This is yesterday's news, but I feel the decision is totally vindicated. The media had given the game away, and any harm done/kidnap etc. done to harry would have been a huge propoganda victory for the insurgents.

I feel the media angle has been used an a convenient reason, because unless they say where & when EXACTLY he serves, what difference would it make?

I feel it's the most sensible decision.Apparently even the members of his troop were referring to Harry as 'the ginger bullet magnet'. roflmao

yeah but stef, there's little doubt the insurgents etc. would target him - if they killed or kidnapped him it would be catastrophic!

Also sniper shooting would surely have increased and there'd be even more casualties on our part.

I see what you mean Sam but I personally think that anyone who dies for their country is, as you say, "catastrophic".

If he had served though, you wouldn't want to be another solider who looked a bit like Harry..

i'm astonished the decision took so long to make, it always looked pretty cut and dried to me, not only would it be a catastrophe if he was injured or killed, but his presence would put others in danger, i don't understand what there was to decide.

oh yeah, I wasn't prioritisng harrys life over any other soldier, but obviously, the media would have jumped straight in, and the effect on Britain would be larger than if it was a normal soldier. Sounds harsh but it is true :(

Every death in Iraq is a catastropheThe situation is a disaster.Don't know how Blair and Bush can sleep at night.

I've always said and will continue to say that hindight is an amazing thing.

For instance, anyone who votes/voted conservative, citing the war as a reason, has no ground to stand on, as the conservatives would have done EXACTLY the same as Tony Blair did.

You're probably right that Tories would've supported Bush's war too,but that doesn't make it a wiser decision.

only got to look at 1982 and 1991 to see the Tories reaction, although in those cases there was an invasion by foreign powers.

I tend to agree FR

I agree, and I must question what is he doing in the army in the first place? Surely those who join it have to be prepared to go off to war and even if he was, he would never have bene allowed to go. The question is should he be serving in the army and if so why?

It does make me wonder if his ilk serve in the forces just to look good, safe in the knowledge that they are never going to have to risk death. Not fair when you consider all the others that die. Call me cynical if you want, but it seems like a tokenisitic gesture on the part of the royals.

Well that's a very good point SB. You join the army knowing full well there is always the possibility you might have to be on the front line. It's basically saying that the other soldiers' lives aren't worth as much as a member of the royal family.

I have very little time for royals as you can probably gather.

Perhaps not, but that's the hindsight thing isn't it?

It wasn't a bloody easy decision at the time! I supported it to start with and, you know, i'd like the troops out now, but it's hard for me to suddenly have a go at them and say ah it was all wrong!

I don't think a lot of many royals, harry included!

I just think he's someone who doesn't realise it's not toy soldiers in Iraq! His Army career is finished, but I don't think that's a bad thing. Believe me, if a Royal died fighting in Iraq, although all human lives have equal value, Harry being killed would be a huge victory for the insurgents, and would no doubt endanger and demoralise many troops.

Anyway, shouldn't we get most of the troops out of there anyway?

don't think his career is necessarily finished, and had it been anywhere else other than Iraq I think he would be there fighting as Prince Andrew did in the Falklands (ok Andrew piloted search and rescue helicopters but in the line of fire)

There is huge political capital to be made if Harry was kidnapped - imagine that? Harry tied up and beheaded on prime time internet?

That is the major reason he's not going, also as other posters have said, that anywhere he might have been deployed, would increased the danger to other soldiers in the vicinity.

definitely

Thanks :)

I agree with you on all counts there :ok: I have zero time for the royals myself. the alledgedly do a 'great' job, great job of spending shedloads of dosh from what I can see nto to mention displaying extreme ignorance about the state of and realities faced by their nation's subjects AND causing offence to people, liek the idiotic Nazi costume. How bloody insensitive was that? How can that be deemed a laugh? :angry:

Yes that is all true. But why the hell did they recruit him? Average people don't get jobs when they are unable to carry out it's main purpose. More bending rules for the royals. :rolleyes:

Maybe they'll post him to Afghanistan instead roflmao .It does seem wrong that his life is considered more valuable than that of the poor young men and women who have already made the 'ultimate sacrifice' in Iraq.

The Queen is wondeful though - fantastic integrity the woman has, when she is gone we will miss her, because I can see the Royals making, well a right Royal cock-up of things!

