my son were serving along side of harry then i would have been on pins ..Its not Harrys fault .. the firm knew what they were doing and harry is just another skittle to knock down... build him up make him feel worthwhile then make it impossible for him to carry out his duties by publicising his intentions.... umm royals ..get rid ...

steeljack · 20-05-2007, 05:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by jambutty

Because, as a helicopter pilot, Andrew’s chances of becoming a casualty of war were virtually nil.

A reassuring statement , Maybe you should tell that to a someone who uses this sight on a regular basis and lost her husband whilst he was piloting a helicopter gunship out there (Falklands) 25 years ago this weekend .

Neil · 20-05-2007, 08:55

Has anyone thought about this from the other angle?

If Harry did go then in might draw out more insurgents to be dealt with. I thought part of the problem over there was no one to shoot at most of the time. Harry would be good 'bait' and might actually help.

alan7554 · 20-05-2007, 12:53

i cant see the point of not letting him go its not as if he is next in line to the throne, and if he does get shot its not much of a waste,as every soldier who has been to iraq runs the same risk of being shot,pity they dont send his dad charlie boy,then if he gets shot at least this country will get a decent king with willy boy.

garinda · 20-05-2007, 14:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by alan7554

i cant see the point of not letting him go its not as if he is next in line to the throne, and if he does get shot its not much of a waste,as every soldier who has been to iraq runs the same risk of being shot,pity they dont send his dad charlie boy,then if he gets shot at least this country will get a decent king with willy boy.

He's not being sent according to the Army because of the increased risk to the men under his control. It's nothing to do with his place in the line of succession to the throne. The late Duke of Kent, Prince George, was killed whilst serving in the last World War.

yerself · 20-05-2007, 14:18

Whether you agree with him being sent to Iraq or not, here's an excerpt from the statement made by General Sir Richard Dannatt, Chief of the General Staff.

There have been a number of specific threats – some reported and some not reported - which relate directly to Prince Harry as an individual. These threats place not only him but also those around him to a degree of risk that I now deem unacceptable. Now that I have decided that he will not be deploying with his Troop, the risks faced by his Battlegroup are no different to those faced by any other Battlegroup or other of our Servicemen in Iraq.

Full statement:http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/De...eptableCgs.htm

alan7554 · 21-05-2007, 10:43

prince george was killed in a flying accident when is plane crashed in scotland,not really a war victim more of a casualty of bad flying in bad weater conditions,and lets face it every soldier in a war zone situation is at risk even if harry does,nt go, it was even worse in n.ireland even the kids threw things at you,one minute they are your friend and the next tey are chucking bricks at you,if you join the army you expect to run the risk of being sent to a war zone,if you are born with a silver spoon in your mout or not

harwood red · 21-05-2007, 10:52

I don't think Harry had a problem going to war, more the people around him...he is supposedly very disappointed and concerned about where that leaves him regarding his career in the forces!!

I have mixed emotions about him going or not going but do think it was more about putting his fellow soldiers at increased risk

Ianto.W. · 21-05-2007, 12:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gayle

You can certainly say that some of the royals only pay lip service to the armed forces but I really don't think you can say that about Harry. He seems to have been really committed to it and worked hard. Think we have to cut him some slack on this, I don't think it's his fault that he can't go.

Speaking from my own experience, and not a newspaper report, the present Duke of Kent was a Captain in the Royal Scotts Greys, when I was in the Royal Signals, seconded to the 4/7 Dragoon Guards. This scruffy 'officer' inspected us on 'Muster Parade', he stopped at my side and said "what were you before you joined the army trooper" I said "signalman sir, happy". Do not ask how long I was on 'Jankers', royals my backside!