PDA

View Full Version : Prince Harry will not serve in Iraq



Adidas410s
05-16-2007, 12:12 PM
Britain's Prince Harry won't serve in Iraq 11:26 AM CDT

11:26 AM CDT on Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Associated Press

LONDON - Britain's Prince Harry will not be sent with his unit to Iraq, Britain's top general said Wednesday, citing specific threats to the third in line to the throne.

Army Chief of Staff Gen. Sir Richard Dannatt said the changing situation on the ground exposed the prince to too much danger.

"There have been a number of specific threats, some reported and some not reported, that relate directly to Prince Harry as an individual," Dannatt said. "These threats exposed him and those around him to a degree of risk I considered unacceptable."

The Defense Ministry had long said the decision would be kept under review amid concerns for the security of Harry, a second lieutenant, and other soldiers serving with him. The 22-year-old prince is a tank commander trained to lead a 12-man team in four armored reconnaissance vehicles.

Harry would have been the first member of the British royal family to serve in a war zone since his uncle, Prince Andrew, flew as a helicopter pilot in the Falklands conflict with Argentina in 1982.

There have been reported threats by Iraqi insurgents to kill or kidnap the prince, including claims his photograph had been widely circulated among militants.

The younger son of Prince Charles and the late Princess Diana, Harry has been a frequent face on the front of Britain's tabloid newspapers, which have constantly covered his party-going lifestyle at glitzy London nightclubs.

Macarthur
05-16-2007, 12:18 PM
Probably a good idea. It would put the other men in his company at greater risk.

However, I do admire the fact that he and the family were more than willing to do this. How many of our leaders have allowed their children to be put in harms way?

Hupernikomen
05-16-2007, 08:22 PM
Originally posted by Macarthur
Probably a good idea. It would put the other men in his company at greater risk.

However, I do admire the fact that he and the family were more than willing to do this. How many of our leaders have allowed their children to be put in harms way?

Good question. The sense of honor has lost its luster in many of our arenas.

BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
05-16-2007, 08:29 PM
Originally posted by Hupernikomen
Good question. The sense of honor has lost its luster in many of our arenas.

If wars were fought like in medieval times where the leader of the country led the army into battle, there would be a lot fewer wars...

Old Tiger
05-16-2007, 08:46 PM
Pretty good idea to protect the inbreeding of the royal family.

Macarthur
05-17-2007, 09:23 AM
Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
If wars were fought like in medieval times where the leader of the country led the army into battle, there would be a lot fewer wars...

Amen

Adidas410s
05-17-2007, 09:36 AM
Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
If wars were fought like in medieval times where the leader of the country led the army into battle, there would be a lot fewer wars...
I don't know. Hitler...Mussolini...Hirohito/Yamamoto...I doubt they would've been afraid to actually lead their countries into battle.

BuffyMars
05-17-2007, 11:11 AM
I am shocked! I so did not see this coming!