Should Prince Harry go to Iraq?

[raphael123]

So, it's been the main news today.

Should he be sent over there like every other soldier would be? Or should he be given special treatment and stay here, or simply be given a desk job over there?

[tony_yeboah]

no way, hes gone in the army like everyone else. he should be treated equally

[Erki]

You mean, as a tourist?

[schmenke]

I don't think that he would get preferential treatment but the problem is that he would be a prime target for the Iraquis. By extension his presence would be putting those around him in greater danger so for that reason I don't think that he should go.
Also, for the same reason, the unit in which he would be serving would require additional security... additional cost to the Brit taxpayer :mark:

[Curryhead]

I don't think he should go, I don't think by stopping him going would be giving him special treatment. I believe in any other type of conflict, the powers that be would be happy to send him,and perform the tasks expected of his military rank, in this situation however, its different, if he was harmed or worse, the publicity value the "enemy" would get would be enormous, also, if he was sent there, the whole British army out there would suffer more assaults on them because every man and his dog would be hoping to strike "lucky" I can see an argument for sending him, but I believe for all concerned, the best policy would be to keep him here. I don't think for one moment his family are trying to pull any favours, all my own opinion of course

[Eki]

Quoting tony_yeboah, "Who cares?"

[jarrambide]

Quoting tony_yeboah, "Who cares?"
Brits, just like (probably) they don´t care what the majority of Finns do.

[f1icemen]

difficult situation

i'd say no purely because of the high priority risk that troops would be under higher risk because of the prince..

i dont think that he shouldnt go because he might get killed.. after all his life is as relevant as all the others in Iraq

[Tomi]

Also, for the same reason, the unit in which he would be serving would require additional security... additional cost to the Brit taxpayer :mark:

On the otherhand if the Iraqies would get him killed, the taxpayers propably would save money in the long run.

[Eki]

Brits, just like (probably) they don´t care what the majority of Finns do.
Or if Boris Yeltsin dies.

[jarrambide]

Or if Boris Yeltsin dies.
Which proves Brits and Yanks are very much alike, even if the don´t accept it :D

[jim mcglinchey]

What did he join the army and train as an officer for if, when it came to the bit, he wasnt allowed to go to where his unit was needed? Is he just playing at soldiers, though its also reported that hes talking of resigning his commission if he is treated differently.Which would be admirable, if its true.

[jarrambide]

What did he join the army and train as an officer for if, when it came to the bit, he wasnt allowed to go to where his unit was needed? Is he just playing at soldiers, though its also reported that hes talking of resigning his commission if he is treated differently.Which would be admirable, if its true.
His uncle saw action in the Falklands/Malvinas war, I do believe the royal family has a history of entering the army to be ral soldiers, not just pretenbding to be one, but I do believe this is a very different case and as someone already said, it´s not that his life is in greater danger he can do whatever he wants with his life, is the fact that he will put his whole unit in greater danger, and that is not fair to them.

If the conflict was in a different country I would say, let the chap go, but in this case I believe the correct answer is to keep him in GB. Now, if he feels the need to resign, he should do it, out of respect for his unit members, proving to them that he wants to be with them and that this was not special treatment.

[cdn_grampa]

What a load of bullsh!t.

[Hazell B]

I'm with Curryhead on this one - don't send him as it will damage 'us' if he's hurt and add to the other unit's danger.

However, if we could be 100% promised that his being there would have zero publicity and nobody would know, I'd be happy to see him go. It's normal of the Royals to sign up, but he chose the place he wanted to sign for and should therefore fight if required.

[stevie_gerrard]

he said himself he wants to be treated equally and not as the royal. i can understand the dangers with sending him out, but hes doing what he wants to do for his country, he obviously understands the risks otherwise he wouldnt have gone through all the training for it.

[BDunnell]

I would like to add myself to the 'don't care' list on this one, except to say the obvious — that there's no point anyone putting themselves forward for a job if they're unable to carry it out to the full.

[DonnieDarco]

My view is no. I understand Harry wants to be treated the same as everyone else and I agree with that. The trouble is, they will go all out until they kill him and this endangers the lives of all our other soldiers. Even more so than usual.

None of our other soldiers are singled out because of who they are, but the sad fact is Harry would be.

A desk job won't save him and he wouldn't want that anyway.

[Gannex]

What a load of bullsh!t.

Thank you, cdn_ grampa, for that insight. I was beginning to worry that no constructive comment would appear in this thread; I was beginning to despair, in fact, when, just in the nick of time, your thought-provoking, valuable, and illuminating post came along. Thank you, cdn_grampa; you have restored my faith in the importance of listening to the older generation, of respecting their views and experience. On behalf of the over-50 generation, I take my hat off to you -- you do us proud.

Please contribute more often. We need more posts like yours.

[Hawkmoon]

Well, from the point of view that he is an enlisted soldier and should therefore do whatever he is told to do, I would say he should not be exempt from going to Iraq.

Ofcourse, he's not just an enlisted soldier is he? He's a member of the Royal Family and an Heir to the throne, albiet a bit removed. So whether he likes it or not, he's not an ordinary soldier and he never will be. So special considerations will be given to him. If he doesn't like it then he will have to find another job.

Whilst I think the death of a Royal would make a hell of a lot of news and give the insurgents, terrorists and other unpleasent folk a lot to crow about, I'm not so sure that he would be a danger to those around him. I don't think the bad guys will all start carrying pictures of young 'Arry around in their wallets just waiting for a chance to off the lad. I think it's more likely that he would be endangered by a random act of violence than by a planned attack designed specifically to target him, and him alone.

[oily oaf]

All this trying to protect the royals is futile IMHO.
They tried it before in 1982 when they sent Prince Andrew to The Falklands to fight the Argies disguised as a door.
Sadly he was spotted by an enemy sniper whilst leading an assault on Port Stanley and had his knob shot off :(
Anyway I think you'll find he's already been over there and done his tour of duty. I even saw a film about it last week "When Harry Met Ali"

PS If that ginger twunt is the biological son of Prince Charles I'm a bleedin' Chinaman!
Come to think of it that other long streak of paralysed pi$$ don't look much like 'im neither (fume)

Yours faithfuly
Her Royal Highness Queen Elizabeth II
Big Ole Posh Gaff
Just Down The Road From Oily Oaf's Drum
Ing Ger Land

[oily oaf]

Thank you, cdn_ grampa, for that insight. I was beginning to worry that no constructive comment would appear in this thread; I was beginning to despair, in fact, when, just in the nick of time, your thought-provoking, valuable, and illuminating post came along. Thank you, cdn_grampa; you have restored my faith in the importance of listening to the older generation, of respecting their views and experience. On behalf of the over-50 generation, I take my hat off to you -- you do us proud.

Please contribute more often. We need more posts like yours.

COBBLERS MATE!

Respectfully Yours
Cdn Grampa's slightly older brother.

[ShiftingGears]

It's his choice, so if he wants to go, I don't see why not. He is not a child and can make decisions like this for himself.

[raphael123]

Well, from the point of view that he is an enlisted soldier and should therefore do whatever he is told to do, I would say he should not be exempt from going to Iraq.

Ofcourse, he's not just an enlisted soldier is he? He's a member of the Royal Family and an Heir to the throne, albiet a bit removed. So whether he likes it or not, he's not an ordinary soldier and he never will be. So special considerations will be given to him. If he doesn't like it then he will have to find another job.

Whilst I think the death of a Royal would make a hell of a lot of news and give the insurgents, terrorists and other unpleasent folk a lot to crow about, I'm not so sure that he would be a danger to those around him. I don't think the bad guys will all start carrying pictures of young 'Arry around in their wallets just waiting for a chance to off the lad. I think it's more likely that he would be endangered by a random act of violence than by a planned attack designed specifically to target him, and him alone.

Are you for real? Of course they will be looking for him.
We are dealing with a different kind of opposition to when Prince Andrew went to war.

I'm firmly in the belief that Prince Harry should be given special treatment - and not be sent to war. I don't think he shouldn't be sent to war because we must ensure he isn't killed, but because it would make an already near impossible job, impossible! It will take up resources, bring more attention to his unit, and more importantly, put his colleagues at a great risk of death.

To those people who argue he should be treated the same as anyone else, how do you counter the arguement - that it puts everyone else around him at greater risk?

And to those people who were on the news yesterday saying that Harry should be sent to war, so that the Royals can feel how scared they feel when their child goes to a war zone, how sick are these people?! Actually wishing, on another family, to go through the pain, worry and stress of knowing your child is in Iraq and could come home in a coffin! You may not like the Royal family, but wishing something on them like that - well, that makes you a pretty twisted individual.

I hope common sense prevails, and that he's kept here for the benefit of everyone! And to those people who don't care (why you posted on here to say that I don't know :dozey :) - quite sad really, especially if your British. Did you not give a sh!t when Diana died as well? Or is it just because you oppose the war in the first place :dozey:

[Hotbikerchic33]

I've never been into the royal family i personally think they are a waste of tax payers money but thats another story....so i couldnt really care what Harry does but i think if he does go he is putting the others in his team or what ever its called in Danger as everyone will be after Harry big time! if he does go he should be treated like just any other soldier or whats the point of him being there!! :D

[raphael123]

Waste of tax-payers money? We fork out 61p a year on them or something ridiculous! Wow, I can see how that precious 61p is going to make a big difference to your life :dozey:

I think we're lucky to have them - it's part of tradition, and they should be given respect.

Lack of respect, such as the comment above is a perfect example of how society is here these days. No one seems to respect one another - and the same applies to how your suppose to respect your elders. They not really that prominent in our society these days it seems :(

[555-04Q2]

If Harry is enlisted and his division/battalion is scheduled/called up to go over to Iraq, then he must go. His life is not worth more than any other persons life is. We are all equal, maybe not in "status", but all men are equal. This nonsense about him endangering others in his company is a lot of hogwash. Its a warzone, it is dangerous no matter who is there. If you dont want to get shot, become a store clerk not a soldier.

[raphael123]

If Harry is enlisted and his division/battalion is scheduled/called up to go over to Iraq, then he must go. His life is not worth more than any other persons life is. We are all equal, maybe not in "status", but all men are equal. This nonsense about him endangering others in his company is a lot of hogwash. Its a warzone, it is dangerous no matter who is there. If you dont want to get shot, become a store clerk not a soldier.

