Prince Henry Charles Albert David Mountbatten-Windsor...

A forum for serious discussion only - i.e. politics, religion, ethics etc.

Moderators: Shadow Reaper, theblessedsheridan, Casious, Phantom16

User avatar
Shadow Reaper
Posts: 5212
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2000 1:00 pm
Location: Capital Wasteland

Prince Henry Charles Albert David Mountbatten-Windsor...

Post by Shadow Reaper » Mon Apr 24, 2006 7:08 pm

...or known to the more common of us as Prince Harry...

Basically, in an effort to stimulate discussion, should Harry, if called to, be packed off to Iraq with the Blues and Royals?

It's a pretty good discussion to have. Harry himself has threatened to resign if he isn't sent with his unit. As well as this, surely the Royals would not have let him join the army if there was a chance of him being sent into combat.

But should a royal be sent to one of the most violent areas in the world at the moment? He could very well be killed, or by being a high-profile target, attract more attacks towards himself resulting in the death of other troops?

Remember, this isn't a discussion of whether Iraq is a legal war or not, but whether Harry should be sent into combat.
"Next time you watch Return of the Jedi, note that all Ackbar wants to do, from the minute the assault on the Death Star begins, is leave."

User avatar
Posts: 1077
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2003 12:00 am
Location: currently in Canadia

Post by Del » Mon Apr 24, 2006 7:44 pm

He probably won't, but sending him would be a show of strength; although it would be much more effective if Blair sent his own family memebers

Posts: 1826
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2001 12:00 am
Location: Canada

Post by Sheriden » Mon Apr 24, 2006 11:04 pm

I think it would be a good idea if he went, considering that he is a high status citizen, a member of the royal house itself. Most of the people going and dying in wars are nobodies, so to put a face like Henry's into it would be a good morale booster and as Del mentioned, it would be a huge show of strength.

Though I have to ask, What exactly would resigning accomplish? lol, he still wouldn't go out to the war, so that would just further the side of those who want to keep him out of it.

Posts: 8357
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2000 1:00 pm
Location: Fridge, looking for beer.

Post by bzb » Mon Apr 24, 2006 11:12 pm

I imagine he will go, its not a new thing to send the royals off to get shot at when ever we get the chance.
Whilst its true he would be a high profile target i doubt he'd be unprotected and his squad would probably all have an sas tattoo. Realistically he would only have to do a few photo calls and never be put in any danger. They do keep saying the army needs caterers after all. We aint going to know a hostile dusty street from a friendly one after all.

Worst case scenario is he gets killed and sways public opinion into allowing retibution Dreden style, which wouldnt be so good.
Best case is that the royals are seen to put a child at risk in the same way so many other familys are asked to do so.
Cheese is evil.

User avatar
Texas Ranger
Posts: 2006
Joined: Mon May 28, 2001 12:00 pm
Location: Johnstone, Renfrewshire Scotland

Post by Texas Ranger » Tue Apr 25, 2006 3:59 pm

Charles never saw active duty however andrew Did i think it only the direct aire that is "exempt" so to speak. however the whole wills, Harry thing gets a little more "eggshell" treatment due to media coverage . its basically a lose lose tha army would be critisesed for sending him to a hot area and critisised for not sending under "special" rules.


Return to “Serious Discussion”