I can see it now. Harry becomes #1 with a bullet (an oddly appropriate phrase from the past) on Al Quida’s hit list. He gets captured and a potential future King of England ends up on the telly, head about to be handed to him unless his captors are paid. On the other hand, how many of our leader’s kids want to go to Iraq?
Harry’s deployment poses royal challenge
He’s a freckle-faced royal rascal who has led a life of privilege. But Britain’s Prince Harry is also an army officer — and he could soon be heading to Iraq to face the reality of combat.
No matter that royal officials have said no decision about a deployment has been made, or that the Ministry of Defense has dismissed such reports as “entirely speculative.” Newspapers are filling their pages about the security headache that a war zone assignment for Harry — who is third in line to the throne — could bring for the British army.
“Harry’s always wanted to be treated as an ordinary soldier,” the Daily Mail quoted an unidentified army source as saying. “He’s not an ordinary soldier, of course.”
If he is sent, I can imagine a TV show devoted to “Where’s Harry Today” with a CG map of Iraq pinpointing the clubs he went to after a hard day of shooting terrorists, if Paris Hilton or Britney (The Brit) Spears tried to hit on him, etc. Just curious, how does a soldier handle a fire fight with paparazzi around?
Capture? Nay, capture is not an option. Upon his sword a young crusader who would be king must fall if faced the hallowing doom of evil restraint.
If it’s anything like the US media and the New York Times, then the British media will report his location at all times in very accurate detail.
#3
Grasp your keyboard firmly, rip it from its rest, render it to pieces never to return, it’s scorn silenced, it’s ignorance removed.
Hmmm #3 has been removed…gee thanks 🙂
#2, ???
…US media and the New York Times…
And here I thought New York City was part of the US. Damn, I’ll need to watch Fox Spews more often.
Give credit to the British royals for their service to the military. This is more than can be said for our American royals that shuffle through the White House.
Harry is unlikely to be the “future King of England” unless something happens to William…………………………however, since he is only a few months behind Harry in his military career – that’s entirely possible.
#6
Agreed, yet I somehow think young Jena and Barbara jr. wouldn’t make any difference at all, much like young Harry’s impact will be.
Now maybe if we were to send our trash royalty over there, e.g – Paris, Brit, and Lyndsay, then maybe the insurgents would realize that 70 virgins may not be a desirable goal to kill or die for.
Terrorists vs. Monarchy
Decisions, decisions…
All those British white guys look alike to most Iraqis, so as long as he wears the same uniform, I doubt they will be able to specially target him.
I’m not kidding — you know how some races kind of all look alike to you? We’re the same to them.
like others have said, I appreciate the fact that the Royals serve. as I recall Randy Andy (his uncle) was a helo pilot during the Falklands War.
on the other hand it kinda sucks being third in line to the throne. the older brother won’t be sent to a combat zone, because he’s closest in line to become king. oh well.
“Give credit to the British royals for their service to the military. This is more than can be said for our American royals that shuffle through the White House. ”
How romantic. What BS. I think more people will die trying to protect this assclown from getting as much as a hangnail.
#12 – Right. Just think of the trauma and extra resources that would have had to be expended if Dubya Bush, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Karl Rove… if any of the chicken hawks had actually served in combat during the Viet Nam corporate war industry action. So glad they evaded combat duty!
Wait… no I’m not.
This kid should be left at home sucking on his silver spoon, the royals are worthless.
If he goes he won’t get special treatment. Prince Andrew flew choppers in the Falklands. His main job was to hover at the stern of a warship and act as a decoy for excocet missiles. He would fly in front of the missile and when it locked onto him he would attract it away from the warship. At the last moment he would climb out of the way. That doesn’t sound like special treatment to me.
Well, now the Brits say they are pulling out about half of their troops by the end of the year. Evidently, our erstwhile allies don’t realize that the future of Western Civilization is on the line, or they would stick around and help.
One can only wonder why the Bush Administration is not castigating them as “cut-and-runners.”
I say good for Harry. William keeps spouting off about serving with his guys in a war zone, knowing full well THAT isn’t ever going to happen in this lifetime. Harry has said from the beginning that he wasn’t going through the training to sit at home afterwards, that he will serve with his men (he will be in charge of 7 scimatar tanks and 11 men) wherever they go.
It’s reported that he told them he would resign his commission if he wasn’t allowed to deploy with his regiment. They don’t want that embarrassment.
The real story is not why a member of royalty is serving in the armed forces. The real question is why is there royalty.
Many brave Britons are serving in Iraq and they are not featured in the news.
They are fighting for the values of the modern world (equality, social mobility, the right to be different etc.) These values were born in Britain.
So it is extremely sad that Britain still maintains a hereditary monarchy. The very existence of this institution works against the values of equality, freedom, self-made worth etc. and gives succor to those who (through terrorism) seek to drag us back to the middle ages.
Monarchy is medieval. Social equality and elected government is modern. The “Prince” can fight for modernity more effectively by helping progressive forces dismantle the institution of hereditary privilege and unelected monarchy. The symbolism of this is worth more than a battalion of “Prince Soldiers”.