How ignorant is that! Terrorists on their website have already stated if Harry is there, they will try everything they can to make sure he doesn't come out alive! So of course he would be putting others at life, as they would be doing everything they could to kidnap him, or just kill him from afar if that's the only way. If you can't see how Harry's life, and those around him would be in bigger danger than your average Joe out there - your being extremely naive. I'm not saying Harry's life is worth more than an average Joe - but by sending him out there, him and his colleagues will be at a greater risk of death than if he wasn't there. When you got the terrorists saying they will do what they can to kill him on their websites, you saying it won't be any more danger comes across as slightly on the 'stupid' side.

And your comment 'If you don't want to get shot, become a store clerk not a soldier' makes me wonder how much you know of this situation. You do know that Harry has said he wants to go, and doesn't just want to do a desk job, he wants to go out and do what he's been trained to do?

Or have you not read or watched anything about it?

[555-04Q2]

How ignorant is that! you saying it won't be any more danger comes across as slightly on the 'stupid' side.

Thanks for the lovely comments about me. Now you can go and Fu@k yourself, mate!

[raphael123]

Thanks for the lovely comments about me. Now you can go and Fu@k yourself, mate!

Sorry, I didn't mean to upset you. I said your comment was stupid. Not you personally.

I'd be interested in hearing a mature reply from you though :)

[Drew]

If they've said he is going to go, he should go.

It's not like somebody didn't tell them it was a warzone in the first place. Maybe then the royal family will get shirty about it when (come on, it's highyl likely) he's killed.

[raphael123]

If they've said he is going to go, he should go.

It's not like somebody didn't tell them it was a warzone in the first place. Maybe then the royal family will get shirty about it when (come on, it's highyl likely) he's killed.

You actually want someone's son/grandson to go to a warzone, where he would be targetted more so than any other soldier, and put his colleagues at risk, in the hope the Royal family will publicly critizise the war?

What a bitter sick twisted individual you are :dozey:

[Erki]

I don't know, if he got killed there, wouldn't all the hell break loose? :s

[Hotbikerchic33]

Waste of tax-payers money? We fork out 61p a year on them or something ridiculous! Wow, I can see how that precious 61p is going to make a big difference to your life :dozey:

I think we're lucky to have them - it's part of tradition, and they should be given respect.

Lack of respect, such as the comment above is a perfect example of how society is here these days. No one seems to respect one another - and the same applies to how your suppose to respect your elders. They not really that prominent in our society these days it seems :(

Now your talking though your arse here! how do you know its only 61p and i wasnt talking about just me i was talking about the uk in general

And why should they be given respect what have they ever done for me??
i do give people respect i am just not a royalist its not a crime or a sin and i am not on my own loads of people arent! :D

[Hazell B]

Now your talking though your arse here! how do you know its only 61p and i wasnt talking about just me i was talking about the uk in general

And why should they be given respect what have they ever done for me??
i do give people respect i am just not a royalist its not a crime or a sin and i am not on my own loads of people arent! :D

How do you know it isn't? ;)

It's common knowledge that the Royals bring in tourists, even after 9/11, and that tourist spending more than covers their cost to the tax payer. We sure as hell wouldn't get much tourism without them, or the castles they've built over the years. If they went, so would the prestige our heritage offers us.

It's also true that one single court case that fell through because of the Daily Mirror some years ago cost the tax payer more than the Royals that same year. Ironic when the Mirror moans about Royalty costing us so much :p :

I'm pretty ambivalent about them, but don't ever moan about their cost. Thick, illiterate Chavs who refuse to work cost us far, far more each year ....

[Eki]

How do you know it isn't? ;)

It's common knowledge that the Royals bring in tourists, even after 9/11, and that tourist spending more than covers their cost to the tax payer.
Guarding the tourist attraction near Buckingham Palace must be the most boring job in the world. Even a guard's horse was sleeping standing up while I was there. I don't know if the guard was asleep, he had his fur hat on his eyes.

[Hazell B]

The fur hats are made from bears, rare ones, even these days.
I don't like the hats :(

[BDunnell]

Waste of tax-payers money? We fork out 61p a year on them or something ridiculous! Wow, I can see how that precious 61p is going to make a big difference to your life :dozey:

I think we're lucky to have them - it's part of tradition, and they should be given respect.

Lack of respect, such as the comment above is a perfect example of how society is here these days. No one seems to respect one another - and the same applies to how your suppose to respect your elders. They not really that prominent in our society these days it seems :(

I think you're confusing respect, which is a good quality, with blind servility towards our rulers, which isn't. Why should I respect the Royal Family, no matter how many tourists they bring in? The fact that I don't doesn't make me a bad or rude person.

[slinkster]

It's catch 22. I know he wants to do this as a regular soldier, that he's being trained to do a job etc, and I respect his determination to be treated as such. But the fact is, he isn't. He's a royal, and could potentially be a big target. I can understand the worries of other soldiers... I really can, and I repsect that they probably know more about our "enemies" tactics than we mere plebs do.

[Eki]

The fur hats are made from bears, rare ones, even these days.
I don't like the hats :(
I don't like them either, especially if they make new ones.

[Hazell B]

Good one, Eki.

They still make new ones, but not many. The fake versions are lighter, last longer, don't smell, but sadly cost a lot more. If the tax payer has to pay for the horses, I feel they should pay for the fake hats too. Nobody in power agrees with me, sadly.

[ViperSniper]

Well, that splayed out like a bamboo stick then didn't it?

To answer the original question.... yes. And he should take his dad with him as a recce scout.

[Curryhead]

Well, that splayed out like a bamboo stick then didn't it?

To answer the original question.... yes. And he should take his dad with him as a recce scout.

Hey there mate, what have you done for your country? and before you call him or his father, walk a mile in their shoes brother, enough said, thats the closet I have come to a rant on a forum :dozey:

[schmenke]

The fur hats are made from bears, rare ones, even these days...

Canadian black bears to be exact. Hardly rare and not even close to being extinct.

[Gannex]

If we had an elected president as Head of State, instead of a monarch, it would not be any cheaper. Look at France, for example. Their presidency has far more pomp and circumstance than our monarchy, and it's all on the French taxpayer's account. And I defy anybody to say that the elected presidents around the world do a better job of representing their countries than the Queen does for Britain.

[Drew]

You actually want someone's son/grandson to go to a warzone, where he would be targetted more so than any other soldier, and put his colleagues at risk, in the hope the Royal family will publicly critizise the war?

What a bitter sick twisted individual you are :dozey:

I'm not the one who decided he would go in the first place. I just said that it's not secret it's a war zone

[Hazell B]

If we had an elected president as Head of State, instead of a monarch, it would not be any cheaper. Look at France, for example. Their presidency has far more pomp and circumstance than our monarchy, and it's all on the French taxpayer's account.

I'd never thought of that. If Tony Blair became our next best thing, he'd need almost as much cash for the same old traditional affairs, yet without it looking so British. Plus he'd want to move up to a certain bigger house with posh iron gates :p :

I didn't say they were on an extinct list, Schmenke. Numbers are, we're told, dwindling and the specific colour of pelt means loads are killed to make one hat. Either way, it's wrongness.

[BDunnell]

If we had an elected president as Head of State, instead of a monarch, it would not be any cheaper. Look at France, for example. Their presidency has far more pomp and circumstance than our monarchy, and it's all on the French taxpayer's account. And I defy anybody to say that the elected presidents around the world do a better job of representing their countries than the Queen does for Britain.

My objection to their existence is not on cost grounds. While my dislike of the Royal Famil isn't as strong as it once was, I am firmly opposed to any form of hereditary principle, whether it be in the form of a monarchy or the House of Lords.

[Eki]

Canadian black bears to be exact. Hardly rare and not even close to being extinct.
So? I wouldn't want to be hunted for to become a hat when there are synthetic materials as a substitute.

[Hazell B]

I wouldn't want to be hunted for to become a hat when there are synthetic materials as a substitute.


Don't worry, you're not fashionable at the moment and they invented Pleather to stop you getting shot at :p :

What, does anyone know, do the Royals cost us anyway? And does young Harry get paid to be a soldier while we pay for soldiers to guard him while he's on duty? Or do his police guys still have to be there while he's in a war zone?

[Curryhead]

Or do his police guys still have to be there while he's in a war zone?

Hazell, the Royals have special Military Police units when in locations such as that, and special forces, or at least they used to in my day :)

[Valve Bounce]

He should not go to Iraq, simply because he would be a great target for kidnappers who don't give a damn about the Geneva Convention or in fact any regard to humanity.

Send him to an army camp in Europe and give him kitchen duties.

[Ian McC]

Just too much of a high profile target, ever terrorist and nut job will be out to get him, in the end they probably would at the cost of many lives. Whatever you think of the Royals it would be a massive blow to the UK.

[dime3]

He should not go to Iraq, simply because he would be a great target for kidnappers who don't give a damn about the Geneva Convention or in fact any regard to humanity.

Send him to an army camp in Europe and give him kitchen duties.


Kitchen duties eh? Lay those choices on his table and off to Iraq he will be in seconds. :s mokin:

[Hotbikerchic33]

Why should I respect the Royal Family, no matter how many tourists they bring in? The fact that I don't doesn't make me a bad or rude person.[/quote]


Of course it doesn't we have people on here who are royalist and people on here who aren't but i am with you mate i dont like them either! ;)

I heard on the radio that if Harry goes to iraq they will be after him as soon as he gets there thought that was a bit obvious!

[raphael123]

Now your talking though your arse here! how do you know its only 61p and i wasnt talking about just me i was talking about the uk in general

And why should they be given respect what have they ever done for me??
i do give people respect i am just not a royalist its not a crime or a sin and i am not on my own loads of people arent! :D

Just because you'd rather say they are a waste of tax-payers money, without doing any research on the matter, doesn't mean we all just believe what some tabloids anti-royals say.

The Royal Public Finances annual report said that the Royal household cost the taxpayer 36.7 million pounds, and within that budget there are many jobs which are created - it's not all spent on them going shopping in Harrods, or taking weekend holidays to Monte Carlo like some people would want to believe. A lot of that is spent on travelling abroad representing Britain.

Just a click on the BBC website, or any major news website would give you this kind of information.

So you only respect people who 'give you something', or 'do something for you'? I think that says more about you than back up your arguement :dozey:

Anyway, if your too stingy (61p a year for god sake!) to respect the tradition of Royal Family, which have a huge role in representing us to the World (which you realise when you live abroad - how big the Royal Family are, and how envious some countries are of Britain having a Royal Family!), that's up to you.

