NationStates Jolt Archive

This might be interesting and would be good PR if they did send him, IMO. At least UK leaders are willing to send their kiddies over there.

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070217/ts_nm/britain_royals_iraq_dc;_ylt=Ah8N7Obv7fvH64WurrOjKc5g.3QA)

LONDON (Reuters) - Britain's Prince Harry, an army officer and third in line to the throne, could be deployed to
Iraq by the end of February, a newspaper reported on Saturday.

The 22-year-old will be sent to Basra, southern Iraq, where Britain has more than 7,000 troops, the Daily Mirror said, citing an unnamed senior military source.

A royal family spokesman declined to comment on the report, while the Ministry of Defense said it was "entirely speculative."

"No final decisions have been made on which units are even taking over," a spokeswoman said. "When it is made, then parliament will be told first in the normal way."

Harry is likely to be in charge of 12 soldiers in light armored vehicles performing reconnaissance missions in he desert, the newspaper said.

Defense Secretary Des Browne is expected to announce the news officially on February 26, the report said.

Harry, whose mother Princess Diana died in a Paris car crash when he was 12, is a Second Lieutenant in the Blues and Royals, part of the Household Cavalry.

"The final details are being sorted, but he is definitely going," the Mirror quoted the source as saying. "Naturally, his royal status has to be taken into account - but he will see action."

A report in the Daily Telegraph earlier this month said defense chiefs were drawing up a plan to deploy Harry without putting his life or those of his troops in any greater danger.

Although Harry was branded a "wild child" in the tabloid press when he was younger after admitting to smoking cannabis and under-age drinking, he went on to pass a grueling military officer training course at the Sandhurst military academy.

"There is no way I am going to put myself through Sandhurst and then sit on my arse back home while my boys are out fighting for their country," he said in an interview in 2005.

Awesome. Prince Harry FTW.

Good on him for having such balls, however I fear he would endanger the lives of his comrades.:(

so he should.

Prince Harry for the Jihadi. Thered be irony...a raoyal being beheaded. Its hard to tell what would be worse though....the neverending shite theyd spew while he was there, or the shite theyd spew if he went and was killed.

It's not that special. he's in the army and he's doing his service just like most of his family have. The Royals have a tradition of serving in the forces. Hell one of his uncles (I can never remember which) flew as a helocopter pilot during the Falklands war.

What the hell will they do if he just gets blown up by an IED in his first week?

What the hell will they do if he just gets blown up by an IED in his first week?

Be very, very angry.

What the hell will they do if he just gets blown up by an IED in his first week?

there would be a gigantic funeral. everyone would talk about what a hero he was and then we would have to revisit his mothers death over and over.

they have more than enough royals to take up the slack if he should be killed.

Good on him for having such balls, however I fear he would endanger the lives of his comrades.:(

Why?

there would be a gigantic funeral. everyone would talk about what a hero he was and then we would have to revisit his mothers death over and over.

they have more than enough royals to take up the slack if he should be killed.

AH! I see you've played knifey-spooney, before.

Pfft. He's a member of the Royal Family. Getting killed in battle is "Natural Causes" for Royals.

It's that or he makes organic shortbread for the rest of his life, anyway.

i sincerely doubt that the British military would deploy a fan favorite like harry to the front lines, ooooh they might send him to iraq... but he would never leave the base... just think of the PR snafu it would be if he gets caught and beheaded on tv, or is made to make some rambling statement and then beheaded... i doubt the insurgents would pass up an opportunity to rub a big one in the faces of all the brits...

i sincerely doubt that the British military would deploy a fan favorite like harry to the front lines, ooooh they might send him to iraq... but he would never leave the base... just think of the PR snafu it would be if he gets caught and beheaded on tv, or is made to make some rambling statement and then beheaded... i doubt the insurgents would pass up an opportunity to rub a big one in the faces of all the brits...

Killing Prince Harry would be the biggest mistake the insugents could concievably make, short of trying to fight the war naked and armed with sticks.

This is how all wars should be fought, in my opinion. Get naked, get a stick and save money.

Seconded.

Warped FTW

Killing Prince Harry would be the biggest mistake the insugents could concievably make, short of trying to fight the war naked and armed with sticks.

This is how all wars should be fought, in my opinion. Get naked, get a stick and save money. Of course the US would probably spend all of its money on things like:
http://www.wlra.us/wl/wlhsp.jpg
http://www.keithv.com/cambridge/large/keith_giant_hockey_stick.jpg

This is how all wars should be fought, in my opinion. Get naked, get a stick and save money.

