Chinahand Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 Well it looks like Prince Harry gets to go to Iraq: BBC News Prince Harry will be deployed to Iraq with his regiment, the head of the British Army has said. General Sir Richard Dannatt said he had taken the decision personally but stressed it would be kept under review. Not sure what to think - on the one side he's signed up, knows the risks and should just go and get on with it - if he comes back in a box he won't be the first by any means. But him going out there will be like a red rag to a bull - every terrorist and mad mullah will want to get him. It'll increase the number of attacks on UK troops - is it worth the extra risk? Militarily the decision makes little sense - so why are the soldiers taking it? Principle? I thought military logic wasn't to do things on principle, but to save soldiers' lives? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 This is all down to an irresponsible press. We should have been hearing that he has just got back - not just going as a. insurgants etc. wouldn't have known anything about it b. soldiers would have been a lot safer and c. it would have been a bit of a moral booster. This confirms, once again, that the media/press are irresponsible idiots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheeky boy Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 Should send the whole royal family to Baghdad, bunch of thick spongeing wasters the lot of them. We'd be well rid Bring on the republic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WilDDog Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 This is all down to an irresponsible press. We should have been hearing that he has just got back - not just going as a. insurgants etc. wouldn't have known anything about it b. soldiers would have been a lot safer and c. it would have been a bit of a moral booster. This confirms, once again, that the media/press are irresponsible idiots. Seconded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grant Posted May 1, 2007 Share Posted May 1, 2007 Albert, you've hit the nail right on the head. Why is it that the press can roam around wherever they choose, printing whatever they want. I don't really think we should be in Iraq, (different thread perhaps) but I know that what the press can print, and when they can print it, should be monitored. It is probable that some people have died as a direct result of UK press reports. What is more important? The freedom of the press, or human lives? Finding someone to monitor the press could be a challenge though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted May 1, 2007 Share Posted May 1, 2007 First off the squaddies are at risk already. But then if you can't take a joke you shouldn't have joined. Secondly it will be extremely difficult to single him out. They all dress the same you know.... Harry will be patrolling in a Scimitar which may look like a tank, but it isn't. To put it in perspective although the Scimitar looks like a Warrior the latter actually weighs 3 times as much as the former. In other words Scimitar is very lightly armoured which is in keeping with it's fast recon role. So I guess we'll have to wait and see what happens when "bullet magnet" Wales hits the streets! As to the irresponsibilty of the UK press the late Colonel H Jones was raging about disclosures in The Sun just prior to the engagement at Goose Green - so nothing new there then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebees Posted May 1, 2007 Share Posted May 1, 2007 I think hes been sent there by the royals to get rid of him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sausages Posted May 1, 2007 Share Posted May 1, 2007 Albert, you've hit the nail right on the head. Why is it that the press can roam around wherever they choose, printing whatever they want. I don't really think we should be in Iraq, (different thread perhaps) but I know that what the press can print, and when they can print it, should be monitored. It is probable that some people have died as a direct result of UK press reports. What is more important? The freedom of the press, or human lives? Finding someone to monitor the press could be a challenge though. I agree that the press are irresponsible, but removing their freedom is a dangerous road to go down, and not the answer. The press should monitor themselves, but they don't because if they did they wouldn't sell as many papers to the public. Rightly or wrongly it's the public who want to know about this, buy the papers, talk about it, and post on internet forums about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted May 1, 2007 Share Posted May 1, 2007 Rightly or wrongly it's the public who want to know about this, buy the papers, talk about it, and post on internet forums about it. Errrr... wrong. I saw it on the telly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cambon Posted May 1, 2007 Share Posted May 1, 2007 Should send the whole royal family to Baghdad, bunch of thick spongeing wasters the lot of them. We'd be well rid Bring on the republic So you are saying you would rather have a "Bush" situation then? It does seem a bit stupid to publicise Wales' deployment. However, is it a tactic? Are they trying to use this event to flush out the enemy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3v0 Posted May 1, 2007 Share Posted May 1, 2007 Agree with Albert, if it wasn't in the news all the time then knowone would know when or where he is going. They probably won't be able to find him tbh as someone said before, they kinda all wear the same! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted May 1, 2007 Share Posted May 1, 2007 Albert, you've hit the nail right on the head. Why is it that the press can roam around wherever they choose, printing whatever they want. I don't really think we should be in Iraq, (different thread perhaps) but I know that what the press can print, and when they can print it, should be monitored. It is probable that some people have died as a direct result of UK press reports. What is more important? The freedom of the press, or human lives? Finding someone to monitor the press could be a challenge though. I agree that the press are irresponsible, but removing their freedom is a dangerous road to go down, and not the answer. The press should monitor themselves, but they don't because if they did they wouldn't sell as many papers to the public. Rightly or wrongly it's the public who want to know about this, buy the papers, talk about it, and post on internet forums about it. In military matters a delay in some circumstances is a far different thing from stifling the freedom of the press. After all, e.g. you would never have expected to hear 'D Day next month' or equally from todays news - 'police to raid the homes of 300 animal rights activists next week' would you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tameelf Posted May 1, 2007 Share Posted May 1, 2007 the bagdad sniper http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6caab35cca&o=1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grant Posted May 1, 2007 Share Posted May 1, 2007 Skrappey, that's probably not very far from the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted May 1, 2007 Share Posted May 1, 2007 ...apparently he's being posted in Kevlar - wherever the hell that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.