But a waste of tax-payers money really is a very weak arguement. The benefit of having a Royal family is more than worth 61p a year. And I'm no Royalist.

[raphael123]

How do you know it isn't? ;)

It's common knowledge that the Royals bring in tourists, even after 9/11, and that tourist spending more than covers their cost to the tax payer. We sure as hell wouldn't get much tourism without them, or the castles they've built over the years. If they went, so would the prestige our heritage offers us.

It's also true that one single court case that fell through because of the Daily Mirror some years ago cost the tax payer more than the Royals that same year. Ironic when the Mirror moans about Royalty costing us so much :p :

I'm pretty ambivalent about them, but don't ever moan about their cost. Thick, illiterate Chavs who refuse to work cost us far, far more each year ....

Well said Hazell :up:

[raphael123]

I think you're confusing respect, which is a good quality, with blind servility towards our rulers, which isn't. Why should I respect the Royal Family, no matter how many tourists they bring in? The fact that I don't doesn't make me a bad or rude person.

Why should you respect them?
Why shouldn't you respect them?

Do you begrudge 61p a year of your tax for the Royal Family to live, and carry out their duties? The man who said he doesn't mind some of his tax going on the people unemployed through laziness, rather than for medical reasons.

I don't see why anyone would dislike the Royal Family, apart from maybe jealousy.

I'm not even British born, and though I wouldn't say I'm particular fond of them, I can understand their importance to Britain, and don't begrudge the 61p a year I give them.

Maybe that's the problem, people who are born and raised in Britain (I don't know if you are, but this applies to everyone, not you specifically) don't realise how much the Royal Family are regarded abroad. I know in France, if the front cover of a magazine is of one of the Royal's it will guarantee to be sold by the bucket load, same in America. I was living in France at the time of Princess Diana's death, and the impact of her death (though obviously the fact it happened in France played a part) was immense. The same in America.

If people were aware, maybe they'd realise that they play and important role in creating an image of Britain, which is better than what Blair would do (as Chirac does for france), and definately an improvement on the otherwise stereotype that the English are football hooligan, beer bellies chaved up guys :dozey:

[raphael123]

I'm not the one who decided he would go in the first place. I just said that it's not secret it's a war zone

It wasn't that part of your statement I thought was a bit sick.
It was the fact you said 'It's not like somebody didn't tell them it was a warzone in the first place - Maybe then the royal family will get shirty about it when (come on, it's highyl likely) he's killed'.

Don't you think that's a hugely distasteful thing to say!? You may be against the war, but saying that at least it'd mean the royal family (at the end of the day they may be royals - but they have feelings and emotions too!) may get shirty about it if their son/grandson was murdered - to me - that's sick!

You say it as if it'd be a good thing for a son, a brother, a grandchild, a boyfriend to be murdered, just so a few people would maybe publicly critizise a war you disagree with. What a nice guy you are :down:

[BDunnell]

Do you begrudge 61p a year of your tax for the Royal Family to live, and carry out their duties? The man who said he doesn't mind some of his tax going on the people unemployed through laziness, rather than for medical reasons.

I don't see why anyone would dislike the Royal Family, apart from maybe jealousy.

I don't begrudge that money going towards them. As you say, it is a small amount. Nowhere, by the way, have I deployed the argument that they are too expensive.

What I object to is, as I made clear before, any form of hereditary principle. This has nothing to do with jealousy. I am far from jealous of the Royal Family, as I'm far happier being me.


Maybe that's the problem, people who are born and raised in Britain (I don't know if you are, but this applies to everyone, not you specifically) don't realise how much the Royal Family are regarded abroad. I know in France, if the front cover of a magazine is of one of the Royal's it will guarantee to be sold by the bucket load, same in America. I was living in France at the time of Princess Diana's death, and the impact of her death (though obviously the fact it happened in France played a part) was immense. The same in America.

I am well aware of this. On a not unrelated issue, the level of grief exhibited at the death of Princess Diana remains the most disturbing behaviour I've ever seen on the part of a large section of the British public — seeing some footage again recently confirmed my view. I don't care if anyone finds it heartless, but that's my opinion.

[raphael123]

I don't begrudge that money going towards them. As you say, it is a small amount. Nowhere, by the way, have I deployed the argument that they are too expensive.

What I object to is, as I made clear before, any form of hereditary principle. This has nothing to do with jealousy. I am far from jealous of the Royal Family, as I'm far happier being me.



That's true, you never said it was about money did you :)

I take it you would rather have a 'President' then? So Tony Blair would be our 'representative' rather than the Queen.

I think we have the best of both worlds. A political leader elected by the public, and then the Royal Family, who represent us, are part of our history and give us a sense of tradition, and they show us in good light (I believe) abroad. And let's not forget all the charity work they do, in particular Prince Charles. I really don't see why some people hate the idea of the Royal Family, when when you look at it - the work they do is generally very positive.



I am well aware of this. On a not unrelated issue, the level of grief exhibited at the death of Princess Diana remains the most disturbing behaviour I've ever seen on the part of a large section of the British public — seeing some footage again recently confirmed my view. I don't care if anyone finds it heartless, but that's my opinion.

People were upset, you recognise that, as do 99.9% of the population who have seen these images. I don't see why people would think you were heartless for staying people showed their upset and heart over her death.

Obviously I was upset in the sense I would have rather it did not happen. I was actually in Paris the day she died, and went through that exact tunnel about 10hrs before her! But even I was surprised at the level of impact her death had on the general public, not just in the UK (which was to be expected), but in France and America.

[BDunnell]

I take it you would rather have a 'President' then? So Tony Blair would be our 'representative' rather than the Queen.

I think we have the best of both worlds. A political leader elected by the public, and then the Royal Family, who represent us, are part of our history and give us a sense of tradition, and they show us in good light (I believe) abroad. And let's not forget all the charity work they do, in particular Prince Charles. I really don't see why some people hate the idea of the Royal Family, when when you look at it - the work they do is generally very positive.

Yes, ideally, I would rather we became a republic. I am not a great one for ceremonial tradition, and I always get the feeling that the Royals' attempts to find roles for themselves are a bit desperate, but I don't feel as strongly about it as once I did.


People were upset, you recognise that, as do 99.9% of the population who have seen these images. I don't see why people would think you were heartless for staying people showed their upset and heart over her death.

Obviously I was upset in the sense I would have rather it did not happen. I was actually in Paris the day she died, and went through that exact tunnel about 10hrs before her! But even I was surprised at the level of impact her death had on the general public, not just in the UK (which was to be expected), but in France and America.

I don't understand why people get genuinely upset over the death of someone they don't know, and who they only 'knew' to any extent through the media. This was my big problem with the whole thing. I think this feeling is entirely irrational. I reserve my grief for those to whom I am actually personally close, and do not understand how anyone can have such depths of feelings for a public personality they never encountered.

I could go into more details about the post-Diana frenzy, but I don't have time now.

[Hotbikerchic33]

At the end of the day are we really bothered if Harry goes to iraq or not??
he knows the risks so do his family!! :D

[raphael123]

Yes, ideally, I would rather we became a republic. I am not a great one for ceremonial tradition, and I always get the feeling that the Royals' attempts to find roles for themselves are a bit desperate, but I don't feel as strongly about it as once I did.


I guess that's where our opinion differs. I think the role the Royal Family are important to Britain - such as representing us abroad, and also all the charity work they do. If you feel this is 'desperate' - that's fine. But I'm sure the people who have benefitted from their charity work, would disagree with you :)


I don't understand why people get genuinely upset over the death of someone they don't know, and who they only 'knew' to any extent through the media. This was my big problem with the whole thing. I think this feeling is entirely irrational. I reserve my grief for those to whom I am actually personally close, and do not understand how anyone can have such depths of feelings for a public personality they never encountered.

I could go into more details about the post-Diana frenzy, but I don't have time now.

I see. Your right - that is quite heartless, some may even saying chillingly cold hearted! I found the killings of the russian kids a couple of years back very upsetting, as well as the Holly and Jessica murders by Ian Huntley, and 9/11 etc. I didn't know them personally of course, but I was rather upset by that. I wasn't as upset when Diana died, but I guess I stayed away from the media stories. But I found the funeral rather moving.

I think your right, it does come across as pretty heartless if you can only feel grief for someone you knew personally.

I'm a guy, but I don't think it makes me any less of a man to admit to shedding a tear over some tradegies - even if I did not know any of the people involved personally.

[raphael123]

At the end of the day are we really bothered if Harry goes to iraq or not??
he knows the risks so do his family!! :D

How old are you?

PS: Do you still feel the Royal Family are a waste of tax-payers money?

[BDunnell]

I see. Your right - that is quite heartless, some may even saying chillingly cold hearted! I found the killings of the russian kids a couple of years back very upsetting, as well as the Holly and Jessica murders by Ian Huntley, and 9/11 etc. I didn't know them personally of course, but I was rather upset by that. I wasn't as upset when Diana died, but I guess I stayed away from the media stories. But I found the funeral rather moving.

I think your right, it does come across as pretty heartless if you can only feel grief for someone you knew personally.

I'm a guy, but I don't think it makes me any less of a man to admit to shedding a tear over some tradegies - even if I did not know any of the people involved personally.

I regard it as perfectly normal to reserve one's deepest emotions for people you actually know. I am quite an emotional person, and am certainly not averse to shedding a tear, but only when it comes to loved ones. If someone in the public eye dies whose work I liked and respected, of course I think it's sad, but not to the extent where I actually get upset. If something happened to a friend or close family member, then I would get genuinely upset, but never about a media personality or someone whose death happened to have a high profile for whatever reason.

I recall an item in The Guardian a few weeks after the death of Diana, in which they interviewed several people who hadn't felt the same way as the 'mob' did in the aftermath of what happened. One was a girl of about 20, as I remember, whose parents had both been killed in a car crash the day after Diana died. Understandably, she wanted her closest friend to come and be with her, so she contacted her, but she said she couldn't come because she 'had' to go and lay flowers at Kensington Palace and sign the book of condolence. To me, that summed the whole thing up quite neatly — as, for example, did the way the public lapped up Earl Spencer's speech at the funeral so uncritically.

[Hotbikerchic33]

How old are you?

PS: Do you still feel the Royal Family are a waste of tax-payers money?

What my age got to do with anything?? :confused: and Yes i still think they are! :D
What age do you think i am???

