|
Location: Lancashire
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 6,900
|
27-04-2007, 02:57 PM
Originally Posted by Jackbox 
I think, NO he should not be sent to Iraq, i commend him for wanting to go, but by going he is going to put the men who serve with him at a much higher risk.
It is not the same as Andrew being in the Faulklands, he was a pilot, on ship most of the time, the "ememy" could`nt single him out ..........Harry will be on the front line, in amongst other soldiers, he will become a greater tarrget. these people are already boasting what they are going to do with him when they capture him.. it will spirral us into an even deeper conflict to get out of..... can you imangine if he was killed, or held to ransom .
I would be doublely worried if I had a son/husband serving anywhere near him, and for that reason alone , he should not go.
|
|
Location: Manchester
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 8,479
|
27-04-2007, 03:00 PM
As a lot have said, if the media stop printing and showing where he will be serving and when he is going and he will be hard to spot in uniform anyway, it should not but as bigger problem as people are talking about.
|
|
|
Location: Dogsey and Worcestershire
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 49,483
|
29-04-2007, 10:29 AM
No one makes anyone join the forces, they do so of their own free will these days. My late husband was conscripted into the Army and was sent to Korea. He stayed on and became a career solder and found himself in places he would have preferred not to be as did many others, they couldn't pick and choose.
I am sure many of the solders serving in Iraq at the moment signed up long before our present government decided to get involved there. Prince Harry (and his advisers )at least knew what might be in store for him before he joined up and he made his choice at that time, there should be nothing more to say.
|
|
|
Location: With the fairies in the garden
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 11,519
|
29-04-2007, 10:34 AM
Originally Posted by Stormey
I think he should if he wants to and as he has said he does. A lot of people are saying not what if he gets killed, but there are 1000s of others fighting out there, so is his life worth more? Inca, you said its a huge security risk but it is a war so everything is a huge huge security risk, his uncle fought in the falklands and a number have been in the armed forces.
If the media stopped printing and showing stories of who he will be commanding, how many he will be commanding and where abouts he will be based the insurgents would be unlikely to target him directly therefore he would be at the same risk as anyone else fighting.
|
|
|
|
Location: Manchester
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 8,479
|
30-04-2007, 06:11 PM
General Sir Richard Dannatt said he had taken the decision personally but stressed it would be kept under review.
He called for an end to the "somewhat frenzied media speculation around this issue... in the interests of all our people deployed in Iraq at this time".
|
|
|
Location: sunny south
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 18,200
|
16-05-2007, 04:00 PM
I am very pleased about that
One journalist was asked why he shouldn't go as Andrew served in the Falklands war his reply was Andrew was not at risk as it wasn;t a war on terror he was not likley to end up on TV in an orange jumpsuit blind folded with a gun to his head ....a very good point indeed
I for one am glad he isn't going and I am sure the parents and loved ones from his regiment are also releived
|
|
|
|
Location: Manchester
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 8,479
|
16-05-2007, 04:13 PM
|
|
|
Location: Cumbria
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,841
|
16-05-2007, 09:21 PM
|
|