:p

i sincerely doubt that the British military would deploy a fan favorite like harry to the front lines, ooooh they might send him to iraq... but he would never leave the base... just think of the PR snafu it would be if he gets caught and beheaded on tv, or is made to make some rambling statement and then beheaded... i doubt the insurgents would pass up an opportunity to rub a big one in the faces of all the brits...

Nah, all the people beheaded so far were nobody's. After their 5 seconds of fame, they were promptly forgotten. Prince Harry now, he's a VIP kind of dude. He falls under the 'rich white man' class except maybe x20 times more so. His kidnapping would give whoever got him a powerful bargaining chip.

This is how all wars should be fought, in my opinion. Get naked, get a stick and save money. Of course the US would probably spend all of its money on things like:
http://www.wlra.us/wl/wlhsp.jpg
http://www.keithv.com/cambridge/large/keith_giant_hockey_stick.jpg

I know I'd join the army if I knew I'd end up naked with a stick.

I know I'd join the army if I knew I'd end up naked with a stick.

Who wouldn't? I'm telling you... its the way to go. Onward technological advances! Backwards war... um... advances(?)!

I know I'd join the army if I knew I'd end up naked with a stick.

:eek: They definitely wouldn't allow women in the military then...

Who wouldn't? I'm telling you... its the way to go. Onward technological advances! Backwards war... um... advances(?)!

Soldier: PWNT!
Insurgent: Stop poking me with your.... :eek: where's your stick!?! :eek:

:eek: They definitely wouldn't allow women in the military then...

Or would they...?



(I'm desperately looking for an opportunity to say, "That's what she said" so if anybody would be so kind as to set me up...)

Or would they...?



(I'm desperately looking for an opportunity to say, "That's what she said" so if anybody would be so kind as to set me up...)

that stick is huge...

:eek: They definitely wouldn't allow women in the military then...
They'd better. I'd sign up yesterday if there was gonna be naked women.
that stick is huge...

Pity your other one doesn't match it.





OWNED.

Things would get interesting (interesting isn't the same as good) if he got there, moreso if he was killed, even more so if he was captured with the "leave or he dies" condition. How would the United Kingdom react to such a threat?

Pah. It's not gonna happen, and if it does, he'll be so well guarded that he'll prolly be safer than if he was in Britain.

If he was killed, my reaction would be "Meh". But then again, I'm a monachy-abolisionist.

that stick is huge...

OH, Thanks.

She said that, what?

How the fuck did I mess that up?

there would be a gigantic funeral. everyone would talk about what a hero he was and then we would have to revisit his mothers death over and over.


Fuck thats an horrendous prospect....

I know I'd join the army if I knew I'd end up naked with a stick.

Actually, if you get captured by the US you end up naked with a stick, but you may not find it working out in quite the same way you imagined....

It's not that special. he's in the army and he's doing his service just like most of his family have. The Royals have a tradition of serving in the forces. Hell one of his uncles (I can never remember which) flew as a helocopter pilot during the Falklands war.

Andrew.

i sincerely doubt that the British military would deploy a fan favorite like harry to the front lines, ooooh they might send him to iraq... but he would never leave the base... just think of the PR snafu it would be if he gets caught and beheaded on tv, or is made to make some rambling statement and then beheaded... i doubt the insurgents would pass up an opportunity to rub a big one in the faces of all the brits...


I think it's only fair that he should go, he's a serving soldier and that's what soldiers do, but the media drawing attention to fact is irresponsible to the extreme, imo.

I think it's only fair that he should go, he's a serving soldier and that's what soldiers do, but the media drawing attention to fact is irresponsible to the extreme, imo.

Insurgent 1: Abdul! The Daily Mirror says the infidel Prince Harry of the British is coming to Basra!

Insurgent 2: I'll get my RPG ready.

Things would get interesting (interesting isn't the same as good) if he got there, moreso if he was killed, even more so if he was captured with the "leave or he dies" condition. How would the United Kingdom react to such a threat?

i believe the diplomatic response might fall along the lines of "who gives a flying monkeys. its not like we haven't got another, keep him". for all we brits appear to be crazy about the monarch its only because we haven't actually had to do that much for them in a long, long time.

I wonder if I could get into Sandhurst Academy with his grades.

I wonder if I could get into Sandhurst Academy with his grades.

Pfft! You think he got there based on his own "merits"? Guffaw!

