Prince Harry

Rugbypup

Expert Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2007
Posts
3,128
Media
1
Likes
196
Points
283
Location
Wellington (New Zealand)
Sexuality
Unsure
Gender
Male
He's third in line to the throne. (Queen - 1st Charles, 2nd William, 3rd Harry).

Dosen't matter if he's 1st or 12th, it still makes him a trophy target.

They are bringing him home because all the press are going over there, and it'll be a matter of time before one of them gets kidnapped again and held hostage.

Journalists are convenient as hostage material, a Prince would be a God send. I can hear it now, we don't negotiate with terrorists. Yeah, right.

The army have enough problems fighting in a foriegn land, against skilled local fighters trained in guerilla (sorry about the spelling) warfare. The last thing they need is scores of media from all over the world trying to get themselves shot. So if it was a choice between 100's of media swarming the country and getting in the way, or letting Harry go back to England, their is only one sensible choice.

I never said the media are not scum when it comes to matter likes this, but it was only a matter of time before he was recognized anyways. In choosing to proove his manhood abroad, he chose to endanger all around him.

Before all the media interest, he was doing an excellent job.

Excellent within the limits of being a Prince at war allows.

And the reasoning why the BBC were following him round is simple. Because he couldn't go to iraq due to media attention the army struck a 'deal'. The basics were, 1) Media black out on where harry is and what he is doing till Mid to late April. 2) If that happened the BBC to cover his day to day activities.

Media black out, the term is kinda a joke. It boils down to the army hoping the locals are too thick to know he's a Prince and the BBC getting a massive scoop if they kept their mouths shut. Balencing the lives of other soldiers on a perverse razors edge.

Just because he is a prince is not a reason why he cannot serve in the military.

It is the perfect reason why he should not serve in active hostile combat zones.

If the info wasn't leaked and the Afgans learned who he was anyways, then they made him their priority target resulting in a capture attempt, which say fails, the Prince escapes but x number of commonal garden troops are killed in the attempt, they would have died for no other reason than a Prince wanted his cake and eat it.

I'm sorry Mrs Jones, your son was blown apart when the Afgans tried a sneek offensive to kidnap a Prince of England. Your son just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and in the wrong company. Here, have a tissue and don't feel to bad, you arent the only parents i'm seeing today.
 

Gonzo3

Experimental Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2008
Posts
1,110
Media
3
Likes
13
Points
123
Location
World wide dudes ,world wide
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Dosen't matter if he's 1st or 12th, it still makes him a trophy target.



Journalists are convienitent as hostage material, a Prince would be a God send. I can hear it now, we don't negotiat with terrorists. Yeah, right.



I never said the media are not scum when it comes to matter likes this, but it was only a matter of time before he was recongised anyways. I choosing to proove his manhood abroad, he chose to endanger all around him.



Excellent within the limits of being a Prince at war allows.



Media black out, the term is kinda a joke. It boils down to the army hoping the locals are too think to know he's a Prince and the BBC getting a massive scoop if they kept their mouths shut.



It is the perfect reason why he should not serve in active hostile combat zones.

If the info wasn't leaked and the Afgans learned who he was anyways, then they made him their priority target resulting in a capture attempt, which say fails, the Prince escapes but x number of commonal garden troops are killed in the attempt, they would have died for no other reason than a Prince wanted his cake and eat it.
....................Now now rugbypup less of this treason he could be your head of state one day after all you are still in the commwealth ............ he he he :smile:
 

Rugbypup

Expert Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2007
Posts
3,128
Media
1
Likes
196
Points
283
Location
Wellington (New Zealand)
Sexuality
Unsure
Gender
Male
erm... no.

They are leeches, they contribute virtually nothing for the MASSIVE amount they cost the tax payer.

They represent a history and basic diplomatic role, nothing more.

They are not worth the money and should be abolished, they're all a bunch of bloody hoorays anyways.

If they were, Harry could go fight were ever the fuck he liked, lol.
 

deepwader

Sexy Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2007
Posts
216
Media
4
Likes
48
Points
248
Age
56
Location
Cumbria (England)
Sexuality
80% Gay, 20% Straight
Gender
Male
I am as proud of Harry Windsor carrying out his military duty as I am of every other British serviceman doing the same thing - no more and no less. He went there because it was his job and I am sure his comrades were glad to have him amongst them "bullet magnet" or not.
 

don kiddick

Just Browsing
Joined
Feb 22, 2008
Posts
22
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
86
Location
Manchester, England
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Excellent within the limits of being a Prince at war allows.