[Hotbikerchic33]

How old are you?

PS: Do you still feel the Royal Family are a waste of tax-payers money?

All the Royalists on here seem to think your a very bad person just because we dont love them like the Royalists on here do it would be a very boring world indeed if we all liked the same things in life dont you think??

[oily oaf]

What my age got to do with anything?? :confused: and Yes i still think they are! :D
What age do you think i am???

Going purely on your spelling, punctuation, and the intellectual content of your posts I would have said about seven and a half. But you and I both know you're a LOT older than that don't we? :D

To be perfectly honest I'm at a loss to understand why you persist in posting in this forum. You appear to be about as popular as a fart in a spacesuit with the other members who understandably find your abrasive style irritating.
Still it's your choice and to be honest it's a matter of supreme indifference to me whether you continue to wow us all with your prosaic offerings or join thickasarseoles.net :D

Carry on.

[Gannex]

I agree with you, BDunnell, about the gooey-sweet emotional outpouring over Diana's death. I think it demonstrated that we in Britain have become somewhat out of touch with reality. We live in a media-created social world where our "friends" and those we "care" about are celebrities. They are who we gossip about, who we grieve for, who we enjoy raising up and then dashing to the ground, just as our ancestors did about real people in the towns and villages where they grew up. We have lost that connection with real people, and are intuitively groping for a rich social life, which we've lost. Hence the synthetic and completely overblown grief about Diana.

The sad part of it is that, as we emote intensely about the lives of our celebrity "friends", we seem to have lost the capacity to emote intensely about the real suffering of people who are poor, hungry, or subject to repression and fear. We agonise over the love-life troubles of Britney Spears, but worry not at all about the misery of the people of Darfur. This lends a terrible superficiality to our view of the world, and I think it's something we should be ashamed of.

[schmenke]

...I agree with you, BDunnell...

As do I.

[schmenke]

...The sad part of it is that, as we emote intensely about the lives of our celebrity "friends", we seem to have lost the capacity to emote intensely about the real suffering of people who are poor, hungry, or subject to repression and fear. We agonise over the love-life troubles of Britney Spears, but worry not at all about the misery of the people of Darfur. ...

A good example is the recent intense media coverage (at least on this side of the pond) of the death of Anna Nicole Smith :s

[Gannex]

Yes, schmenke; I was amazed on a recent trip to the US to see how much coverage was given to Anna Nicole Smith. She was all over the airwaves. It was quite astonishing.

[Jaws]

If I were English, I'd gladly pay my 61p a year, but I would want a guarantee that Prince Phillip would make at least 1 gaff a year.

Harry shouldn't go, none of the poor blighters should.

[Gannex]

If I were English, I'd gladly pay my 61p a year, but I would want a guarantee that Prince Phillip would make at least 1 gaff a year.

You're right!!! Those gaffes are worth at least 61p each! I'd pay double that!

My bet is that Prince Philip only uttered about half of the gaffes he's famous for. What was it he said about some Maoris in traditional dress? Something about spears?

I can just hear the Queen. "For goodness sake, Philip. Why didn't you think!"

[Gannex]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned in this thread that the decision as to whether the Prince will go was announced today by Gen. Sir Richard Dannatt. The general says yes, and that he took the decision himself. This was not at the direction of Whitehall, or the Palace, or anyone else. It was entirely an Army decision. The casualty figures will tell whether or not the decision was right.

[oily oaf]

As for young Harry, according to irrefutable journalistic sources he is said to have remarked to a friend that he was "s***ing himself" at the prospect of going to Iraq.
Yes and I should imagine that his ill starred comrades in arms are opting for a nice pair of brown combat fatigues from the Quartermaster too.

[raphael123]

I regard it as perfectly normal to reserve one's deepest emotions for people you actually know. I am quite an emotional person, and am certainly not averse to shedding a tear, but only when it comes to loved ones.


I regard it perfectly normal to reserve one's deepest emotions for people you actually know too :) But that doesn't mean you can't be emotional over hearing the loss people, who have lost their lifes in tragic circumstances.



If someone in the public eye dies whose work I liked and respected, of course I think it's sad, but not to the extent where I actually get upset. If something happened to a friend or close family member, then I would get genuinely upset, but never about a media personality or someone whose death happened to have a high profile for whatever reason.

Yes, I suppose it depends who we are talking about. Anna Nicole Smith? I didn't give a damn. Someone a bit more respected e.g. Alan Ball - yes I was sad, but I didn't shed a tear or ought! Things which I do get a tad emotional about are e.g. 9/11, the Russian School hostage where 100's of children died etc. Do you not find these tradegies emotional either?


I recall an item in The Guardian a few weeks after the death of Diana, in which they interviewed several people who hadn't felt the same way as the 'mob' did in the aftermath of what happened. One was a girl of about 20, as I remember, whose parents had both been killed in a car crash the day after Diana died. Understandably, she wanted her closest friend to come and be with her, so she contacted her, but she said she couldn't come because she 'had' to go and lay flowers at Kensington Palace and sign the book of condolence. To me, that summed the whole thing up quite neatly — as, for example, did the way the public lapped up Earl Spencer's speech at the funeral so uncritically.

I agree with that. Some people do take it too far - when you start abandoning your 'best friends' for such reasons. I say best friends lightly, as she can't be that much of a good friend!

[raphael123]

What my age got to do with anything?? :confused: and Yes i still think they are! :D
What age do you think i am???

I was asking about your age, because of your comment regarding your lack of concern about our troops lifes seems pretty immature. Especially when you have smilies such as ' :D '.

I'm not going to guess your age, but I'll just say it's an immature attitude to have. If your just a kid it would explain a lot, and I'll leave it at that, as you can't help it. If you an adult...well.... :dozey:


All the Royalists on here seem to think your a very bad person just because we dont love them like the Royalists on here do it would be a very boring world indeed if we all liked the same things in life dont you think??

Who here is a Royalist?
I don't love the Royal Family. I simply think 61p a year of my earnings, going to the Royal Family - is not a waste of money. Does that mean I'm a Royalist?!

And if your just disagreeing with something, to make things more interesting, that's pretty immature. Especially when your coming out with things like 'who gives a damn' or 'who cares' when it's about the lives of our troops! Sometimes it's good to have a discussion, a difference of opinion, where we can learn of others opinions and way of thinking. But when its comments like 'who cares whether he goes' - I don't think that is much of a discussion, and is quite insensitive. I'm sure if it was you son or daughter, or mother or father, or brother or sister, or any family member you loved, going to war alongside Prince Harry, your attitude of 'who cares' wouldn't stick.

[raphael123]

I agree with you, BDunnell, about the gooey-sweet emotional outpouring over Diana's death. I think it demonstrated that we in Britain have become somewhat out of touch with reality. We live in a media-created social world where our "friends" and those we "care" about are celebrities.


You'll be hard pressed to find someone who considers a celebrity who they've never met 'a friend'. Obviously the death of Diana was a tradegy. She did so much for charity, and she left behind two teenage boys without a mother. I think it would be unnatural for people not to find that sad. But yes, some of people's reaction was over the top.


They are who we gossip about, who we grieve for, who we enjoy raising up and then dashing to the ground, just as our ancestors did about real people in the towns and villages where they grew up. We have lost that connection with real people, and are intuitively groping for a rich social life, which we've lost. Hence the synthetic and completely overblown grief about Diana.

The sad part of it is that, as we emote intensely about the lives of our celebrity "friends", we seem to have lost the capacity to emote intensely about the real suffering of people who are poor, hungry, or subject to repression and fear. We agonise over the love-life troubles of Britney Spears, but worry not at all about the misery of the people of Darfur. This lends a terrible superficiality to our view of the world, and I think it's something we should be ashamed of.

So you didn't feel any emotion over Diana's death. What about 9/11? Did you shed a tear? Or Holly and Jessica murders? Or any similar tradegies, not celebrity 'deaths'.

[BDunnell]

Things which I do get a tad emotional about are e.g. 9/11, the Russian School hostage where 100's of children died etc. Do you not find these tradegies emotional either?

Not in the sense that I felt personally affected by them. They were sad events, of course, but this isn't enough to make me feel emotional about them.

[raphael123]

Not in the sense that I felt personally affected by them. They were sad events, of course, but this isn't enough to make me feel emotional about them.

I find that quite cold then. To not be emotionally affected by tradegies such as 9/11, and hearing of the stories, and seeing the aftermath of 100's of children being shot dead...I don't know...I find it hard to imagine myself not having some sense of emotions towards that.

I guess that's just the way you live your life, maybe it's easier for you that way. I'm not saying it's the right way to be, or the wrong way - it's up to the individual. As long as your not harming anyone you can be as cold about things as you want to be.

[BDunnell]

I find that quite cold then. To not be emotionally affected by tradegies such as 9/11, and hearing of the stories, and seeing the aftermath of 100's of children being shot dead...I don't know...I find it hard to imagine myself not having some sense of emotions towards that.

I don't consider my reaction in any way cold. This used to be the way everyone seemed to be about deaths in major events in the public eye, until Diana died and everyone got caught up in what I always refer to as 'mob grief'.

[BeansBeansBeans]

I agree with Ben and Gannex.

Of course I feel sad when certain people I admire pass away (Ayrton Senna and John Peel, to give two examples), but I didn't grieve for them, as many people did for Diana. I just found the whole thing to be desperately false.

It was like "Easygrief! - Now you can enjoy the mourning experience without the pain of losing a loved one.

[raphael123]

I don't consider my reaction in any way cold. This used to be the way everyone seemed to be about deaths in major events in the public eye, until Diana died and everyone got caught up in what I always refer to as 'mob grief'.

I'm referring more to 9/11, and the killings of the innocent children in Russia a couple of years back, or Holly and Jessica murders rather than Princess Di.

I was upset obviously at the death of Diana, but she died in a car crash, like hundreds of other people every year. I wasn't really emotional over it, though it was upsetting at the thought of two young boys, having to grow up with a mother, one of the only people who gave them a normal life. However I think Charles has done a great job since :up:

9/11, school hostages, paedophiles - that isn't a everyday way for your life to end. They are tragic accidents. I did have a tear in my eye watching those scenes, interviews with the mother of the kids, the wife without her husband, and the children without a mother - I found it emotional watching that. If you didn't, I think it's quite cold.

[raphael123]

I agree with Ben and Gannex.