Both the Princes are in the cavalry; Harry seems to get more attention though. Anyways, if Harry did get killed then it would be good for the monarchy. Its complicated to explain so work it out for yourselves. Essentially it would make them much more popular, although the effect would be around 1000 times less than if terrorists blew up the queen.

Good on him for having such balls, however I fear he would endanger the lives of his comrades.:(

Because obviously their unit won't be endangered anyway, because obviously that was true with Andrew in the Falklands war? :headbang:

That is one of those arguements that keep the Royals who join the armed forces from fighting...yes they might actually come face to face with some sort of danger.

Nice one Harry you joined the army, now go serve.

Because obviously their unit won't be endangered anyway, because obviously that was true with Andrew in the Falklands war? :headbang:

I think the difference here is that in the Falklands Britain was fighting a conventional military which generally behaved itself to avoid provoking international support for the UK. If the Argentines had captured Andrew, they would most likely have held him in respectable conditions, and given him back after the war. They wouldn't have wanted to provoke an isandlwana-response and rouse the british public from their apathy. Their only hope of winning, really, was to convince the british public it wasn't worth it for a bunch of rocks in the south atlantic.

It's unlikely they would have executed him on TV as a propaganda coup and gloated about it, or threatened to do so as a means of bargaining. 9/11 shows Al Qaeda is happy to provoke public anger in this way.

What the hell will they do if he just gets blown up by an IED in his first week?
Probably drop 20 megatons on Iraq.

Both the Princes are in the cavalry.

There's a reason for that. His horse, having more brains than him, should be able to keep him out of trouble.

And anyway, it seems the only fitting ways for monarchy to die are murder/dubious accidents, chronic inbreeding and dying in battle. unfortunately, good ol' Charlie hasn't been hit by any of these beauties yet, although he is distantly related to that horsey type thing he married.

Potentially "interesting" scenario if he was killed / seriously injured.

Granny probably wouldn't be too keen on the war, Daddy could be even worse if King by then.

So they could order the troops home, provoking a constitutional crisis.

The joys of having a head of state who has lots of powers they almost never use!

Chances of him being put into a combat situation are probably very low; that said, the chances of him being injured or killed in combat, IMHO, are equally as low.

Both the Princes are in the cavalry.
There's a reason for that. His horse, having more brains than him, should be able to keep him out of trouble.

...are you serious?

Chances of him being put into a combat situation are probably very low; that said, the chances of him being injured or killed in combat, IMHO, are equally as low.

Not as low as the chances of the story, carried in the Mirror and quoted by Reuters news agency, being anything other than a complete fabrication.
However, it is conceivable that he could be posted to Iraq at some point. Good PR for the monarcy, whether he got killed or not.
Unless he cried like a baby and surrendered... I hadn't considered that possibility.

I think the difference here is that in the Falklands Britain was fighting a conventional military which generally behaved itself to avoid provoking international support for the UK. If the Argentines had captured Andrew, they would most likely have held him in respectable conditions, and given him back after the war. They wouldn't have wanted to provoke an isandlwana-response and rouse the british public from their apathy. Their only hope of winning, really, was to convince the british public it wasn't worth it for a bunch of rocks in the south atlantic.

It's unlikely they would have executed him on TV as a propaganda coup and gloated about it, or threatened to do so as a means of bargaining. 9/11 shows Al Qaeda is happy to provoke public anger in this way.

So members of the Royal Family can only fight in conventional wars?

If Harry had fought in the ground campagn make no mistake that the Argentine military would have tried to caputure him also and use him is a bargaining chip. To capture him would put his men at risk, which is sorta the same deal in Iraq, the only real change in circumstance is the Harry and the fate he would have. But alas that goes with joining the Military, some times you have to fight the 'nasty wars'.

There's a reason for that. His horse, having more brains than him, should be able to keep him out of trouble.

Welcome to the 18th century :rolleyes:

The last US Horse Cavalry unit demounted and used the horses for food at Bataan in early WW2. I doubt the British still have them 60+ years after the US did away with them :rolleyes:

There's a reason for that. His horse, having more brains than him, should be able to keep him out of trouble.

For someone claiming intellectual superiority, you don't seem to have much grasp on modern military tactics. The cavalry uses tanks nowadays, not horses. :rolleyes:

Challenger 2 brigade in the Iraq War:

http://www.artofwarsuntzu.com/Charge%20of%20the%20Light%20Brigade.JPG

Well technically, the cavalry units use Light tanks such as the Scimitar, not the Challengers.

