93 replies to this topic

[Zwolf]

It's not something I say often, but I agree with RobL on this one.

Ya gotta weigh the value of this.  How much difference would Harry really make if he were allowed to join the ranks?  I don't think he'd be winning the war singlehandedly or anything... he's basically be another grunt, doing the best he could.  Him being in there's not going to win the war.  It's not likely to have any major positive effect.

Meanwhile, his capture could be a big drawback.  And if he were killed, that could be a huge blow to morale (which ain't exactly rosy as is).   And, through no fault of his own, he would be getting extra protection.  Unless he went in disguise and didn't tell anybody who he was and had a whole Spiderman secret-identity thing going, he'd get special treatment, which could compromise the other troops around him.  Think about it: if you were in the army and Barbara or Jenna Bush was serving next to you, wouldn't you be distracted by trying to protect them?  I don't even like 'em and I think I'd be doing it, just because... how'd you like to be the guy who didn't manage to save the leader of the country's kid?

So, I think we should grant Harry props for being willing to be an average joe and serve his country, when he could have pulled strings and ducked it in the first place if he'd wanted to.  It doesn't take anything away from him that the country decided not to send him in, and I don't think it really makes the country non-egalitarian, either.  It's just a question of weighing the possible benefits of the action against the possible detriments.  In this case, I think the detriments would be heavier.

Cheers,

Zwolf

*edited 'cuz I put "way" instead of "weigh."  Man, I'm gettin' old...

Edited by Zwolf, 16 May 2007 - 03:20 PM.

[BklnScott]

I understand both sides of tihs, why he wants to go, and why his superiors don't want him to go.  Weighing the two, I find myself on the side of his superiors.  You don't put someone of that high a value in a warzone.  It's the equivalent of putting the king or queen in play on the chess board when you don't actually have to.

[Tricia]

Like Scott....I can see both sides of this.

I applauded Harry wanting to go

But at the same time I have been leery of him going because his presence also places his unit in more danger.

For those who previously argued about him not really being a target or that it might be hard for the insurgents to pick him out of a group....do you really think those who would target him are worried about not killing as many people as it took to have even a slight chance of getting Harry?  

If they had to blow up an entire city all at once to get him....in their eyes the collateral damage is worth it.  Not that it seems like they care much about how many people including their own families would die.

Plans to trap insurgents in some elaborate plot are not necessarily going to work.  It's all well and good for someone sitting in their home to say this is what they should do....but it does not mean that said plot would work or could not be turned against us.

Thinking that you could easily fool the insurgents would be a gross miscalculation IMHO....you think that you are just going to dangle Harry or a Harry stand-in in front of them and they are going to jump at it like a starving dog after a bone?  No they (or at least most) will sit back and observe before attacking.

No plan is fool-proof

[G1223]

Sinister Dexter, on May 16 2007, 04:04 PM, said:

G1223, on May 16 2007, 08:44 PM, said:

In American History We had a military Officer by the name of Theodore Roosvelt Jr. Who was kept out of direct combat operations because he was the Son of one President and the Cousin of the Sitting President at the time.

I thought that he hit the beaches on D-Day, or was that just written into The Longest Day?

He sent a written request and was allowed to serve under the protest of his superior officer. Who said he did not expect to see Teddy alive again.


http://en.wikipedia....e_Roosevelt,_Jr.

It also includes the reason he was awarded the Metal of Honor.

[Lord of the Sword]

Sinister Dexter, on May 16 2007, 04:02 PM, said:

Knock that off or I'm going to the mods.

You must not know me very well. I have my opinion, you have yours. Just because I don't agree with yours doesn't mean I will accept yours. You don't have to accept mine either. But I WILL EXPRESS my opinion! Whether or not you agree.

And trying to tell me what to do...OH HELL F**KING NO! You go to whomever you want, see if I give a F**K!

[Godeskian]

G1223, on May 16 2007, 08:44 PM, said:

In American History We had a military Officer by the name of Theodore Roosvelt Jr. Who was kept out of direct combat operations because he was the Son of one President and the Cousin of the Sitting President at the time.