Of course I feel sad when certain people I admire pass away (Ayrton Senna and John Peel, to give two examples), but I didn't grieve for them, as many people did for Diana. I just found the whole thing to be desperately false.

It was like "Easygrief! - Now you can enjoy the mourning experience without the pain of losing a loved one.

Greive for them is a different story altogether I agree.
I don't think you can 'greive' for someone you never knew really can you? :confused:

I was talking more about some sort of emotional feeling on occasions like 9/11.

I'm sure I'm not alone in having welled up watching those scenes, and the aftermath.

[Zsolt]

Yes.

[race aficionado]

With respects to Groucho Marx and the Prince . . .

If a member of the Royal Family wants to go and serve his country as he sees fit - let him go.
Just don't tell the whole world about it, use some discretion and let him do the job he has trained to do with his fellow soldiers.

put more camouflage on him, make him indistinguishable and let him join the sad carnage if he wishes to.

Let's then worry about other more important things:
like peace for example . . .

yeah, peace dam it!!!!! :mad:


:s mokin:

[Eki]

With respects to Groucho Marx and the Prince . . .

If a member of the Royal Family wants to go and serve his country as he sees fit - let him go.
Just don't tell the whole world about it, use some discretion and let him do the job he has trained to do with his fellow soldiers.

put more camouflage on him, make him indistinguishable and let him join the sad carnage if he wishes to.

Let's then worry about other more important things:
like peace for example . . .

yeah, peace dam it!!!!! :mad:


:s mokin:
Groucho Marx is a member of the Finnish parliament:

http://www.eduskunta.fi/triphome/bin/hex5000.sh?hnro=301&kieli=su

http://www.eduskunta.fi/fakta/edustaja/kuvat/301.jpg

[oily oaf]

Groucho Marx is a member of the Finnish parliament:

http://www.eduskunta.fi/triphome/bin/hex5000.sh?hnro=301&kieli=su

http://www.eduskunta.fi/fakta/edustaja/kuvat/301.jpg

Hey Eki!
Who's your monkey friend?

[owyfan]

Haven't posted on this forum for a while but reading this topic I just had too!

I have one thing to say about HRH Harry not going to Iraq and being married to a soldier I feel very strongly about it!

Why should one life be more important than another. If they don't send him to Iraq then isn't that showing that his life is deemed more important than the current soldiers who are already fighting over there.

I understand that it would be a great tragedy if he's unluckly enough to be captured or killed but there have been many British fatalities and casulties, why should it be any different just because of his title.

They knew from the start of his training that the regiment would more than likely be sent (being that they are infantry) they should have stopped him from ever joining the army in the first place.

If they don't send him to Iraq etc then every single man and woman in the UK forces needs to be redrawn instantly. You can't justify one persons life because his royality.

Also what does this show soldiers who are about to be posted or currently serving in Iraq and their families......That there lives are not important?

My opinion is YES he should go...and to all those who say he shouldn't go, you need to talk to familes who have sons, daughters, husbands, wives, boyfriends and girlfriends over in Iraq or Afgan and explain to them why HE shouldn't go and but their loves one should!!

My last thing to say on this matter is that the Press hasn't help matters either!!

[raphael123]

Haven't posted on this forum for a while but reading this topic I just had too!

I have one thing to say about HRH Harry not going to Iraq and being married to a soldier I feel very strongly about it!

Why should one life be more important than another. If they don't send him to Iraq then isn't that showing that his life is deemed more important than the current soldiers who are already fighting over there.

I understand that it would be a great tragedy if he's unluckly enough to be captured or killed but there have been many British fatalities and casulties, why should it be any different just because of his title.

They knew from the start of his training that the regiment would more than likely be sent (being that they are infantry) they should have stopped him from ever joining the army in the first place.

If they don't send him to Iraq etc then every single man and woman in the UK forces needs to be redrawn instantly. You can't justify one persons life because his royality.

Also what does this show soldiers who are about to be posted or currently serving in Iraq and their families......That there lives are not important?

My opinion is YES he should go...and to all those who say he shouldn't go, you need to talk to familes who have sons, daughters, husbands, wives, boyfriends and girlfriends over in Iraq or Afgan and explain to them why HE shouldn't go and but their loves one should!!

My last thing to say on this matter is that the Press hasn't help matters either!!

Have you read the topic? The reasons why he shouldn't go have been explained, in what I thought was clear english.

I don't think anyone is stating that he shouldn't go because his life is more worthy than anyones else out there. The reasons is that it would put everyone else's life working with him at a greater risk, than if he was your average Joe Bloggs.

Surely you can see that? For example, would you rather your partner went to war knowing he would be alongside Prince Harry, or alongside an average Joe Blogg? And before answering that, think about the fact that terrorists group in Iraq have stated that if Harry goes to Iraq, they will do their damnest to make sure he doesn't come out...alive anyway.

If the case was that Harry wouldn't be a target to the opposition than any other soldier, send him in I say. But that's not the case is it. They've specifically said they will do all they can to kill the guy. Placing other soldiers alongside him will simply put more people's life at risk than is necessary.

It's got nothing to do with his life being more worthy, and all about minimising the risk of death. I think it makes sense to leave him here, but last I heard he is going out there. I just hope that the media stay quiet from now on, until he comes back.

I wonder what will happen if we get a few more deaths, simply because the opposition were 'guessing' Harry was there, but guessed wrong. :(

[BDunnell]

Have you read the topic? The reasons why he shouldn't go have been explained, in what I thought was clear english.

That's rather harsh. owyfan was merely stating a contrary opinion to yours. I don't think it indicates a lack of reading of the thread.

[raphael123]

That's rather harsh. owyfan was merely stating a contrary opinion to yours. I don't think it indicates a lack of reading of the thread.

It wasn't meant to be harsh. I think it does indicate a lack of reading, when they've made a point, which has already been argued back on numerous occasions.

It's ok to state that Harry should go to war, because his life isn't any more important than the other troops, but when it's been stated it puts more lives at risk if Harry is there, to claim he should still be sent is plain stupidity.

However, if it's decided he should go over there anyway, I'm guessing they feel that he won't be identifiable, and if that turns out to be the case, then he should go, because as Owyfan says, his life is no more important than anyone else :up:

[BDunnell]

It wasn't meant to be harsh. I think it does indicate a lack of reading, when they've made a point, which has already been argued back on numerous occasions.

It's ok to state that Harry should go to war, because his life isn't any more important than the other troops, but when it's been stated it puts more lives at risk if Harry is there, to claim he should still be sent is plain stupidity.

However, if it's decided he should go over there anyway, I'm guessing they feel that he won't be identifiable, and if that turns out to be the case, then he should go, because as Owyfan says, his life is no more important than anyone else :up:

You think it's plain stupidity. Others may disagree, and they are perfectly free to make the same point again if they feel they would like to contribute. There was nothing in that post that merited your comment, in my opinion.

[Dave B]

I disagree with parts of Owyfan's post but when somebody takes the time to eloquently explain her opinion you cannot and should not simply dismiss it. :s

I agree with the sentiment that Harry is, in military terms, equal to his peers and should be treated accordingly. But as others have said, his status unwittingly puts other personnel at massively increased risk and as such he should not be sent to Iraq - in my humble opinion.

I appreciate that he's worked hard and has largely got to where he is on his own merit. In an age where celebrity status can be achieved merely by appearing on a reality show or snogging somebody already famous, that is to be applauded. Harry's frustration at not being given equality is obvious and understandable, but there are plenty of areas where he could serve with far less risk to his colleagues than on the front line in Iraq.

[schmenke]

... I think it does indicate a lack of reading, when they've made a point, which has already been argued back on numerous occasions. ...

owyfan is merely adding to the argument by stating her opinion. She has every right to post here like everyone else.

[schmenke]

... to claim he should still be sent is plain stupidity....

Stating opinions that happen to be contrary to your own isn't necessarily stupidity :s

[raphael123]

You think it's plain stupidity. Others may disagree, and they are perfectly free to make the same point again if they feel they would like to contribute. There was nothing in that post that merited your comment, in my opinion.

Of course it's stupidity.

If you get a choice of a) Putting more lives at risk or b) Not putting more lives at risk, and both get you the same result, my guess would be everyone would pick b).

It's common sense, simple common sense.

Dave, I didn't dismiss it :)

[raphael123]

owyfan is merely adding to the argument by stating her opinion. She has every right to post here like everyone else.

I haven't stated otherwise :)

[raphael123]

Stating opinions that happen to be contrary to your own isn't necessarily stupidity :s

Depends on the discussion.

If I said Suddam wasn't a nice man, and Mr Joe Bloggs said 'Oh no he's not, he's a lovely man', I think we could all say that's stupid :)

You have to treat each case individually in these circumstances :)

[schmenke]

Depends on the discussion.

If I said Suddam wasn't a nice man, and Mr Joe Bloggs said 'Oh no he's not, he's a lovely man', I think we could all say that's stupid ...

No, it's not stupidity. It's merely Joe Blogg's opinion, that happens to be contrary to your own.

[BDunnell]

Of course it's stupidity.

If you get a choice of a) Putting more lives at risk or b) Not putting more lives at risk, and both get you the same result, my guess would be everyone would pick b).

It's common sense, simple common sense.

Dave, I didn't dismiss it :)

What else are you doing there other than dismissing it? There is one thing, in fact — simplifying the situation too much.

[BDunnell]

Depends on the discussion.

If I said Suddam wasn't a nice man, and Mr Joe Bloggs said 'Oh no he's not, he's a lovely man', I think we could all say that's stupid :)

You have to treat each case individually in these circumstances :)

Why bring up another example in order to back up your previous statement if you say we should treat each case individually? If we treat the Prince Harry story individually, opinion is rather more divided than on the issue of whether Saddam Hussein was a good bloke, hence the desire of people to put those views forward.

[owyfan]

Sorry my opinion isn't what the topic is about dispite reading it all!!

A 'squaddies wife' is obviously not entitled to give an opinion on a matter that could affect her in the future even on a forum like this!! Any nobody in the British Army is an average 'Joe bloggs'!! Being a soldier puts them more a risk in a place like Iraq than the 'average joe bloggs' like you or me!

If Harry isn't sent to Iraq because he's a danger to himself and his fellow men then the Army should have never acepted him to join in the first place.

The media should have kept their mouth shut!

Regards to a danger to his fellow conrads.......every soldier out their is a danger to themselves and others. I've spoken to a few soldiers who have been out fighting in Iraq and I can tell you that no-one is safe out their (especially with the Yanks behind you!!)royalty or no royalty.