Interestingly enough, a Scimitar convoy was attacked in that friendly fire incident that recently was dug up again by The Sun.

Any bets that Harry will meet his end at the wrong end of an American firearm?

Was that unit attacked during the occupation, or during the invasion?

Was that unit attacked during the occupation, or during the invasion?

Invasion. Yes, I know they aren't chasing around for insurgents inside tanks, so it's unlikely that'll happen again, but it is interesting to think about the ramifications of a friendly fire incident involving Harry, yes?

So will he dress as a Nazi and join them in their celebrations?

I'm sorry. It was truely irresistable.

So members of the Royal Family can only fight in conventional wars?

If Harry had fought in the ground campagn make no mistake that the Argentine military would have tried to caputure him also and use him is a bargaining chip. To capture him would put his men at risk, which is sorta the same deal in Iraq, the only real change in circumstance is the Harry and the fate he would have. But alas that goes with joining the Military, some times you have to fight the 'nasty wars'.

I feel you've missed Nimzonia's point - to use Andrew as a hostage would have been almost as disastrous for the Argentine military as executing him. Rules of war and all that.

Any bets that Harry will meet his end at the wrong end of an American firearm?
That would be utterly tragicomic.

"Oh crap, we've shot down the Royal Chinook"
"Shit. Urmm... let's land in Israel, and get repatriated."
"Whatever. Just fucking run for it before they send the RAF after us."

Any bets that Harry will meet his end at the wrong end of an American firearm?

Okay, folks, let's get this thing organized... I'm the bookie.

Right now, IED is the most likely, with 2:1.

Kidnapped and Used as Bargaining Chip is 3:1.

Kidnapped and Beheaded 4:1.

Friendly Fire Fuckup: 5:1.

Well, that assumes neither of these two happen:

He Stays in The Base Like a Pink Bunny in a Hole (1.1:1)

or

He Makes It Back Safely Due to Sheer Blind Dumb Luck (15:1)

wow. I think this really speaks to the commitment the British have towards the war in Iraq.

I feel you've missed Nimzonia's point - to use Andrew as a hostage would have been almost as disastrous for the Argentine military as executing him. Rules of war and all that.

Three things the insurgents are not:

1- Organized as a country;

2- Mindful of the rules of war*;

3- Sane.


( *: Which doesn't give the US to act like them.)

wow. I think this really speaks to the commitment the British have towards the war in Iraq.

It doesn't. Unless you're suggesting nobility gets a different set of laws in the UK.

That would be utterly tragicomic.

"Oh crap, we've shot down the Royal Chinook"
"Shit. Urmm... let's land in Israel, and get repatriated."
"Whatever. Just fucking run for it before they send the RAF after us."

a master piece..and im in the US army thats probably how it would go

It doesn't. Unless you're suggesting nobility gets a different set of laws in the UK.
But... but... you're sending one of your precious princes! The blood royal and all that! It's gotta say something about how the UK... supports... *Goes back and re-reads thread and sees the general opinion of Prince Harry*

Damn... I guess you Brits really don't like the war after all. ;)

To understand the grand shceme of things two things could happen if he is killed in Iraq.

1. U.K. totally abandons Iraq and all troops go home due to it being a death trap.

2. A large outcry in the U.K. results in there being a vast rise in support of it.

I personally wouldn't have a problem if we just pulled back and made a peremiter around baghdad and then just carpet bombed the entire city to the ground

This could be interesting...I'm sure we'll be getting daily updates so we'll see how it turns out.

To understand the grand shceme of things two things could happen if he is killed in Iraq.

1. U.K. totally abandons Iraq and all troops go home due to it being a death trap.

2. A large outcry in the U.K. results in there being a vast rise in support of it.


Probably the latter...

I personally wouldn't have a problem if we just pulled back and made a peremiter around baghdad and then just carpet bombed the entire city to the ground

How humane...

It doesn't. Unless you're suggesting nobility gets a different set of laws in the UK.

You would be surprised. For example the duke of Northumberland has the local authorities under his little finger far all the things he has let them get away with on his land, and the fact he is the 130th richest person in the country.

The last US Horse Cavalry unit demounted and used the horses for food at Bataan in early WW2. I doubt the British still have them 60+ years after the US did away with them :rolleyes:

Harry's regiment, the blues and royals still have a cavalry troop for ceremonial purposes.

He should of Joined the Infantry

Actually, if you get captured by the US you end up naked with a stick, but you may not find it working out in quite the same way you imagined....
:(
Insurgent 1: Abdul! The Daily Mirror says the infidel Prince Harry of the British is coming to Basra!

