93 replies to this topic

[Sinister Dexter]

While Harry's life isn't worth any more or less than any other 2nd Lieutenant, no other 2nd Lieutenant (William is a Cornet) is 3rd in line to the Throne, and thus he has a higher PR value to the insurgents.

Sending him out there would be just handing them a a massive target and saying “Happy hunting!”

[Julianus]

And so, no "touch of Harry in the night?" But then he's not going after the Crown of France.
Funny coincidence in names.

[szhismine]

Lord of the Sword, on May 18 2007, 03:57 AM, said:

szhismine, on May 17 2007, 07:11 PM, said:

^^ i was gonna say common sense too.

You can't be serious? You would let someone who threatened you change your plans? Basically cower you into doing something else out of fear?

i believe it depends on the situation, and the threat, and whether or not i think that threat is threatening enough. thanks for making it sound like i'm a coward though.

[Lord of the Sword]

szhismine, on May 18 2007, 11:30 AM, said:

i believe it depends on the situation, and the threat, and whether or not i think that threat is threatening enough. thanks for making it sound like i'm a coward though.

That's not what I meant. And it wasn't my intention to put you in that light.

I just can't see myself being cowered like that. Cause to me, if I gave in like that then I might as well just go to that person and become their slave. Cause if I give in to their threats now, it'll never end. But that is just me.

Having said that, now I have to take a step back somewhat. Was talking with a friend about this, and I used the example I posted above. Then my friend said: "Yeah, I see where you're coming from. But what if it wasn't you they threatened? What if you had a child, and someone threatened their life if you went to where ever. Harry and Willian are like Britian's golden children."

Now I have to admit, in that situation I might not go. While I would welcome any challenge directed at me, can't see myself taking the chance with a loved one. So yeah, I might be cowered at that point. But at least I'm honest enough to call it what it is...being cowered.

Of course, though...if that was the case. My change in plans just might be to go to wherever the person who made the threats was, and TEACH them the error of their ways.

[FlatlandDan]

I'd like to think that if a specific threat had been made against any UK soldier before they had been deployed they wouldn't be.

Edited by FlatlandDan, 18 May 2007 - 11:26 AM.

[Pallas]

Lord of the Sword, on May 18 2007, 10:18 AM, said:

szhismine, on May 18 2007, 11:30 AM, said:

i believe it depends on the situation, and the threat, and whether or not i think that threat is threatening enough. thanks for making it sound like i'm a coward though.

That's not what I meant. And it wasn't my intention to put you in that light.

I just can't see myself being cowered like that. Cause to me, if I gave in like that then I might as well just go to that person and become their slave. Cause if I give in to their threats now, it'll never end. But that is just me.

Having said that, now I have to take a step back somewhat. Was talking with a friend about this, and I used the example I posted above. Then my friend said: "Yeah, I see where you're coming from. But what if it wasn't you they threatened? What if you had a child, and someone threatened their life if you went to where ever. Harry and Willian are like Britian's golden children."

Now I have to admit, in that situation I might not go. While I would welcome any challenge directed at me, can't see myself taking the chance with a loved one. So yeah, I might be cowered at that point. But at least I'm honest enough to call it what it is...being cowered.

Of course, though...if that was the case. My change in plans just might be to go to wherever the person who made the threats was, and TEACH them the error of their ways.

I think it's kind of funny that you're taking the same stance that Bush did about Iraq and the war on terrorism--that "yielding" or "changing your mind" is a sign of weakness and that it cannot be tolerated. If you know anything at all about history, this kind of pride (really, this kind of hubris is probably more precise) is exactly the reasons why some wars start for no apparent reason other than somebody's feelings had been hurt--because that's what it is. In a blase attempt to cover up feelings of inadequacy, one must prove one's manhood and do violence even if it is completely unwarranted and totally unnecessary.

Have you ever actually considered *why* they don't want to send Harry or are you just leaping to conclusions that changing one's mind based on evidence and logic is cowardice?

[SparkyCola]

Sinister Dexter, on May 17 2007, 08:19 PM, said:

I respect your right to voice your opinion, and by the same measure I express my opinion that you're a jackass who doesn't know what he's talking about.

Due to the above quoted comment ^ the OT mods have decided to issue a warning for a breach of the aforementioned Guidelines:

Quote

1. Treat each other with civility and respect.

Quote

4. Express themselves without violating others' rights, including refraining from intimidating, insulting, baiting or trolling other posters. Members have a right to their opinions, but that doesn't mean that others are prohibited from disagreeing politely, even persistently, as long as criticisms are focused on the ideas being expressed rather than on the people expressing them.

Please remember that personally insulting another member on this board is a violation of the guidelines and will result in a warning. Opinions can just as easily be expressed politely and with a focus on the post, not the poster.

If anyone would like to discuss this warning, please start a topic in the AQG rather than discussing it in this thread.

Thank You,

SparkyCola

Edited by SparkyCola, 18 May 2007 - 04:34 PM.