.

What does that mean? Are you saying because he is a Royal he does get his hands dirty?

Its clear I can't convince you............So I'm not going to try.

But regardless of who he is, it takes a special sort of person to sign up to the armed forces. I'm very proud of the fact a member of the royal family is willing to put his body on the line for his grandma and country.

(the royals cost 61p per tax payer per year)
 

alex8.5

Admired Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Posts
1,672
Media
0
Likes
824
Points
333
Location
Bel Air, California. USA
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
I am not a great fan of the royal family. But any man or woman that goes to war for their country should be admired. Maybe doing it with a film crew behind you was not the best move, but his intentions were propably honorable..
 

swordfishME

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2006
Posts
960
Media
0
Likes
135
Points
263
Location
DFW Texas
Sexuality
80% Gay, 20% Straight
Gender
Male
People are now saying that this was orchestrated as a big publicity stunt by his grandmother. She had the media leak the story so that the defense department would have no choice but to bring her grandson home.
 

Rugbypup

Expert Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2007
Posts
3,128
Media
1
Likes
196
Points
283
Location
Wellington (New Zealand)
Sexuality
Unsure
Gender
Male
i'm still in college, and from what i remember most of the presidents of the united states are veterans. many served in the military prior to being in office.


And unless you have an enemy with amazing powers of divination, you are unlikely to have found anyone, back then, wanting to shoot Bush because we was to be a future president in x number of years time.

Harry is different, he was born a royal and has grown up in the UK royal lime light. This sadly does put major restrictions on what he can do in life, the poor sod isnt even allowed to fly on the same plane at the same time as his grandmother, father or brother.

I'm not denying that joining the armed forces takes a special kind of person. A two fold statement as I believe some of them to be truly special people and others more in need of special education, but regardless, they undertake a job knowing they my die for their country and even for a cause they don't believe in.

I my not agree with how the British army is used, but i have no disrespect for the forces in general.

My problem is, as Harry is a royal, he is always going to have someone watching him and in essence, keeping him on a lead. No one else in the forces has this luxury. If Harry wanted to fight, so be it, he should have been sent to the front in Iraq, Afganistan, where ever, and bollock to the media painting a target on his arse.

He must know he is a priority target by virtue of his birth whether he likes the fact or not. He may well want to be a soldier, and serve his country but as we've seen, first sign of him being in any danger due to who he is and he's whisked back home. No one else in the forces has this privilege, no one.

In essence, it's no different to sending the Queen herself to the middle of the hostile zones in Iraq. We are at war with these people and you simply do not send a high profiled dignitary into the firing line. Not only do you endager their lives but more importantly, you endanger the lives of everyone else around them.

This is wrong.
 

Charles Finn

Expert Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2006
Posts
2,431
Media
26
Likes
205
Points
193
Location
Toledo Ohio
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
there is no money in peace.
war is always wrong.
we may have won ww2 but lost the peace.
we rebuilt Germany and Japan from the ground up and gave them the means to win the peace.
if we spent less money on war and more money feeding and housing people life would be a lot better
 

don kiddick

Just Browsing
Joined
Feb 22, 2008
Posts
22
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
86
Location
Manchester, England
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
The basics of any war are wrong.

Now this might not go down well in an American dominated forum. But if the entire world was communist, all land property and wealth shared equally, if people worked together instead of against the world would be a really good place to live.

HOWEVER, you'd need to have a totally non corrupt govenment.......and that just won't happen, because power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutly.

Ho humm
 

Qua

Legendary Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2007
Posts
1,604
Media
63
Likes
1,268
Points
583
Location
Boston (Massachusetts, United States)
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Now this might not go down well in an American dominated forum. But if the entire world was communist, all land property and wealth shared equally, if people worked together instead of against the world would be a really good place to live.

HOWEVER, you'd need to have a totally non corrupt govenment.......and that just won't happen, because power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutly.

I think nearly any economist (monetarist or Keynesian) would point to the inability of a centralized power to quickly, effeciently and accurately assess the needs of its people to be a central, indisputable and impossible to overcome flaw in a large-scale, complete command economy system