Insurgent 2: I'll get my RPG ready.
The insurgents can read English? Impressive.
He should of Joined the Infantry

Why?

:eek: They definitely wouldn't allow women in the military then...

with naked women you win the war in Iraq

The insurgents can read English? Impressive.




I wouldn't be surpised if they could.

I wouldn't be surpised if they could.

That begs the question: how does one get a Daily Mail in Iraq outside the green zone?

I don't see the fuss really its not like he's a proper royal

That begs the question: how does one get a Daily Mail in Iraq outside the green zone?

The internets of course:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/dailymail/home.html?in_page_id=1766

I don't see the fuss really its not like he's a proper royal

He is in the immediate royal family and 3rd in-line to the throne. How is that not a proper royal?

The internets of course:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/dailymail/home.html?in_page_id=1766

I can't see Iraq having many cyber cafes these days.

That begs the question: how does one get a Daily Mail in Iraq outside the green zone?

They're obviously not having much trouble getting weapons into the area - I can't see how getting a newspaper in would present too many challenges...

This is a bit not-thought-out.

Imagine how targeted he's gonna be?

And people who say "this is what America should be doing,"

I hate to remind you, but, psst, we don't have a monarchy. Or anything that might resemble one either.

And for those who say "Send your President's kids!"
They aren'y nearly as suitable for the job as other sons/daughters-of-high-positions might be.

He is in the immediate royal family and 3rd in-line to the throne. How is that not a proper royal?

http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.nndb.com/people/104/000031011/prince-harry-1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.nndb.com/people/104/000031011/&h=333&w=200&sz=20&hl=en&start=7&tbnid=EfXNhqnkEwFllM:&tbnh=119&tbnw=71&prev=/images%3Fq%3DPrince%2BHarry%26gbv%3D2%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den

http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.nndb.com/people/104/000031011/prince-harry-1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.nndb.com/people/104/000031011/&h=333&w=200&sz=20&hl=en&start=7&tbnid=EfXNhqnkEwFllM:&tbnh=119&tbnw=71&prev=/images%3Fq%3DPrince%2BHarry%26gbv%3D2%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den

a likeness wouldn't you say

They're obviously not having much trouble getting weapons into the area - I can't see how getting a newspaper in would present too many challenges...

Well I can see some of the Brits in the green zone having some Daily Mails. But I cna't see anyone bothering to steal them.

But... but... you're sending one of your precious princes! The blood royal and all that! It's gotta say something about how the UK... supports... *Goes back and re-reads thread and sees the general opinion of Prince Harry*

Damn... I guess you Brits really don't like the war after all. ;)

Sou desu, ne?

I can even imagine the news if he bites it: "Our prince died because of the US-created war..."

And for those who say "Send your President's kids!"
They aren'y nearly as suitable for the job as other sons/daughters-of-high-positions might be.

Well, if he's willing to risk other people's kids, surely he's willing to bet the lives of HIS outspring in that quagmire...

Not. But he SHOULD be.

I feel you've missed Nimzonia's point - to use Andrew as a hostage would have been almost as disastrous for the Argentine military as executing him. Rules of war and all that.

Actually I did not feel his point was either valid nor relivent...

you know, its not like the insurgents don't have ties to networks outside Iraq and probably outside the whole middle east.


They'd know he's coming, and another thing, most of Iraq is using Wireless net technology, since it was cheaper to replace all the fiber optic cables and switching stations we destroyed with wireless transmitters.


If he goes, he goes, if he doesn't meh. Then again I'm american and we have less use for royalty than most of europe.

It would be a Public Relations Coup if the Insurgents were able to nab the Prince, now don't be suprised if he is in a combat enviroment he uses a different identity.


Thats what I'd do if i wanted him to stay out of danger and the spotlight. Attach him to a US unit as a Liason under a different name, and I guarentee 95%+ of the American troops around him wouldn't have a clue, as long as he just acted ordinary. We wouldn't recognize him at all.

And for those who say "Send your President's kids!"
They aren'y nearly as suitable for the job as other sons/daughters-of-high-positions might be.
Yeah. Having an alcoholic as a father.

and he might want to go, hell I doubt he'd have to worry about Tabloid press as much in Iraq/

Actually I did not feel his point was either valid nor relivent...

Why not? Argentina was presenting itself as the great liberator, freeing the Falklands from the foreign overlords. Descending into hostage-taking would have been a PR disaster for them.