[Lord of the Sword]

Pallas, on May 18 2007, 02:51 PM, said:

Have you ever actually considered *why* they don't want to send Harry or are you just leaping to conclusions that changing one's mind based on evidence and logic is cowardice?

I can understand their not wanting him to go. I can understand that. But my point is: If you announce that Harry is going, then the terrorists say: "If he comes, we'll try and kill him." Then all of a sudden you announce: "Due to his being a target he isn't going."

What does that tell the terrorists? IMO it tells them they have cowered you. That you'll do what they want as long as you don't harm them.

Also. Yeah, they don't want him to go because he will be a high priority target...Didn't they realize that before he went into the army? They had to KNOW if deployed he would be a target...so why the act of surprise? And if they KNEW he would be a target, why even let him go into the army to begin with? Unless they planned on having him enlist, knowing full well they'd never let him actually serve.

[Hambil]

Lord of the Sword, on May 18 2007, 04:08 PM, said:

Unless they planned on having him enlist, knowing full well they'd never let him actually serve.

He can serve in the military without going to Iraq. In fact, he's doing so right now. My father served in WWII, but never left the United States.

Edited by Hambil, 18 May 2007 - 06:25 PM.

[Sinister Dexter]

No one hs never said “If you send Rifleman John Smith to Iraq, we will do everything we can to capture/kill him, no mater how many of us have to die, or how many of his fellow solders we have to kill in the process. (insert rhetoric as needed), love and kisses, the insurgents.”

The fact that they named him and started handing out what amounted to a wanted poster with his photo on it tells us that he would be a high-risk target and that anyone around him would be put in even greater danger than they normally are. I'm not saying that it's a walk in the park over there, but I have family serving in the army and I wouldn't want any of them put in jeopardy just because Harry's serving at the same base if there was not good reason.

We have troops deployed elsewhere, and there's no reason that Harry can't see active duty somewhere, but sending him to a country where people have prepared a, shall we say, “rather warm reception for him” would be the truly stupid thing to do.

Anything happened to William or Harry, there would be one of two results: one, it crushes the moral of the British Army, and two it enrages them to the point where they engage on a massive killing spree, shooting at anything that move in a bid to get revenge.

They've done it in the past (the senior IRA commanders found shot execution style in the Irish Republic after Mountbatten's death are a testament to that), and the negative way that it would impact what we're trying to do over there would only increase the PR effect for the insurgents.

If Harry wants to serve, let him; but don't turn him into a incident waiting to happen.

[Pallas]

Lord of the Sword, on May 18 2007, 05:08 PM, said:

Pallas, on May 18 2007, 02:51 PM, said:

Have you ever actually considered *why* they don't want to send Harry or are you just leaping to conclusions that changing one's mind based on evidence and logic is cowardice?

I can understand their not wanting him to go. I can understand that. But my point is: If you announce that Harry is going, then the terrorists say: "If he comes, we'll try and kill him." Then all of a sudden you announce: "Due to his being a target he isn't going."

What does that tell the terrorists? IMO it tells them they have cowered you. That you'll do what they want as long as you don't harm them.

Also. Yeah, they don't want him to go because he will be a high priority target...Didn't they realize that before he went into the army? They had to KNOW if deployed he would be a target...so why the act of surprise? And if they KNEW he would be a target, why even let him go into the army to begin with? Unless they planned on having him enlist, knowing full well they'd never let him actually serve.

*sighs* Announcing it was a mistake. We all know this because it gave incentive to the terrorists to specifically target Prince Harry (although I am not saying that if they had not announced it that the terrorists wouldn't have found out anyway and made him a target) to the point where they were making him a HIGH PRIORITY target. So, to correct this mistake, his military superiors decided not to deploy him.

This makes perfect sense to me. It was an action based on intelligence that indicated that the Prince was in greater-than-usual danger because of who he was and it was not worth the risk. It was not worth risking Harry's life, the life of his comrades who would certainly become collateral damage in the attempt to kidnap/capture Harry and it was not worth the loss of morale that Sinister Dexter point out so well.

Incidentally--I don't see the connection between Harry as a target and his decision to enlist. Two separate issues here. Harry as a soldier who deliberately gets deployed into a war-zone where he is a high-priority target has nothing to do with his decision to enlist. I'm damn sure that the members of the Royal Family have served in wars before or have been members of the military without having seen actual combat.

[BklnScott]

Oh, I think he was *expected* to go to Sandhurst.  They both were.  There wasn't a choice, exactly.

[Sinister Dexter]

ScottEVill, on May 19 2007, 01:32 AM, said:

Oh, I think he was *expected* to go to Sandhurst.  They both were.  There wasn't a choice, exactly.

I don't think Edward ever served in any branch of the military.

[BklnScott]

I'm sure he was expected to go, too...  but he's been a nonconformist in other ways, too, hasn't he?

Hm...  A quick google confirms that he *did* go, but left the military after one year:

Quote

Prince Edward joined the Royal Marines in 1986, but left the next year and joined Andrew Lloyd Webber's Really Useful Theatre Company as a production assistant.

No wonder people think he's the gay one

Edited by ScottEVill, 18 May 2007 - 07:47 PM.