The Prince Harry story is continuing to dominate story lines with the will he or won't he get sent to Iraq headlines.
The general consensus seems to fall into two camps, the yes he should because he is a soldier camp and the no he shouldn't because his presence will put his colleagues in greater danger.
For the record i agree with the second camp, the unit he controls will come under even more severe fire as the insurgents target the third in line.
What is not being mentioned is the short-sightedness of the Army who must of seen this coming when the Royal very first scraped the A levels needed to qualify for Army Officer training.
Maybe they were hoping that the Iraq war would be all done and dusted by the time he finished training thus avoiding such a scenario.
If he does have to go then maybe he should not be in the front-line and be stuck 'in the rear with the gear' if only for the safety of his fellow soldiers who have enough to contend with without having a highly prized target in their midst attracting even more enemy fire to them like some sort of RPG magnet.
11 comments:
I agree. AQ has already said they're going to target Harry. His presence will put everyone around him in greater danger.
I don't read the tabloids but one of the weekend editions had a very pithy headline regarding this situation:
"Harry is sh***ing himself!".
You missed out the Simply Don't Care camp.
Maybe it wouldn't be an issue if it wasn't for the media being hell bent on reporting every last detail of a war in minute detail, then televising it around the globe so our enemies can get free and readily accessible intel.
Harry should follow the lead of all the cowards who send others off to fight their wars while they bask in the glory and reap all the profits!
If the profiteers and the politicians had to lead the troops into battle we'd have no wars. Cheers.
"Harry should follow the lead of all the cowards who send others off to fight their wars"
Why? He was very clearly in favor of NOT doping that. Exactly the opposite. So why pile on and criticize him?
Damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. There's no pleasing some people.
I've been thinking about this one and, while I reckon a dead royal would be fun for a while, it still wouldn't fully compensate us for the 600,000+ innocent people who have all been sacrificed on the altar of this stupid fucking war...
Where does the media get off reporting facts, anyway? Don't they know that we were all better off in 2003 when all they reported was White House propaganda?
Mark, you missed the point I was making. Was it deliberate?
Namaste!
"Mark, you missed the point I was making."
Perhaps it's because you had no point.
Copy and paste it for him, Daniel. Sometimes it takes a while.
Post a Comment