Harry sadly is the class of people who are not allowed into combet or dangerous areas because they are high value targets.

And yet Prince Edward was allowed to serve, and in a very dangerous position as well during the Falklands war. I find it an odd dichotomy

[Godeskian]

Lord of the Sword, on May 16 2007, 10:20 PM, said:

Sinister Dexter, on May 16 2007, 04:02 PM, said:

Knock that off or I'm going to the mods.

You must not know me very well. I have my opinion, you have yours. Just because I don't agree with yours doesn't mean I will accept yours. You don't have to accept mine either. But I WILL EXPRESS my opinion! Whether or not you agree.

And trying to tell me what to do...OH HELL F**KING NO! You go to whomever you want, see if I give a F**K!

Keep it civil folks

[CJ AEGIS]

Sinister Dexter, on May 16 2007, 04:02 PM, said:

Because, as we've all said before, getting themselves killed and starting yet another war would have been a much better outcome to that situation.

The fact that they surrendered was the best course of action they had at the time.  That said the entire incident is a statement that does leave a stain on the British Military. The poor statement on the British Military is they sent them that far out from their ship without cover.  Along with the fact that those sailors in that RHIB were either oblivious that they hung around till they were surronded rather than running at the first sign of the Iranians or they were so unaware of their surrondings that the Iranians snuck up on them. Either way it doesn't say much about their situational awareness.  Plus you can toss in the fact of why wasn't one of the helos escorting them.  I have no doubt that those sailors did the right thing once they were surronded but they appear to have screwed up pretty badly before they were surronded.  

Quote

Sinister Dexter:At least our forces can tell the difference between friendly and hostile units, and don't hide behind their government when they screw up.

Oh you mean like when one of your Challenger IIs friendly fired another one of your Challenger IIs during OIF?  Or how about Royal Marine Christopher Maddison who was killed in a friendly fire incident?  

If I remember correctly the press was told that he was killed by enemy action and the initial investigation concluded that too.  It wasn't until the BBC got digging into the case that it was revealed that friendly fire had indeed killed him and that the intial investigation from the MOD was faulty.  If you want to pretend friendly fire is only a US problem then do so but the facts are on my side.  In war mistakes happen, weapons get fired, and friendly fire happens.  It happens more often with the United States because we are deploying ten times as many people often compared to other countries.  If you have ten drivers you are of course going to have less accidents then one hundred drivers.

Edited by CJ AEGIS, 16 May 2007 - 05:13 PM.

[Sinister Dexter]

Lord of the Sword, on May 16 2007, 10:20 PM, said:

You must not know me very well. I have my opinion, you have yours. Just because I don't agree with yours doesn't mean I will accept yours. You don't have to accept mine either. But I WILL EXPRESS my opinion! Whether or not you agree.

And trying to tell me what to do...OH HELL F**KING NO! You go to whomever you want, see if I give a F**K!

I may disagree with your view and what you say, but I would defend with my life your right to say what you believe freely and openly. I just ask that you reserve your judgement on the issue at hand until you've found yourself in a small inflatable boat armed with nothing more than an automatic riffle, while a larger number of hostile men in bigger boats point RPG's and heavy machine-guns at you.

Free speech is one of the cornerstones of western civilisation, and one thing that the 'terrorists' want to deprive us of.

My opinion is that the entire war was fought for oil and money, and that if Saddam should have been dealt with back during the last Gulf War, when the people of Iraq would have welcomed us with open arms. But that wasn't politically viable at the time, so he had another ten years to do what he wanted to his own people while we just pissed and moaned about it. There was no link between Iraq and 9/11 (well, there is now: one was used as an excuse to invade the other), but that didn't stop old Dubya, who wanted to finish what his daddy started.

But that's my opinion, and I expect you to support my right to express it, just as you expect me to support your right to express yours.

Edited by Sinister Dexter, 16 May 2007 - 05:56 PM.

[SparkyCola]

Quote

The whole concept of someone being more valuable, or more worthy of living, is directly involved with Animal Farm politics...and you know that.

Yes I do, I've read it. It's just that this situation has nothing to do with that. It's got nothing to do with one person being more worthy of living. It's his fellow comrades that are in danger.