GOD SAVE OUR QUEEN :bow:

I think we ought to send Jade Goody anyway - they'd surrender instantly roflmao

No I reckon we should send that horrid Katy off the Apprentice. That stare will kill them alone, failign that the venom form her mouth will do the job! roflmao

You arent; going to sing the National anthem I hope ........

The royals get so much flack for doing nothing. But moneywise at least they don't get that much from the state, less and less each year. They tend to make their own money these days, look at Prince EdwardAndrew (get them muddled up :wacko: ) and his hugely successful business and the Queen is worth something like £300 million on her own account.

Really, politicians get funded more by the state than the royals these days.

And it's the royals that make the U.K the United Kingdom, without them we'd have to think up a new name. roflmao

Agree with this. But at the same time it is a simple reality. He is more valuable as more British people relate to him than they relate to the unknown soldier.

He represents a symbol of the British forces. Does this symbol needs to stay safely home..or should this symbol show the world the courage of the British forces?

That is the question really and Nelson knew the answer to that question!

roflmao

Well they might make money but only because they've been given so much from the state. Btw what about the Queen Mum's overdraft? Didn't some bank write off about 8 million quid for her a while ago? :rolleyes:

Wish I had their money, cos I reckon I;d make a lot more of it.

The Dutch have the right attitude to Royals. Fair enough, they exist from historic circumstances, but the worl dhave now changed and is more democratic. They are respected but they are not revered and given anything they want, and they live in more modest circumstances and are seen out and about doign noraml things and even wearing jeans. :)

If that symbol is political incorrectness and drunken teenage antics, then yeah he does roflmao

:lol: Good point. But United States is already taken. :)

Yeah, Im not saying that they aren't privaledged, and they have obviously lead a lifestyle that they were born into. A very antiquated notion in this day and age.

But there are so many more conglomerate, money grabbing business people in the world swindling us that I tend not to mind the royals and their purses when I think of them in comparison :)

Darn it! The United.........erm....oh we'll think of something! :lol:

Yeah..and one is certainly enough! ;)

:D

Fair comment :)

Yep there are far too many money grabbing b*stards about these days in all secotors. What gets me is that many of them are nto so much tryign to earn extra dosh to improve their lifestyle, BUT they become completely obsessed by the whole nation of making, and often losing, money for the sake of it. Many of them are stressed out and psucholgically ill as a result. Do youremember Wall Street where Michael Dougls played Gordon Gekko? They reckon that was a great protrayl of him , he ate slept and breathed money and was a complete nasty stress bucket. I really despise greed :angry:

Yeah I totally agree, I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting to have enough money for a comfortable life and doing the things you want. But I really cannot fathom people who become obsessed with money itself, as in 'riches' and in making it at all costs, regardless of who you tread on along the way. :crazy1:

roflmao

just did another one of those celeb look alike things from WiseAnalyst's thread and it came out 70% as guess who? Prince Harry of Wales, which is appropiate considering Im Welsh roflmao

Actually on the particular two photos, we do look really similar! (except im not ginger)

roflmao You look like everybody Serena! roflmao

The bigger issue for the unit isn't Harry being kidnapped, it's the unit being targeted attempting to kidnap Harry.
With the media constantly reporting who's doing what in Iraq (and where they are doing it), his being there would endanger his unit much more than himself. I know I wouldn't want to be the guy on patrol with him, knowing the media has just reported we were out in Bagdad, probably even reporting what street we were on and maybe using helicopters to record us just in case we're hit - so they could get a TV scoop.

Realistically, it was foolish to allow him to even go Infantry. The British military should have realized this would happen and limited his options to either support (including aviation, artillery and such) or allow him to go Special Ops, where the media doesn't really know where they are so they can't compromise the unit. Front-line military (Infantry, Armor, Combat Engineers, etc...) just isn't the place for him in today's Army - not because he can't do it and such but because of all the media coverage, he endangers others just by being there. It's not worth risking the lives of 36 men (an infantry platoon) just to prove a point.

bloody noodle miner roflmao

no i'm not :D

But I do like the queen, I think she's a fantastic woman and has always kept the highest standards - She of course was a driver in the second world war...

So yes, god save our queen - because if charles gets the throne then, well, that will finish any credibility the royal family had, especially with Camilla as queen :angry:

Just did that celebrity face thing with a picture of Camilla - came back with a 98% match for "shergar" roflmao

roflmao

I knwo what you mean, I do think the Queen herself had doen remarkably well to carry on as she has despite that bunch of losers around her! roflmao Then again, they are her family so she is partly responsible I guess.