Jump to content

Iraq too dangerous for British Upper Class

monsoon

By monsoon
in The Coffee House

Recommended Posts

monsoon Gigalopolis

monsoon

Posted
Posted

The British have decided that Prince Harry, a commissioned officer in the British Army, is not going to serve in Iraq. They have said that it is too dangerous for him. Since when is war a safe endeavor? I find it appalling that more than 3400 of our men and women are now dead from that war, and ten's of thousands more injured, and they are afraid that someone might take a shot at Prince Harry. I simply don't buy this excuse they are giving in that he would be a "target". Well they have had already made their mark on 3400 targets and I wonder what is the point of putting someone like him through the Army if they are not going to let him serve.

Iraq is an unnecessary war. And like all unnecessary wars, it's the people without class or privilege that have the burden of fighting them and the ones that dieing from them. This of course is something that GW Bush can't identify with because, like Prince Harry, he got out of having to serve in Vietnam when it was his turn to do so.

If the people who were so quick to go to war actually had to fight them, then I suspect there would be far fewer wars. Bleh :sick:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 15
  • Created
  • Last Reply
dimebag1980 Metropolis

dimebag1980

Posted
Posted
The British have decided that Prince Harry, a commissioned officer in the British Army, is not going to serve in Iraq. They have said that it is too dangerous for him. Since when is war a safe endeavor? I find it appalling that more than 3400 of our men and women are now dead from that war, and ten's of thousands more injured, and they are afraid that someone might take a shot at Prince Harry. I simply don't buy this excuse they are giving in that he would be a "target". Well they have had already made their mark on 3400 targets and I wonder what is the point of putting someone like him through the Army if they are not going to let him serve.

Iraq is an unnecessary war. And like all unnecessary wars, it's the people without class or privilege that have the burden of fighting them and the ones that dieing from them. This of course is something that GW Bush can't identify with because, like Prince Harry, he got out of having to serve in Vietnam when it was his turn to do so.

If the people who were so quick to go to war actually had to fight them, then I suspect there would be far fewer wars. Bleh :sick:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captain Worley Burg

Captain Worley

Posted
Posted

Well, disregarding why we got into the war, and if we should pull out, I think the British made a wise decision. He'd be quite a target for the terrorists, and quite a bit of publicity for them, should they capture him. A lot of British resources would be used in his protection, rather that fighting the enemy. I thought it was dopey of them to even consider sending him there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pillsbury Burg

Pillsbury

Posted
Posted

Let me just say that at least he's considering going to war for his country, which is a heckuva lot more than any of our eader's children are willing to do. Maybe when the Bush twins move their college parties to Baghdad I will change my mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
runawayjim Metropolis

runawayjim

Posted
Posted

the reason that they aren't sending prince harry (who is very disappointed that he can't go) is because there have been very specific threats against him if he does go. he would no only be putting his own life on the line, but making it more dangerous for those fighting along side of him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
nowensone Burg

nowensone

Posted
Posted

Because I am a somewhat suspicious person, I think the whole Prince Harry going to war thing was just a charade. I don't think there was ever any intention of his seeing the front-lines, the whole stunt being to show what a real man he was by demanding no special treatment and insisting on seeing combat. Also to improve morale for British troops by showing that the royal second son was willing to fight along side the commoner. The fact that a general made the last minute decision to remove him absolves the royal family (and Prince Harry of course) from any charges of cowardice or elitism. Assuming we don't all think it was a stunt to begin with and the general wasn't told what to do...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cinco Burg

cinco

Posted
Posted
Because I am a somewhat suspicious person, I think the whole Prince Harry going to war thing was just a charade. I don't think there was ever any intention of his seeing the front-lines, the whole stunt being to show what a real man he was by demanding no special treatment and insisting on seeing combat. Also to improve morale for British troops by showing that the royal second son was willing to fight along side the commoner. The fact that a general made the last minute decision to remove him absolves the royal family (and Prince Harry of course) from any charges of cowardice or elitism. Assuming we don't all think it was a stunt to begin with and the general wasn't told what to do...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Southron Burg

Southron

Posted
Posted

He should be deployed over there, and not given special treatment. His uncle Andrew flew a helicopter in the Falkland Islands conflict back in the early eighties, so why shouldn't this second son be put in harm's way? This is a big black eye for a royal family that prides itself on public service.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captain Worley Burg

Captain Worley

Posted
Posted
He should be deployed over there, and not given special treatment. His uncle Andrew flew a helicopter in the Falkland Islands conflict back in the early eighties, so why shouldn't this second son be put in harm's way? This is a big black eye for a royal family that prides itself on public service.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Southron Burg

Southron

Posted
Posted
Yes, Andrew flew a helicopter off a carrier well out the area of battle. The greatest threat was from an Exocet and the carriers were well protected from that. There is a big difference in the level of security between that and pounding the pavement in Iraq.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.