[raphael123]

No, it's not stupidity. It's merely Joe Blogg's opinion, that happens to be contrary to your own.

You even said so earlier an opinion can be stupid - Stating opinions that happen to be contrary to your own isn't necessarily stupidity.

I think if someone said Saddam was a nice man - that would be pretty stupid.
That's my opinion. If you think people going round saying Saddam was a good human being, isn't stupid - that's your opinion I guess.

[raphael123]

What else are you doing there other than dismissing it? There is one thing, in fact — simplifying the situation too much.

I'm stating my opinion on it, and I think it's completely incorrect. My opinion.

The thing is, you agree with me don't you? You yourself don't think Harry should go to Iraq as it would put more lives in danger. All I've said is people saying he should be sent out there, when they know it will be putting lives at risk is a stupid thing to say.

To put it simply, person A has more chance of dying in war than person B, who do you send? A or B? Even a 5yr old would be able to give you the sensible answer.

Sometimes I wonder if you try and find something to argue with me, because it is me :dozey: Oh if only I was Dylan :dozey: :p :

I may be simplifying it - but when it really is that simple, why not?


Why bring up another example in order to back up your previous statement if you say we should treat each case individually? If we treat the Prince Harry story individually, opinion is rather more divided than on the issue of whether Saddam Hussein was a good bloke, hence the desire of people to put those views forward.

Because both of them are comparable statements to make.

It's shocking that the opinion is divided, but apart from the odd 2-3 people here, everyone else seems to be of the opinion he shouldn't go.

You've got a choice a) Sending out someone who puts lives at risk to the others, or b) Someone who doesn't present any extra risk.

I'm guessing the majority of people will pick B. It really is that simple.

However, it looks like Harry will be going over there. If thats the case, they must be happy enough to know that he will won't present any extra danger. If thats the case, I'm all for him being sent out there.

[raphael123]

Sorry my opinion isn't what the topic is about dispite reading it all!!

A 'squaddies wife' is obviously not entitled to give an opinion on a matter that could affect her in the future even on a forum like this!! Any nobody in the British Army is an average 'Joe bloggs'!! Being a soldier puts them more a risk in a place like Iraq than the 'average joe bloggs' like you or me!

If Harry isn't sent to Iraq because he's a danger to himself and his fellow men then the Army should have never acepted him to join in the first place.

The media should have kept their mouth shut!

Regards to a danger to his fellow conrads.......every soldier out their is a danger to themselves and others. I've spoken to a few soldiers who have been out fighting in Iraq and I can tell you that no-one is safe out their (especially with the Yanks behind you!!)royalty or no royalty.


Your more entitled to your opinion. But you stating that he doesn't present an extra danger to himself and his colleagues isn't a sure thing - especially when you have terrorists saying they will make sure he doesn't come out alive if they've got anything to do with it. How many incorrect 'guesses' will they make when blowing up tanks, will they it be 10th time lucky? So 9 soldiers who maybe otherwise wouldn't have been killed have to lose their life because of it?

I agree that if they weren't prepared to send him out to war, maybe he shouldn't have been accepted in the first place. But that's another story. The fact is now - if he does go - does he present an added danger, to an already dangerous situation? The signs are he would.

My friend is in the army, and has been sent out, so obviously my feelings may not be as strong as yours are for your partner, I know a bit about how you feel. But I would feel much safer knowing my mate isn't fighting alongside Prince Harry, than alongside him, no matter how good Harry is at his job.

[BDunnell]

I'm stating my opinion on it, and I think it's completely incorrect. My opinion.

The thing is, you agree with me don't you? You yourself don't think Harry should go to Iraq as it would put more lives in danger. All I've said is people saying he should be sent out there, when they know it will be putting lives at risk is a stupid thing to say.

To put it simply, person A has more chance of dying in war than person B, who do you send? A or B? Even a 5yr old would be able to give you the sensible answer.

Sometimes I wonder if you try and find something to argue with me, because it is me :dozey: Oh if only I was Dylan :dozey: :p :

I may be simplifying it - but when it really is that simple, why not?

You seem unduly threatened by the idea that I may agree with someone else quite a lot!

I don't think I ever offered an opinion on this topic, other than to say that he shouldn't have joined the Army if he is unable to fulfil the basic requirements of the job.


It's shocking that the opinion is divided, but apart from the odd 2-3 people here, everyone else seems to be of the opinion he shouldn't go.

You've got a choice a) Sending out someone who puts lives at risk to the others, or b) Someone who doesn't present any extra risk.

I'm guessing the majority of people will pick B. It really is that simple.

However, it looks like Harry will be going over there. If thats the case, they must be happy enough to know that he will won't present any extra danger. If thats the case, I'm all for him being sent out there.

I don't see it as shocking. The contrary opinion to yours doesn't shock me. I don't feel at all strongly about it.

[owyfan]

Your more entitled to your opinion. But you stating that he doesn't present an extra danger to himself and his colleagues isn't a sure thing - especially when you have terrorists saying they will make sure he doesn't come out alive if they've got anything to do with it. How many incorrect 'guesses' will they make when blowing up tanks, will they it be 10th time lucky? So 9 soldiers who maybe otherwise wouldn't have been killed have to lose their life because of it?

I agree that if they weren't prepared to send him out to war, maybe he shouldn't have been accepted in the first place. But that's another story. The fact is now - if he does go - does he present an added danger, to an already dangerous situation? The signs are he would.

My friend is in the army, and has been sent out, so obviously my feelings may not be as strong as yours are for your partner, I know a bit about how you feel. But I would feel much safer knowing my mate isn't fighting alongside Prince Harry, than alongside him, no matter how good Harry is at his job.


I understand that Prince Harry is going to cause major problems and dangers to other members of the British Army and I only have the PRESS to blame. They are truely stupid to braodcast the fact that he would be going to Iraq.

But they have and thats the fact that is now going to cause the true problems. If they don't sent Harry, the MOD have got alot of explaining to do to the families of those soldiers who are sent.

Unfortunately this subject will never have the 'correct' answer to the problem. Either way it will affect people on both sides.

After all this press about him maybe or maybe not going to fight in Iraq, he'll probably turn up in Afganistan instead!!

[raphael123]

You seem unduly threatened by the idea that I may agree with someone else quite a lot!

I don't think I ever offered an opinion on this topic, other than to say that he shouldn't have joined the Army if he is unable to fulfil the basic requirements of the job.



I wouldn't say threatened. Just a little pattern I have observed. Even on this topic, it's my post you seem to enjoy quoting :p : I'm not complaining though, I enjoy our discussions :)

I just read through, and it's true, you haven't given an opinion, apart from that of 'I don't care'.

As you continuously post here in this topic, why not actually tell us, should Harry go to Iraq and fight or not?

I know you think he shouldn't have been accepted into the job if he couldn't fight - but he has been trained - so now - should he go or not?



I don't see it as shocking. The contrary opinion to yours doesn't shock me. I don't feel at all strongly about it.

When your given a choice of putting lives at risk, and not, and some (minority) people choose putting lives at risk - that doesn't surprise you?

Oh well. We're just two completely different people I guess :)

[BDunnell]

As you continuously post here in this topic, why not actually tell us, should Harry go to Iraq and fight or not?

I know you think he shouldn't have been accepted into the job if he couldn't fight - but he has been trained - so now - should he go or not?

I genuinely don't have a view. I am supremely indifferent regarding what happens to him.

[raphael123]

I understand that Prince Harry is going to cause major problems and dangers to other members of the British Army and I only have the PRESS to blame. They are truely stupid to braodcast the fact that he would be going to Iraq.

But they have and thats the fact that is now going to cause the true problems. If they don't sent Harry, the MOD have got alot of explaining to do to the families of those soldiers who are sent.

Unfortunately this subject will never have the 'correct' answer to the problem. Either way it will affect people on both sides.

After all this press about him maybe or maybe not going to fight in Iraq, he'll probably turn up in Afganistan instead!!

I agree. It's the press to blame. But we can't fix that anymore.

Our main priority has got to be for the safety of our troops out there, potentially your partner one day. Sending a troop known as Prince Harry, will create more danger, and increase the potential death toll.

If you think that's worth it, just to prove a point, fair enough. I disagree, and I'm sure the people who could end up dying because he is near them, and their family, would agree :)

I can see it already, the people saying Harry should be sent out because he's no more important, will be the first people to complain that he was sent out if there are deaths caused by his present :down:

[raphael123]

I genuinely don't have a view. I am supremely indifferent regarding what happens to him.

What would you do if it was your decision to make? Send him or keep him away from Iraq?

[BDunnell]

I agree. It's the press to blame. But we can't fix that anymore.

Well, the millions of people who buy papers that feature lots of Royal stories are probably equally complicit. It would not have been sensible or possible to cover up the fact that he had joined the Army. It was his choice to join, and the Army's choice to accept him, so they should face the consequences of their decisions.

[BDunnell]

What would you do if it was your decision to make? Send him or keep him away from Iraq?

If the Army hadn't wanted this question to come up, they shouldn't have allowed him to join. I think that's the important issue.

I genuinely have no idea whether it would be best for him to go to Iraq or not. It's a very difficult question. I wouldn't like to have to make the decision. On balance, I would say he should go, because all involved should know what they're doing and know what the consequences could be, but there are probably very good arguments against. I simply don't know.

My indifference on the subject is partly down to the fact that he is a member of the Royal Family and therefore of no more or less concern to me than anyone else who joins the Army and gets posted to Iraq, and partly because I cannot claim to understand why he wanted to join the forces in the first place, on the grounds that I cannot think of much that I would want to do less, but that's just me. Each to their own, and of course it's good that many people do go into the forces.

[raphael123]

Well, the millions of people who buy papers that feature lots of Royal stories are probably equally complicit. It would not have been sensible or possible to cover up the fact that he had joined the Army. It was his choice to join, and the Army's choice to accept him, so they should face the consequences of their decisions.

What do you mean by the consequences? What are these consequences they should face?

Regarding the press, I was referring more to the details of when he will be going to Iraq, and where in Iraq etc. This should all be kept out of the media's attention.


If the Army hadn't wanted this question to come up, they shouldn't have allowed him to join. I think that's the important issue.


