Last I read was that military commanders will not be deploying Prince Harry to Iraq, despite the successful completion of his army training, because the nature of his profile would be a risk to his unit. Or roughly translated that means insurgents and terrorist groups would love the opportunity to use Prince Harry's nipples for target practice. The decision for him not to go was the correct one in my view, but it was then asked if military service remains a true test of a gentleman?
I do recall being about 16 years old and showing up for Royal Marines CCF selection which my tutor thought was a perfect test for a gentleman. At the time I disagreed, mainly because it was 7am on a rainy Sunday morning and a soldier had just pushed me off a bridge into a river and told me to swim down to an underwater tunnel where I should "wait"???. From there things got progressively more challenging, but I did notice a positive change in charachter for all those who survived.
Sadly the latin phrase "si vis pacem, para bellum" is as true today as it was when Publius Renatus was around to say it. If you want peace then you must still prepare for war, but whilst there are no good wars, (except Star Wars the movie) the role of military forces in peace keeping operations must not be overlooked. Yet with all the comforts of modern life, plus the sense of impregnability that can come from living in Switzerland, it can be easy to forget about less palatable events happening around the globe. Having said that, the Swiss have an extensive military service program but sorry to say I have little idea as to what their role is? Can anyone enlighten me about this?
Global Forums > General > Should Prince Harry be sent to Iraq? Test of a gentleman?
Only members can see names and photos
Should Prince Harry be sent to Iraq? Test of a gentleman?
May 29, 2007 @ 01:36
The text you are quoting:
Last I read was that military commanders will not be deploying Prince Harry to Iraq, despite the successful completion of his army training, because the nature of his profile would be a risk to his unit. Or roughly translated that means insurgents and terrorist groups would love the opportunity to use Prince Harry's nipples for target practice. The decision for him not to go was the correct one in my view, but it was then asked if military service remains a true test of a gentleman?
I do recall being about 16 years old and showing up for Royal Marines CCF selection which my tutor thought was a perfect test for a gentleman. At the time I disagreed, mainly because it was 7am on a rainy Sunday morning and a soldier had just pushed me off a bridge into a river and told me to swim down to an underwater tunnel where I should "wait"???. From there things got progressively more challenging, but I did notice a positive change in charachter for all those who survived.
Sadly the latin phrase "si vis pacem, para bellum" is as true today as it was when Publius Renatus was around to say it. If you want peace then you must still prepare for war, but whilst there are no good wars, (except Star Wars the movie) the role of military forces in peace keeping operations must not be overlooked. Yet with all the comforts of modern life, plus the sense of impregnability that can come from living in Switzerland, it can be easy to forget about less palatable events happening around the globe. Having said that, the Swiss have an extensive military service program but sorry to say I have little idea as to what their role is? Can anyone enlighten me about this?
philMay 29, 2007 @ 01:36
I do recall being about 16 years old and showing up for Royal Marines CCF selection which my tutor thought was a perfect test for a gentleman. At the time I disagreed, mainly because it was 7am on a rainy Sunday morning and a soldier had just pushed me off a bridge into a river and told me to swim down to an underwater tunnel where I should "wait"???. From there things got progressively more challenging, but I did notice a positive change in charachter for all those who survived.
Sadly the latin phrase "si vis pacem, para bellum" is as true today as it was when Publius Renatus was around to say it. If you want peace then you must still prepare for war, but whilst there are no good wars, (except Star Wars the movie) the role of military forces in peace keeping operations must not be overlooked. Yet with all the comforts of modern life, plus the sense of impregnability that can come from living in Switzerland, it can be easy to forget about less palatable events happening around the globe. Having said that, the Swiss have an extensive military service program but sorry to say I have little idea as to what their role is? Can anyone enlighten me about this?
philMay 29, 2007 @ 01:36
Your Reply:
Only members can see names and photos
Re: Should Prince Harry be sent to Iraq? Test of a gentleman?
Post 1
May 29, 2007 @ 13:32
All the more reason to send him (NT)
The text you are quoting:
All the more reason to send him (NT)
britabroad, May 29, 2007 @ 13:32
britabroad, May 29, 2007 @ 13:32
Your Reply:
Only members can see names and photos
Re: Should Prince Harry be sent to Iraq? Test of a gentleman?
Post 2
May 29, 2007 @ 16:17
I can just imagine the discussion at the Pentagon, "if the British deploy Prince Harry to Iraq then the Americans must contribute their leading socialite as well...get me Paris Hilton."