Quote

And as for Bush, and any son's he had...That doesn't help your argument. Bush is a coward, always has been. I would expect the same from any offspring of his.

It wasn't Prince Harry's decision, so that argument doesn't work in any way - and that's neglecting the fact that you actually missed my point. Oh well...I can tell you're just wanting to UK bash now.

Basically, pretty much what Zwolf, trikay, RobL, CJ and G said.

Sparky

[RobL]

Zwolf, on May 16 2007, 12:08 PM, said:

It's not something I say often, but I agree with RobL on this one.

And who would have thought, Zwolf and me, strolling hand in hand through the green and lush land of Exisle, skipping and humming along the way.........

[Bobby]

Well, now that they've made the big announcement he's not going they can send him to a small out of the way post. Then wait a few weeks and send him over without telling the press.  Would someone rat him out or could they stop it by classifying his location?   How much access does the press have to British Military bases?  If he wants to go, let him slip in in jet black hair and a goatee.  Of course, the press would fall all over themselves to get the news out if they found  out.   I could imagine someone greedy enough would sell the info

Prince Harry is a high value target and the insurgents would love to get him.  If they had to start targeting any and all British units at random and mowing down as many soldiers as possible they would do it.   That does put the men in his group at higher risk because they will step up the attacks just because they might get at Harry.

[Hambil]

You knows it's pretty bad when they can't even risk the spare prince.

[Sinister Dexter]

Hambil, on May 17 2007, 12:25 AM, said:

You knows it's pretty bad when they can't even risk the spare prince.

Until William gets married and produces a son, Harry is still 3rd in line.

[Lord of the Sword]

Sinister Dexter, on May 16 2007, 06:56 PM, said:

But that's my opinion, and I expect you to support my right to express it, just as you expect me to support your right to express yours.

By all means express your opinion. Never said you shouldn't. HOWEVER, when that opinion is "telling me to knock it off or you go to the mods" that isn't an opinion, it's a direct order.

I don't do orders. And when someone tries to order me around, we'll....things tend to go downhill at an extremely fast rate.

[Sinister Dexter]

^^

[Hambil]

I will say I'm impressed by how seriously the prince seems to be taking it, and what good things his unit had to say of him.

[Lord of the Sword]

SparkyCola, on May 16 2007, 07:18 PM, said:

Yes I do, I've read it. It's just that this situation has nothing to do with that. It's got nothing to do with one person being more worthy of living. It's his fellow comrades that are in danger.

I see. Wasn't aware that they are no longer in danger. Unless they, like Harry, are not going. And I don't buy, for one second, that this decision to not allow Harry to go is to protect his comrades...That just doesn't fly. They made this decision to protect Harry....plain and simple, IMO.

Quote

It wasn't Prince Harry's decision, so that argument doesn't work in any way - and that's neglecting the fact that you actually missed my point. Oh well...I can tell you're just wanting to UK bash now.

Basically, pretty much what Zwolf, trikay, RobL, CJ and G said.

Sparky

I don't do bashing....I just call it like I see it. And as of right now, my vision is 20/20.

[DWF]

Lord of the Sword, on May 16 2007, 03:32 PM, said:

DWF, on May 16 2007, 02:18 PM, said:

He's in to the throne if something should happen to William or Prince Charles he becomes king, that's makes him alittle more important than the other soldiers.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it Parliment and the PM that call the shots over there? Not the Monarchy.

Politically it's a minor role yes but the oath the people and land of Great Britain is still a serious one.

http://en.wikipedia....#Political_role

[Hambil]

Lord of the Sword, on May 16 2007, 04:36 PM, said:

I see. Wasn't aware that they are no longer in danger. Unless they, like Harry, are not going. And I don't buy, for one second, that this decision to not allow Harry to go is to protect his comrades...That just doesn't fly. They made this decision to protect Harry....plain and simple, IMO.

I'm not so sure about that. This isn't some toss off tradition. It's an old, powerful and very important to the Royalty tradition. They won't let William go to  protect him. So, if they were going to do that with Harry they would just have done it up front. I really think this is about his presence causing significant increased danger for his unit.