Hindsight is a great thing. You can't predict everything.
We can't change that. People seem obsessed with stating 'well it shouldn't have happened in the first place' - that's all well and good. But I think sometimes people should look to the future more than the past. It's important to analyse possible mistakes, but after that you got to look to the future, and solve the problems created from those past mistakes, rather than just keep on muttering 'well it wouldn't have happened if you didn't do...this..and that... etc'


I genuinely have no idea whether it would be best for him to go to Iraq or not. It's a very difficult question. I wouldn't like to have to make the decision. On balance, I would say he should go, because all involved should know what they're doing and know what the consequences could be, but there are probably very good arguments against. I simply don't know.


Prince Harry knew what he was getting himself into, and wants to go. You think he should go because he was aware of the risk, even if it puts not just his life at greater risk, but others too then?

I'm just looking for confirmation from you - that that is your opinion, if you had to choose, even if your really not sure.


My indifference on the subject is partly down to the fact that he is a member of the Royal Family and therefore of no more or less concern to me than anyone else who joins the Army and gets posted to Iraq, and partly because I cannot claim to understand why he wanted to join the forces in the first place, on the grounds that I cannot think of much that I would want to do less, but that's just me. Each to their own, and of course it's good that many people do go into the forces.

I agree with you, the armed forces have never appealed to me one bit. And though I'm not too fussed on the Royal Family, I do take an interest, and am concerned about the welfare of our troops out there in Iraq, and Afghanistan etc. I'm surprised you don't have a more outright opinion on this :)

[BDunnell]

What do you mean by the consequences? What are these consequences they should face?

Whatever might happen if he is deployed to Iraq.


Hindsight is a great thing. You can't predict everything.

In this case, I think one thing was quite obvious from the outset of Prince Harry's Army career — that he could be posted to Iraq, and that there would inevitably be a debate as to whether this was a good idea. It's exactly because you can't change what happened in the past that the Army has to now face up to the fact that he wanted to join up, and the difficulties that this brings.


Prince Harry knew what he was getting himself into, and wants to go. You think he should go because he was aware of the risk, even if it puts not just his life at greater risk, but others too then?

On balance, probably.


I agree with you, the armed forces have never appealed to me one bit. And though I'm not too fussed on the Royal Family, I do take an interest, and am concerned about the welfare of our troops out there in Iraq, and Afghanistan etc. I'm surprised you don't have a more outright opinion on this :)

My outright opinion is that the troops should not be there in the first place, I do not support their actions, and I do not feel they are acting in everyone's best interests. While I naturally have no wish to see huge numbers of casualties amongst Coalition forces, we should not be surprised at what is going on, and all the soldiers involved knew (and know) what they were getting into. This includes Prince Harry.

[schmenke]

You even said so earlier an opinion can be stupid ...

Where did I say that? :confused:

[raphael123]

Where did I say that? :confused:

Re-read the post - I've even quoted you in italics :)

Even then, if you take it back, or I've misinterpreted you - if you think someone saying Saddam is a good man isn't a stupid thing to say that's fair enough. Everyone's entitled to an opinion, in the same way I'm entitled to think it's stupid I guess :)

[schmenke]

Re-read the post - I've even quoted you in italics :)

Even then, if you take it back, or I've misinterpreted you ...

The latter I would think... :s

[raphael123]

Whatever might happen if he is deployed to Iraq.



That's what I disagree with here. Your saying if his deployment results in e.g. 10 british troops being killed, they should face up to it, and face the consequences because of a mistake of originally accepting him. When this mistake could be minimised by not deploying him in Iraq. Facing up to their consequences, which could be zero, or could be the death of 10 british troops, is a mistake when you could just leave him here for the sfaety of everyone else around him.



In this case, I think one thing was quite obvious from the outset of Prince Harry's Army career — that he could be posted to Iraq, and that there would inevitably be a debate as to whether this was a good idea. It's exactly because you can't change what happened in the past that the Army has to now face up to the fact that he wanted to join up, and the difficulties that this brings.

True. It should have been more thoroughly thought out. Less not make two wrongs to try and make it right though - these are people's lives we're talking about - the word consequence doesn't necessarily show the seriousness of his deployment. I think Harry can have an important role in the Army's work, but Iraq, where he is going to be a prime target - no.


On balance, probably.

Fair enough. I think it's unfair to the other troops, but we're all entitled to an opinion :)


My outright opinion is that the troops should not be there in the first place, I do not support their actions, and I do not feel they are acting in everyone's best interests. While I naturally have no wish to see huge numbers of casualties amongst Coalition forces, we should not be surprised at what is going on, and all the soldiers involved knew (and know) what they were getting into. This includes Prince Harry.

Do you still care for their welfare even though they are doing something you disapprove of?

[raphael123]

The latter I would think... :s

If someone said Saddam was a good man, you wouldn't think it was stupid? :dozey:

Funny how you are critical of me for calling someone's else comments stupid, rather than just accepting it as someone's else opinion, yet can't accept that I find someone's else opinion as stupid as my opinion :dozey:

[schmenke]

If someone said Saddam was a good man, you wouldn't think it was stupid? ...

Why should I? There are many who do think that Saddam was a good man. Just because their opinion is contrary to mine doesn't make it stupid.

[raphael123]

Why should I? There are many who do think that Saddam was a good man. Just because their opinion is contrary to mine doesn't make it stupid.

Oh dear, forget it then.

With that philosophy no one would ever say stupid things.

Some people think things which are incorrect. To say its down to a personal opinion isn't always true.

I think your just trying to make a point, even if you don't truly believe it now.

Thats fair enough. I completely understand your point of view. It's incorrect, but your more than entitled to see it that way.

To think that no opinion is stupid is...dare I say it...stupid.

You've made your point, I think it's wrong :)

Couldn't help but notice your american...I mean, canadian :p :

[BDunnell]

Do you still care for their welfare even though they are doing something you disapprove of?

To some extent, in that I have no wish for so many to be killed (a certain number being unavoidable), but I believe it to be hypocritical to say, as many did and do, that you are against the war yet support the troops. I do not support what they are doing. This is very different to saying that I want as many as possible to be killed, which I'm not.

[schmenke]

...Couldn't help but notice your american...I mean, canadian :p :

What's that supposed to mean?

[raphael123]

To some extent, in that I have no wish for so many to be killed (a certain number being unavoidable), but I believe it to be hypocritical to say, as many did and do, that you are against the war yet support the troops. I do not support what they are doing. This is very different to saying that I want as many as possible to be killed, which I'm not.

That's ok then. As long as you care for their welfare :up:

I think it's a bit contradictory to say you don't want to see the soldiers killed, yet you would take action which would increase their risk of death. But I think you've explained enough times why you think more soldiers life should be put at risk...because someone at the top behind his desk made a mistake back a few years ago (in accepting Harry)...and should pay the consequences...even if could mean the lives of troops, with wives, children, a mother and a father etc :) If you make a mistake - tough f*ck, you shouldn't have done it, don't bother trying to minimise it :) Let's not bother to look to the future, and just let things get worse so we can get people say - see, I told you that decision you made all those years ago was wrong!

As my canadian friend Schmenke would say, that's not stupid, just an opinon contrary to mine. Same as some japanese claiming Idle is better than Schumacher, that's not stupid, its just a difference of opinion, neither is right or wrong :)

[owyfan]

I agree. It's the press to blame. But we can't fix that anymore.

Our main priority has got to be for the safety of our troops out there, potentially your partner one day. Sending a troop known as Prince Harry, will create more danger, and increase the potential death toll.

If you think that's worth it, just to prove a point, fair enough. I disagree, and I'm sure the people who could end up dying because he is near them, and their family, would agree :)

I can see it already, the people saying Harry should be sent out because he's no more important, will be the first people to complain that he was sent out if there are deaths caused by his present :down:


If the main priority is the safety of our troops then we should pull them all out. Thats the only way we to ensure their safety.

I can assure now that I will not be the first one to complain if Harry is sent out and there are more deaths caused by his presents.

My view is that if you join the Army, you should take the consequences that come along with it. They choose to do this so if they have to go to war then they have to go to war. No special treatment should be given to anyone!

[reidy_fan]

does being royalty make a difference in the army, they are there to do a job and is Harry any more special than Gordon Gentle or any of the other brits that have died for Bush and Bliar. Why not send Bush out there it is his war

[Hayden Fan]

I think he should, but then again, like many of you said, he would a a big target and the terrorists would just love to kill a member of some royal family. Plus him staying home would mean one less casualty.

[Dave B]

Well whatever your views, it's been decided. He's not going.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6663053.stm

Is it a victory for the insurgents, or a victory for common sense? Either way, Prince Harry is reportedly not a happy bunny.

[BDunnell]

Oh well. Time for him to think about a new 'career'. Maybe he could join up with his 'brother' Edward and go and make films about the situation in Iraq.

[raphael123]

Thank god - common sense has prevailed. It was decided it wouldn't be safe for him to go there. Obviously it's not a safe place at the moment, but with Harry there, it would be even more dangerous, and would put an even bigger strain on the already limited resources.

Sending him out there would just result in more deaths (not just Harry, but his colleagues) and make an already hard job even harder, it has nothing to do with his life being more valuable. It's good that we haven't had to send him out there, for us to realise what a mistake it would be.

[owyfan]

I think the question now is 'should they let the Royal family join the armed forces if they can't to anything'?

If the army chiefs are considering his future within the army, why let him join in the first place!!!

[jim mcglinchey]

He cant stay in the army now. How could anyone train for combat with him when its all a waste of time. I feel sorry for him though because he seems like a nice guy.

[schmenke]

He cant stay in the army now. How could anyone train for combat with him when its all a waste of time...

:confused:

He can be deployed somewhere other than Iraq :mark:

I think that every member of the Royal family should do a stint in the military. Lord knows they could all use a good kick up the backside from a drill sergeant :D

[jim mcglinchey]

How would he get any respect from his men if he was the pretend soldier who couldn't be sent to anywhere that he might get harmed.

[schmenke]

Why is he a pretend soldier? He underwent the same military training as other soldiers. I would like to think that he is as qualified as any other soldier.
The decision to not send him to Iraq was not his.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Why should I? There are many who do think that Saddam was a good man. Just because their opinion is contrary to mine doesn't make it stupid.

Umm ya Schmenke, it would be. Only an irrational fool would say Saddam was a good man. With the crimes that jerk has against humanity and the citizens he was the leader of, only a fool could argue that he was a good man. He killed his son-inlaw and daugther did he not because they fled Iraq? Psychotic despots do not qualify as "good men".

Now, I hear Harry isn't allowed to go. I just got home from the US after 9 days away and it is interesting to read this thread.

They were talking about it not at all really in the US, but I do notice that when I watched the Kentucky Derby and read about Queen Elizabeth's visit to the US, they couldn't suck up to her enough. For a nation that dumped the monarchy over 200 years ago, it almost strikes this Canadian as comical that the Americans almost seem to be wishing they had someone like the monarchy to represent them, espeically in the light of the hatred on the part of some for Bushie.

Harry wanted to go, the Ministry of Defense was going to let him, and I think if the enemy was one that would respect the Geneva Conventions and it was a more traditional battlefield, Harry would have gone. I think though someone pulled rank, and Harry isn't going. What is more, his unit would have been targeted and it isn't fair to his mates. I lay even money Harry is pissed he cant go. He seems genuine, and I wont hold it against him he was born to royalty. Neither would I hold it against the Queen that she is the Queen.

What the UK gets out of the Monarchy cannot even be measured until there is no monarchy. Without it, Britain would just be another boring Euro-socialistic republic with not much to define it. The British Royal Family is a family with a few warts to be sure, but what it gives the UK is an identity that is something you cannot put a price on. Canada shares the Royals as do a lot of other Commonwealth nations. As silly as it sounds, Canada gains something through this. It is always reassuring no matter how much political winds blow and people play their games, the Royals are the bedrock of the democracy I grew up with. I know that the Queen or someone in her office will always be part of the common thread of history. That is why Harry, or Will, or their dad (he pushes my buttons to the point I almost would want a republic!!!) are just part of something they are responsible for. You may hate the monarchy, you may hate the idea of a heredity based system, and you may think it is a waste, but trust me, this is the one exception to most of the rules of democracy, and it supports itself more than you would likely realize. I mean, if the UK saved 20 million pounds by getting rid of the Monarchs, what would they spend it on? Nothing good trust me.....governments are the most inefficient wasters of money going. At least with the Royals, you know where the money is going.

Too Bad Harry, you cant go out and serve like any other soldier. I think though this time, he had to be treated special like it or not...

[Captain VXR]

How about the military saying he isn't going; but he actually is; for his safety so the insurgents think he's in England. They did that in ww2 with Churchill

[raphael123]

Umm ya Schmenke, it would be. Only an irrational fool would say Saddam was a good man. With the crimes that jerk has against humanity and the citizens he was the leader of, only a fool could argue that he was a good man. He killed his son-inlaw and daugther did he not because they fled Iraq? Psychotic despots do not qualify as "good men".

Now, I hear Harry isn't allowed to go. I just got home from the US after 9 days away and it is interesting to read this thread.

They were talking about it not at all really in the US, but I do notice that when I watched the Kentucky Derby and read about Queen Elizabeth's visit to the US, they couldn't suck up to her enough. For a nation that dumped the monarchy over 200 years ago, it almost strikes this Canadian as comical that the Americans almost seem to be wishing they had someone like the monarchy to represent them, espeically in the light of the hatred on the part of some for Bushie.

Harry wanted to go, the Ministry of Defense was going to let him, and I think if the enemy was one that would respect the Geneva Conventions and it was a more traditional battlefield, Harry would have gone. I think though someone pulled rank, and Harry isn't going. What is more, his unit would have been targeted and it isn't fair to his mates. I lay even money Harry is pissed he cant go. He seems genuine, and I wont hold it against him he was born to royalty. Neither would I hold it against the Queen that she is the Queen.

What the UK gets out of the Monarchy cannot even be measured until there is no monarchy. Without it, Britain would just be another boring Euro-socialistic republic with not much to define it. The British Royal Family is a family with a few warts to be sure, but what it gives the UK is an identity that is something you cannot put a price on. Canada shares the Royals as do a lot of other Commonwealth nations. As silly as it sounds, Canada gains something through this. It is always reassuring no matter how much political winds blow and people play their games, the Royals are the bedrock of the democracy I grew up with. I know that the Queen or someone in her office will always be part of the common thread of history. That is why Harry, or Will, or their dad (he pushes my buttons to the point I almost would want a republic!!!) are just part of something they are responsible for. You may hate the monarchy, you may hate the idea of a heredity based system, and you may think it is a waste, but trust me, this is the one exception to most of the rules of democracy, and it supports itself more than you would likely realize. I mean, if the UK saved 20 million pounds by getting rid of the Monarchs, what would they spend it on? Nothing good trust me.....governments are the most inefficient wasters of money going. At least with the Royals, you know where the money is going.

Too Bad Harry, you cant go out and serve like any other soldier. I think though this time, he had to be treated special like it or not...


That is word for word spot on! :up:

Especially nice to see someone finally agree that some opinions are stupid, which Schemke and dunnell seem to think is incorrect. Sometimes you have to forget who said it, and look at it objectively. You may disagree with what one person may say 99.9% of the time, but when they say something so obviously correct, you shouldn't disagree with that just to keep up the tradition

[schmenke]

Umm ya Schmenke, it would be. Only an irrational fool would say Saddam was a good man. ...

Well, that's not what the thread was necessarily about... :dozey:
But thanks for perpetuating Raphael's continuous trolling... :rolleyes: :dozey:

[raphael123]

Only because you disagree for the sake of disagreeing it seems. Still, it's hard to take some of what you say seriously when you read some of the things you've said in the missing child topic.

[schmenke]

Only because you disagree for the sake of disagreeing it seems. ...

So you admit to trolling?

[raphael123]

I just wish it wasn't so hard to admit to saying something silly for you. It'd be so much easier. Especially seeing your views on the madeline story, it's obvious you do believe some people's opinions are stupid.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Schmenke...normally I see eye to eye on things with ya, and I share your sense of humour and thought, but when you said something like Hussein being a nice guy, it was moral equivalencey gone amok. As for Raphael's trolling...hell this is Chit Chat....trolling and hijcking threads is a well done hobby for people. You should see Eki and I going at it hammer and tong...lol...

[schmenke]

...but when you said something like Hussein being a nice guy...

I never said that.

[Mark in Oshawa]

You said some might say that and their point would be valid....and I know you don't mean that. Their point isn't valid. We are not talking about something that really is rational. I apolgize if I accused you of defending Hussein. That is Eki's usual role on here, and I kinda jumped the gun....

[schmenke]

Another poster brought up the issue of Hussein (which btw was completely irrelevent to the thread).
The point that I was trying to make, that this poster doesn't seem to want to acknowledge, is that there is no such thing as a stupid opinion.
It will probably come as a complete surprise to this poster that I share his opinion that Hussein was a bad person. But that's just one opinion. There are people out there in the world who have a completely different opinion of him; that he's a nice person. They are entitled to their opinion. An opinion isn't stupid just because it is contrary to ours.

[schmenke]

Apologies for hijacking this thread :uhoh:
I hope the mods can delete these posts as they see fit.

[BDunnell]

Another poster brought up the issue of Hussein (which btw was completely irrelevent to the thread).
The point that I was trying to make, that this poster doesn't seem to want to acknowledge, is that there is no such thing as a stupid opinion.
It will probably come as a complete surprise to this poster that I share his opinion that Hussein was a bad person. But that's just one opinion. There are people out there in the world who have a completely different opinion of him; that he's a nice person. They are entitled to their opinion. An opinion isn't stupid just because it is contrary to ours.

This is a very difficult question. I think that there are certain opinions that are simply stupid — David Icke's belief in a 'reptilian conspiracy', the views of the Flat Earth Society, things like that. But I agree that the sort of issue being discussed here is somehow different. I don't know why.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Schmenke, I guess when you said their opinion could be right...I had to say something. Everyone can have an opinion, and should, but trust me, not every opinion is RIGHT. Sometimes, people are wrong. I know you don't support Hussein......anyhow...this thread seems dead at this point, stick a fork in it...

[schmenke]

Schmenke, I guess when you said their opinion could be right...I had to say something. Everyone can have an opinion, and should, but trust me, not every opinion is RIGHT. ...

Not true. Opinions are neither right or wrong. They may be perceived to be wrong because they contradict popular opinion.

BDunnell, "the world is flat" is not an opinion. It's an incorrect fact. ;)


Pass the fork :dozey:

[BDunnell]

BDunnell, "the world is flat" is not an opinion. It's an incorrect fact. ;)

We could get into an interesting discussion here about the differences between opinions, incorrect or correct facts, and beliefs, but that's probably for another time!

[Mark in Oshawa]

Opinions may not be "facts" but sometimes they are as close to facts as anyone can judge, and only an idiot would dispute some opinions in this class. Of course, on here, someone always disputes something..

[raphael123]

Opinions can be stupid. To claim otherwise is...stupid :p :

If someone was to state Marc Gene was a more talented driver than Schumacher - we all know it would be stupid.

I'm not saying they are not entitled that opinion - but it is a stupid opinion.

And of course I don't think anyone here thinks Saddam is a good man lol.

On a more recent case, anyone who thinks it was a good idea for the Mccans to leave their childs alone - that's stupid to think that. You are entitled to have that opinion on the matter, but it would be a stupid opinion.

[BDunnell]

Opinions may not be "facts" but sometimes they are as close to facts as anyone can judge, and only an idiot would dispute some opinions in this class. Of course, on here, someone always disputes something..

And I think that's all to the good, as much as it irritates or even angers each of us when our own views are disputed.

[schmenke]

Opinions never anger or irritate me ;)

[Mark in Oshawa]

Boy..all this Hijacking....

[tintin]

I haven't read this thread, and don't intend to, but "Dulce Et Decorum Est Pro Patria Mori" - so let him go.

[owyfan]

After all this press about him maybe or maybe not going to fight in Iraq, he'll probably turn up in Afganistan instead!!


Now what did I say!

According to the 'News of the World', Harry is now off to Afghanistan, though the MOD are keeping it a secret!! He's about to dissappear and turn up over there, according to a close source/friend of Harry.

If this is true, why do they keep on broadcasting it, haven't they learnt yet!!

[Ian McC]

Now what did I say!

According to the 'News of the World', Harry is now off to Afghanistan, though the MOD are keeping it a secret!! He's about to dissappear and turn up over there, according to a close source/friend of Harry.

If this is true, why do they keep on broadcasting it, haven't they learnt yet!!

Well he won't be going there now I should think. I doubt he will be able to see action anywhere as it will get out in the press.