The text you are quoting:
I can just imagine the discussion at the Pentagon, "if the British deploy Prince Harry to Iraq then the Americans must contribute their leading socialite as well...get me Paris Hilton."
phil, May 29, 2007 @ 16:17
phil, May 29, 2007 @ 16:17
Your Reply:
Only members can see names and photos
Re: Should Prince Harry be sent to Iraq? Test of a gentleman?
Post 3
May 29, 2007 @ 18:40
Great reply. Boujis is indeed the ultimate training ground!
The text you are quoting:
Your Reply:
Only members can see names and photos
Re: Should Prince Harry be sent to Iraq? Test of a gentleman?
Post 4
May 29, 2007 @ 21:10
If he really wants to risk his life, he s free to do so.
He had enough attention and warnings.
G.
He had enough attention and warnings.
G.
The text you are quoting:
If he really wants to risk his life, he s free to do so.
He had enough attention and warnings.
G.
GuillaumeTel, May 29, 2007 @ 21:10
He had enough attention and warnings.
G.
GuillaumeTel, May 29, 2007 @ 21:10
Your Reply:
Only members can see names and photos
Re: Should Prince Harry be sent to Iraq? Test of a gentleman?
Post 5
May 30, 2007 @ 16:02
..for the image of the conflict it would give on the public. But fearing to send him just tells the same message: we've stuck in a situation we can't handle, a war we don't master, facing a hidden and unredictable enemy. An enemy which they don't even feel able to keep one single person safe from :-S
The text you are quoting:
..for the image of the conflict it would give on the public. But fearing to send him just tells the same message: we've stuck in a situation we can't handle, a war we don't master, facing a hidden and unredictable enemy. An enemy which they don't even feel able to keep one single person safe from :-S
Hobbes, May 30, 2007 @ 16:02
Hobbes, May 30, 2007 @ 16:02
Your Reply:
Only members can see names and photos
Re: Should Prince Harry be sent to Iraq? Test of a gentleman?
Post 6
Jun 1, 2007 @ 01:15
I think he should be sent, and without all the personal protection SAS men.
It would send a strong signal from the royals to the 'commons' that the royals are there not just to live off taxes, but also to take part in - and risk their lives for - their country.
It would send a strong signal from the royals to the 'commons' that the royals are there not just to live off taxes, but also to take part in - and risk their lives for - their country.
The text you are quoting:
I think he should be sent, and without all the personal protection SAS men.
It would send a strong signal from the royals to the 'commons' that the royals are there not just to live off taxes, but also to take part in - and risk their lives for - their country.
Nir Ofek, Jun 1, 2007 @ 01:15
It would send a strong signal from the royals to the 'commons' that the royals are there not just to live off taxes, but also to take part in - and risk their lives for - their country.
Nir Ofek, Jun 1, 2007 @ 01:15
Your Reply:
Only members can see names and photos
Re: Should Prince Harry be sent to Iraq? Test of a gentleman?
Post 7
Jun 1, 2007 @ 03:53
Can appreciate both sides of the debate. I think one of the reasons they chose not to send him was because it could endanger a lot of fellow soldiers who would have been around him. Bit like standing next to a target. Insurgents who would not normally attack International peace-keeping forces might suddenly become more aggressive if they reckon they have a chance of catching such a high profile figure.
The young Royals may come from priviledged backgrounds and may have made mistakes in the past, yet I can respect them for chosing careers in the military forces and serving the country which pays for them. The training is tough and takes place on a fairly level playing field which brought them into extensive contact with people from all walks of life. By having mainstream careers where they work side by side with regular soldiers may have made the young Royals more relevant and easier for the public to associate with.
The young Royals may come from priviledged backgrounds and may have made mistakes in the past, yet I can respect them for chosing careers in the military forces and serving the country which pays for them. The training is tough and takes place on a fairly level playing field which brought them into extensive contact with people from all walks of life. By having mainstream careers where they work side by side with regular soldiers may have made the young Royals more relevant and easier for the public to associate with.
The text you are quoting:
Can appreciate both sides of the debate. I think one of the reasons they chose not to send him was because it could endanger a lot of fellow soldiers who would have been around him. Bit like standing next to a target. Insurgents who would not normally attack International peace-keeping forces might suddenly become more aggressive if they reckon they have a chance of catching such a high profile figure.
The young Royals may come from priviledged backgrounds and may have made mistakes in the past, yet I can respect them for chosing careers in the military forces and serving the country which pays for them. The training is tough and takes place on a fairly level playing field which brought them into extensive contact with people from all walks of life. By having mainstream careers where they work side by side with regular soldiers may have made the young Royals more relevant and easier for the public to associate with.
phil, Jun 1, 2007 @ 03:53
The young Royals may come from priviledged backgrounds and may have made mistakes in the past, yet I can respect them for chosing careers in the military forces and serving the country which pays for them. The training is tough and takes place on a fairly level playing field which brought them into extensive contact with people from all walks of life. By having mainstream careers where they work side by side with regular soldiers may have made the young Royals more relevant and easier for the public to associate with.
phil, Jun 1, 2007 @ 03:53
Your Reply:
Only members can see names and photos
Re: Should Prince Harry be sent to Iraq? Test of a gentleman?
Post 8
Jun 1, 2007 @ 12:24
...is it really an issue ? Don't you think that with a heavy helmet and sunglasses, no one would recognise him ? This is, obviously, as long as his tank isn't followed by 27 helicopters or 200 journalists.
Once upon a time, a king's pride was to be the first one on the first line. We've become too much used to the concept of "clean war". War kills. Thousands of civilians, hundreds of soldiers. This was UK and US choice. I find it ridiculous to sissy about one poor Harry's patrol that might be more targeted than others. It would probably do some good if he were killed. British citizen would maybe better realise that Irak is more than a word. That war mean death and suffering. Maybe it would change some visions.
Once upon a time, a king's pride was to be the first one on the first line. We've become too much used to the concept of "clean war". War kills. Thousands of civilians, hundreds of soldiers. This was UK and US choice. I find it ridiculous to sissy about one poor Harry's patrol that might be more targeted than others. It would probably do some good if he were killed. British citizen would maybe better realise that Irak is more than a word. That war mean death and suffering. Maybe it would change some visions.
The text you are quoting:
...is it really an issue ? Don't you think that with a heavy helmet and sunglasses, no one would recognise him ? This is, obviously, as long as his tank isn't followed by 27 helicopters or 200 journalists.
Once upon a time, a king's pride was to be the first one on the first line. We've become too much used to the concept of "clean war". War kills. Thousands of civilians, hundreds of soldiers. This was UK and US choice. I find it ridiculous to sissy about one poor Harry's patrol that might be more targeted than others. It would probably do some good if he were killed. British citizen would maybe better realise that Irak is more than a word. That war mean death and suffering. Maybe it would change some visions.
Hobbes, Jun 1, 2007 @ 12:24
Once upon a time, a king's pride was to be the first one on the first line. We've become too much used to the concept of "clean war". War kills. Thousands of civilians, hundreds of soldiers. This was UK and US choice. I find it ridiculous to sissy about one poor Harry's patrol that might be more targeted than others. It would probably do some good if he were killed. British citizen would maybe better realise that Irak is more than a word. That war mean death and suffering. Maybe it would change some visions.
Hobbes, Jun 1, 2007 @ 12:24
Your Reply:
Only members can see names and photos
Re: Should Prince Harry be sent to Iraq? Test of a gentleman?
Post 9
Jun 1, 2007 @ 14:09
There's not a black and white answer here. It's really a 50-50 decision, with clear pros and cons for each option.
Personally tho, I think he should have gone. Atleast for me, the pros of that out weigh the cons.
But the decision makers, who for sure have a much wider and more expereinced view than me, decided otherwise.
Personally tho, I think he should have gone. Atleast for me, the pros of that out weigh the cons.
But the decision makers, who for sure have a much wider and more expereinced view than me, decided otherwise.
The text you are quoting:
There's not a black and white answer here. It's really a 50-50 decision, with clear pros and cons for each option.
Personally tho, I think he should have gone. Atleast for me, the pros of that out weigh the cons.
But the decision makers, who for sure have a much wider and more expereinced view than me, decided otherwise.
Nir Ofek, Jun 1, 2007 @ 14:09
Personally tho, I think he should have gone. Atleast for me, the pros of that out weigh the cons.
But the decision makers, who for sure have a much wider and more expereinced view than me, decided otherwise.
Nir Ofek, Jun 1, 2007 @ 14:09
Your Reply:
Only members can see names and photos
Re: Should Prince Harry be sent to Iraq? Test of a gentleman?
Post 10
Jun 1, 2007 @ 14:45
A less neutral one for sure. Less concerned by the iraky people than their own reelection most probably too.
The text you are quoting:
A less neutral one for sure. Less concerned by the iraky people than their own reelection most probably too.
Hobbes, Jun 1, 2007 @ 14:45
Hobbes, Jun 1, 2007 @ 14:45
Your Reply:
Only members can see names and photos
Re: Should Prince Harry be sent to Iraq? Test of a gentleman?
Post 11
Jun 3, 2007 @ 12:14
RU ?
Only members can see names and photos
Re: Should Prince Harry be sent to Iraq? Test of a gentleman?
Post 12
Jun 3, 2007 @ 22:50
I do not pertain to be any expert here, and I am certainly no royalist, but have long been keen to understand what evidence there is to support the claim that the royal family don't earn the keep of the British taxpayer?? I am talking pure Economics, not raison d'etre in any other sense of the word. From what I understand, official residences, including the royal palaces cost the British taxpayer £7.2 million and which is less than the value extracted from tourists that flock to the country, some of whom to delight in possiblity of seeing the changing of the guards, with added excitement if one faints... I don't know? Perhaps they are a net receiver? However, they are not the only ones housed at the taxpayer's expense. Moreover, the Government spent in excess of £800 million from the public purse on the Millennium Dome... which I thought was a top idea promoting learning in a futuristic, diverse, interactive, immersive...way. And yet the Dome was doomed, from an economic perspective. Unfortunately.
Seriously, anyone with a more informed perspective than me about the cost vs value of the royal family would interest me. Have long been both curious and fairly ignorant on this subject. Happy to stand corrected, in an informed way!
As for sending people to war. I fundamentally oppose sending anyone. But blatent targets with increased potential for media-hype to detract from the task at hand even more so. Furthermore, I would like to think that when prince signed up some thought was put in to that not exactly remote possiblity of action in war... and it was deemed that there was some other worthwhile point to his belonging to the army which he can perhaps now be better focussing on?
Seriously, anyone with a more informed perspective than me about the cost vs value of the royal family would interest me. Have long been both curious and fairly ignorant on this subject. Happy to stand corrected, in an informed way!
As for sending people to war. I fundamentally oppose sending anyone. But blatent targets with increased potential for media-hype to detract from the task at hand even more so. Furthermore, I would like to think that when prince signed up some thought was put in to that not exactly remote possiblity of action in war... and it was deemed that there was some other worthwhile point to his belonging to the army which he can perhaps now be better focussing on?
The text you are quoting:
I do not pertain to be any expert here, and I am certainly no royalist, but have long been keen to understand what evidence there is to support the claim that the royal family don't earn the keep of the British taxpayer?? I am talking pure Economics, not raison d'etre in any other sense of the word. From what I understand, official residences, including the royal palaces cost the British taxpayer £7.2 million and which is less than the value extracted from tourists that flock to the country, some of whom to delight in possiblity of seeing the changing of the guards, with added excitement if one faints... I don't know? Perhaps they are a net receiver? However, they are not the only ones housed at the taxpayer's expense. Moreover, the Government spent in excess of £800 million from the public purse on the Millennium Dome... which I thought was a top idea promoting learning in a futuristic, diverse, interactive, immersive...way. And yet the Dome was doomed, from an economic perspective. Unfortunately.
Seriously, anyone with a more informed perspective than me about the cost vs value of the royal family would interest me. Have long been both curious and fairly ignorant on this subject. Happy to stand corrected, in an informed way!
As for sending people to war. I fundamentally oppose sending anyone. But blatent targets with increased potential for media-hype to detract from the task at hand even more so. Furthermore, I would like to think that when prince signed up some thought was put in to that not exactly remote possiblity of action in war... and it was deemed that there was some other worthwhile point to his belonging to the army which he can perhaps now be better focussing on?
SimSim, Jun 3, 2007 @ 22:50
Seriously, anyone with a more informed perspective than me about the cost vs value of the royal family would interest me. Have long been both curious and fairly ignorant on this subject. Happy to stand corrected, in an informed way!
As for sending people to war. I fundamentally oppose sending anyone. But blatent targets with increased potential for media-hype to detract from the task at hand even more so. Furthermore, I would like to think that when prince signed up some thought was put in to that not exactly remote possiblity of action in war... and it was deemed that there was some other worthwhile point to his belonging to the army which he can perhaps now be better focussing on?
SimSim, Jun 3, 2007 @ 22:50
Your Reply:
