Britain’s Prince Harry will serve in Iraq
(AFP)

17 February 2007

LONDON - Britain’s Prince Harry will be serving in southern Iraq by the end of the month with his army regiment, probably taking part in reconnaissance missions near the Iran border, a newspaper reported Saturday.

A Ministry of Defence spokeswoman said the Daily Mirror report was ‘entirely speculative’ because no final decisions have been made on which units will relieve the 19th Light Brigade currently in Iraq.

She added that the next handover is not even due until around May.

But a senior military source told the Mirror that the decision has been made to send Harry, a second lieutenant in the Blues and Royals Regiment.

‘The final details are being sorted, but he is definitely going. Naturally, his royal status has to be taken into account -- but he will see action,’ the source was quoted as saying.

Harry, 22, has made it clear he wants to be treated no differently from other officers he trained with at the elite Sandhurst Military Academy, from which he graduated last year.

Prince Harry is the second son of Prince Charles, who is heir to the British throne, and the late Princess Diana.

The newspaper said Harry is likely to be in charge of a troop of 12 soldiers in light armoured vehicles who will likely spend days or even weeks out in the desert conducting reconnaissance missions.

It added that Defence Secretary Des Browne is expected to announce the news on February 26.

‘He has insisted on being able to perform his duties as any other officer would. He won’t be just flying a desk,’ said a senior military source quoted by the newspaper.

‘As a young officer Harry will want to go to war as a point of pride. There would have been no point in him training for this if that was never going to happen,’ the source said.

A total of 132 Britons have died serving in Iraq since the US-led invasion in March 2003.

Some 7,100 British soldiers are currently deployed in Iraq, mainly in and around its second city of Basra, although the government in London says it hopes to withdraw ‘thousands’ by the end of this year.

British forces are deployed in Iraq as part of the US-led coalition and have overall security responsibility for Basra and the surrounding region, where rival Shia militias and criminal gangs are vying for supremacy.


Hows that for the rich and powerful sending their children into harms way?

His uncle, Prince Andrew saw action in the Falklands. It is a point of pride for the English monarchy that while the direct heir to the throne does not serve, the other siblings do.

Couldn't this be somewhat reckless to report? Doesn't seem like it'd be wise to report when and where the prince is going to be deployed, puts Harry and his entire regiment in greater risk.

Hows that for the rich and powerful sending their children into harms way?Somewhere in the Hamptons, a young Ivy League graduate shudders at the thought.

If you thought the British people were against this war now, just imagine what they will be like if anything happens to the very popular Prince Harry in Iraq.

If you thought the British people were against this war now, just imagine what they will be like if anything happens to the very popular Prince Harry in Iraq.

It depends on what happens. If he is killed by Iranians smuggling weapons into Iraq, the feelings might explode against Iran. That might even provide an ally to the United States.

It depends on what happens. If he is killed by Iranians smuggling weapons into Iraq, the feelings might explode against Iran. That might even provide an ally to the United States.

I wonder what would happen if he were killed by Saudis smuggling weapons into Iraq?

That might even provide an ally to the United States.

Who?

Who?

I was referring to the idea that Harry's death might change English opinion enough to convince them to aid in an attack on Iran.

Ah I see. Well, I can easily imagine British support in a future attack on Iran, regardless of Harry. But, yeah it would stir up some very emotional responds from the public, demanding revenge.

I was referring to the idea that Harry's death might change English opinion enough to convince them to aid in an attack on Iran.

It seems to me that the general consenusus among Brits is that they are already against the war.

However, if their "royal" (oh how i loathe that concept) personage Harry were to be killed in Iraq, maybe it would make ALL Britons realize the futility and stupidity of participating in that bloody, ill-advised enterprise in Iraq.

One can only dream, right brother Freethinker?

It seems to me that the general consenusus among Brits is that they are already against the war.

However, if their "royal" (oh how i loathe that concept) personage Harry were to be killed in Iraq, maybe it would make ALL Britons realize the futility and stupidity of participating in that bloody, ill-advised enterprise in Iraq.

Although I agree w/most of your post I do take except to your loathing of "royalty". It is a tradition. No WORSE then our PRESIDENT... go figure... It is the "PRIME MONSTER" to quote a friend that dictates policy, etc., for the country. The "Royalty" SELDOM intervenes!

Yeah the BRITS are against the war... go there... SEE WHAT WAR does... and then MAYBE you'll understand... 9/11 WAS NOTHING compare to what they endured!

Although I agree w/most of your post I do take except to your loathing of "royalty". It is a tradition. No WORSE then our PRESIDENT...

Au contraire.

The absurd notion of *transmissible nobility* (IOW, 'royalty') is very far removed from public elections being held to select those who will lead.

It is the "PRIME MONSTER" to quote a friend that dictates policy, etc., for the country. The "Royalty" SELDOM intervenes!

Whether they *intervene* or not has nothing to do with it.

It is the notion of *royalty* itself that I despise.

Yeah the BRITS are against the war... go there... SEE WHAT WAR does... and then MAYBE you'll understand...

I already understand that. The Brits --in being in widespread disagreement with and opposition to the Iraq "war"-- have shown themselves far superior in terms of critical thinking than the average flag-waving *Kill-em-all-and-let-Gawd-sort-em-out* buffoon in America.


9/11 WAS NOTHING compare to what they endured!

I agree completely.

One can only dream, right brother Freethinker?

ESAD.

I hope that no harm whatsoever befalls Harry.

OK but realistically how much action is he going to see. He is going to be so guarded and watched. He will not be your typical recruit in any ways. There will be different rules for him.

True, but revenge is a very powerful emotion.

How he is treated, and what his comrades think of him depends a great deal on himself. Prince Andrew flew combat missions during the Falklands conflict. His commander wanted to hold him out, but he demanded to be treated no differently than anyone else. He won a great deal of respect amongst the other pilots for that.
It could be much the same for Harry. He is an officer in his regiment, and I doubt he wants to be the sort that would let others take on the dangerous missions he avoids. If he is, he shouldn't be leading troops in the first place. The fact that he completed his education at Sandhurst says that he probably isn't that sort, and the assignment of deep recon patrols is not one that he would have requested if he was.

True and well put, but the monarchy in not going to allow anything to happen to Prince Harry. He will see action and probably stand his own and time will tell how it affects his life.
It is commendable that he is even going.

So you prefer the American system of government to a Constitutional Monarchy. As you are aware, many dis-agree with you.

So you prefer the American system of government to a Constitutional Monarchy. As you are aware, many dis-agree with you.
Well I have never been one to conform to the masses. hehe
I am a girl not like the others and my ideals may be different also.
As long as you can stand straight it is all good. :)

Too bad his dad can't get him into the Texas Air Nat'l Guard.
Kid has guts. More than you can say about certain US officials and some of their clapping seals.

ESAD.

I hope that no harm whatsoever befalls Harry.
You can't tell me his comment wasn't appropriate.

[QUOTE=Freethinker]Au contraire.

The absurd notion of *transmissible nobility* (IOW, 'royalty') is very far removed from public elections being held to select those who will lead.

And, like, you don't think we have this in our country? Look at the Kennedy's! Hell, look a Bush! We don't have "transmissible nobility" but just look at our politicians... they come from GENERATIONS of POLITICIANS! I see little difference between what we have and what they have... the only difference is the NOBILITY is SMART ENOUGH to stay out of POLITICS!



Whether they *intervene* or not has nothing to do with it.

It is the notion of *royalty* itself that I despise.

That's fine. I DESPISE politicians in general... haven't see an honest one in my lifetime...

You can't tell me his comment wasn't appropriate.

?!?!?!?

You can't tell me that you thought by what I said that I was making ANY suggestion, in any way shape form or fashion, that I hoped the person in question --Harry-- would come to be injured or killed.

I never had any thought whatsoever about his being hurt. I'm sorry if you got that impression from what I said. I do not want one more human being, be they Brit, American, Iraqi or any other nationality to die in Iraq.

Decka: "Your mom wants someone to die in iraq!"

Au contraire. The absurd notion of *transmissible nobility* (IOW, 'royalty') is very far removed from public elections being held to select those who will lead.


And, like, you don't think we have this in our country?

And, like, no.





Like.

___________________________

:rolleyes:

I never had any thought whatsoever about his being hurt. I'm sorry if you got that impression from what I said. I do not want one more human being, be they Brit, American, Iraqi or any other nationality to die in Iraq.
Why?

Aren't Americans, in your opinion, that is, inherently lesser human beings? I mean, seriously, how many times do you have to imply it before people start accusing you of thinking that we're intrinsically stupid? OTOH, if I were to say that about Africans, you'd be pretty pissed off, wouldn't you?

That aside, Sparky's comment (IMHO - and correct me if I'm wrong here, Spark) was directed towards you hoping his death (as nothing more than a matter of unfortunate circumstance) would CAUSE the Britons to "realize the futility and stupidity of participating in that bloody, ill-advised enterprise in Iraq". It's not as if he said you wanted Prince Harry hurt (at least, not directly, of course), and why would you....?

I mean, considering the fact that you "loathe" the whole concept of "transmissible nobility", and you've directly admitted to hating anyone who supports the war in Iraq, why would we assume that you wanted him dead???

That's silly.

why would we assume that you wanted him dead???


Because you are a crazy right-wing reactionary?
:lolhit:

Oh, that's real original coming from little Mrs. Punching Bag...

Listen weirdo, if you were any further to the political left, you'd be Nikita Khrushchev. Hearing your thoughts on modern America is akin to gleaning over the communist manifesto; it's like reading the longest suicide note in history.

Thanks for illustrating my point for me, wacko.
:lolhit:

:lolhit:

No problem. :rolleyes: