Prince Harry In Afghanistan

[M.Dancer]

Harry, 23, who is third in line to the throne, has spent the last 10 weeks serving in Helmand Province.

The prince joked about his nickname "the bullet magnet", but said: "I finally get the chance to do the soldiering that I want to do."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/7269743.stm

Think what this will do for morale both on the line and back at home. I'm glad the MoD finally came to their senses.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7269814.stm

Edited February 28, 2008 by M.Dancer

[Borg]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/7269743.stm

Think what this will do for morale both on the line and back at home. I'm glad the MoD finally came to their senses.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7269814.stm

Good and bad to this.

His pers protection - and yes they follow him into the field - will be doing their darndest to keep him safe. Actually they are probably part of the squad - and they all work together to keep each other alive.

The "boys" will be very happy to see him tramping in the knee deep dust. Good for morale to see the high rollers getting dirty.

Personally I say - "Good on him".

From all word he is a tough son-of-a-bitch. He will need to be. Hot weather is coming and the armour, the weaponry and the pack will get real heavy.

All the other boys in the family save one have done their turn - he simply must do the same.

Stay safe young man,

Borg

[Topaz]

The word is out now that Prince Harry has been in Afghanistan since Dec.23rd and he says he likes being there. He says he doesn't want to go home but they may have to now that the word leaked from an Australian magazine and a German paper and was also on the US Drudge Report website. Should he be forced to come home or stay?

[Guest American Woman]

The word is out now that Prince Harry has been in Afghanistan since Dec.23rd and he says he likes being there. He says he doesn't want to go home but they may have to now that the word leaked from an Australian magazine and a German paper and was also on the US Drudge Report website. Should he be forced to come home or stay?

He should be allowed to stay. If we start assessing 'risk,' or not sending people because their lives are 'more important' than others, too many people would ultimately be exempt from serving, and that wouldn't be fair to those who do have to serve; or as in this case, which I think would be much more rare, those who want to serve but wouldn't be allowed.

Edited February 29, 2008 by American Woman

[Borg]

He will follow orders - but to answer your question.

No.

He knows he must do this despite the risks.

I suspect his men support him in this - as do I.

Borg

[Muddy]

Good on the Lad. Like his family have always done. Their duty ,in times of trouble. Never shirkers.

[Wilber]

He should be allowed to stay. If we start assessing 'risk,' or not sending people because their lives are 'more important' than others, too many people would ultimately be exempt from serving, and that wouldn't be fair to those who do have to serve; or as in this case, which I think would be much more rare, those who want to serve but wouldn't be allowed.

I agree in principle but that has to be weighed against the coup it would be for the Taliban or Al Queda if they could kill or worse, capture him. He's not the first royal who has gone to war (his uncle, great uncle and grandfather to name a few) and probably won't be the last but those who went before were involved in wars where both sides observed accepted rules. This one is different.

[jazzer]

He will follow orders - but to answer your question.

No.

He knows he must do this despite the risks.

I suspect his men support him in this - as do I.

Borg

Yep, nothing like putting your mates in further danger.

[Guest American Woman]

Yep, nothing like putting your mates in further danger.

They're at war. They're already in danger, and depending on where they're sent, some are in more danger than others. Like I said, if the military starts determining 'risk' etc. when considering deployment, who would end up serving and who would end up being exempt? In other words, should the child of a POTUS who starts a war be exempt from serving in that war? What about senators/congressmen?

Anyway. He's been pulled from duty. link

[White Doors]

He should be allowed to stay. If we start assessing 'risk,' or not sending people because their lives are 'more important' than others, too many people would ultimately be exempt from serving, and that wouldn't be fair to those who do have to serve; or as in this case, which I think would be much more rare, those who want to serve but wouldn't be allowed.

?

Not because his life is more important, but because the Taliban will target him and that in and of itself could cause additional casualties. Window dressing is not worth anyone else's life. Funny you think so though.

He is being pulled out now that it has been leaked and he should be. The Taliban and AQ have been using the western press as their largest weapon for a few years now. This would be their Hail Mary. Best to depreive them of any hope.

Edited February 29, 2008 by White Doors

[White Doors]

They're at war. They're already in danger, and depending on where they're sent, some are in more danger than others. Like I said, if the military starts determining 'risk' etc. when considering deployment, who would end up serving and who would end up being exempt? In other words, should the child of a POTUS who starts a war be exempt from serving in that war? What about senators/congressmen?

Anyway. He's been pulled from duty. link

In past wars, it would have been a morale boost for the side that lost an important fugure to the enemy. The home crowd would be angry. Therefore, the enemy purposefully avoided taking out high profile enemies.

The enemy this time is different. They see us as weak. They use the media against us. It is their biggest and most effective weapon. Prince Harry would be the biggest target. As a military you tend to deprive your opponet of any juicy targets.

Plain and simple.

If he had of been killed there the left would be screaming to get out. If they pull him out, they scream that his life isn't worth more than others!!!

No wonder the Taliban view us as weak.

[Guest American Woman]

?

Not because his life is more important, but because the Taliban will target him and that in and of itself could cause additional casualties. Window dressing is not worth anyone else's life. Funny you think so though.

He is being pulled out now that it has been leaked and he should be. The Taliban and AQ have been using the western press as their largest weapon for a few years now. This would be their Hail Mary. Best to depreive them of any hope.

War causes casualties. That's my point. Again, if we start using "risk" as a determination as to who should/can serve, where will it end? And yes, the fact that Harry is third in line to the throne is definitely a factor in this decision; it's not all about the "additional casualties" it could cause.

But as I already pointed out, everyone who serves is not at the same risk; some are assigned to situations that put them at more risk than others. War in and of itself is a risk. Some have leaders that are more competent than others, putting some more at risk. Some have troops in their command that are more competent than others, putting some at more risk. I would say lowering the bar as to who's accepted in the military could cause additional casualties, keeping people serving past their time to the point of exhastion could also cause additional casualties, but that hasn't stopped those things from happening.

Funny that you should think of my belief that all should serve, including the children of those who make the decision to go to war, as "window dressing." I can't even begin to imagine what line of thought would lead to that conclusion.

As for deprieving the Taliban and AQ of any hope, we gave them all the "hope" they needed when we went into Afghanistan.

Edited February 29, 2008 by American Woman

[Borg]

Yep, nothing like putting your mates in further danger.

Been there done that - doing it again in July.

Part of the game.

Risks are known, accepted and taken by all concerned.

Media trashed this - his men will be pissed as well.

Nothing like the civilian world.

Your casual answer shows little knowledge of the dynamic. But then again we will never know as you can lie to your hearts content.

He was - I believe (old school term) - a FAC - calling in the heavy iron. Tough and dangerous work - everyone on the opposing team wants you dead. Apparently did it real well - I salute him.

Borg

Edited February 29, 2008 by Borg

[White Doors]

War causes casualties. That's my point. Again, if we start using "risk" as a determination as to who should/can serve, where will it end? And yes, the fact that Harry is third in line to the throne is definitely a factor in this decision; it's not all about the "additional casualties" it could cause.

But as I already pointed out, everyone who serves is not at the same risk; some are assigned to situations that put them at more risk than others. War in and of itself is a risk. Some have leaders that are more competent than others, putting some more at risk. Some have troops in their command that are more competent than others, putting some at more risk. I would say lowering the bar as to who's accepted in the military could cause additional casualties, keeping people serving past their time to the point of exhastion could also cause additional casualties, but that hasn't stopped those things from happening.

Funny that you should think of my belief that all should serve, including the children of those who make the decision to go to war, as "window dressing." I can't even begin to imagine what line of thought would lead to that conclusion.

As for deprieving the Taliban and AQ of any hope, we gave them all the "hope" they needed when we went into Afghanistan.

I see. so we should have left the Taliban alone in Afghanistan?

My point was and is that he is a huge value target that should be deprived to the enemy.

Once his participation and location was made public, any help he can provide the allies is dramatically outweighed by the liability that his presence becomes. Wether or not people of all classes should serve or not never even entered my mind. What did was that the enemy will USE this to their advantage and we should and did deprive them of that opportunity. The class warfare that you seem to want to drag this discussion to, not-withstanding.

Prince Harry is no longer there as he should not be. They made the correct decision to insert him there in secrecy and the correct one to pull him out when secrecy was blown.

Simple.

[Guest American Woman]

Wether or not people of all classes should serve or not never even entered my mind.

Perhaps it should have, since that's what using a 'risk' or 'value' factor in determining who goes to war boils down to. The bigger the "coup" the kill would be perceived to be by those making that determination, the less likely that person would be to have to serve. Seems to me that's what you're saying. That would exclude the children of those making the decision to go to war, would it not? If Harry would be a "huge value target," just think how "valuable" a target those children would be.

What did was that the enemy will USE this to their advantage and we should and did deprive them of that opportunity. The class warfare that you seem to want to drag this discussion to, not-withstanding.

I'm not trying to "drag" class warfare into this; it's there, whether it "entered [your] mind" or not.

so we should have left the Taliban alone in Afghanistan?

[...]

My point was and is that he is a huge value target that should be deprived to the enemy.

I thought it was AQ were were after, but I see you left mention of them out in this post. Was that deliberate? As far as I know, it wasn't the Taliban that was responsible for terrorist activity nor was it the Taliban that wanted to kill "infidels" from the western world. So I'll respond to your question in terms of AQ, and in that case, the answer would be that according to your line of thought, yes. We should have left them alone and deprived them of the opportunity to kill and/or be killed by Americans, since Americans are "huge value targets:"

...the biggest wish of Al Qaeda after Sept. 11 was that American troops attack Afghanistan. That was their biggest wish. They knew when it would be bombs, but their biggest wish was like they were like wishing America, begging America to send troops, you know, ground troops.

[Why?]

Because they wanted to have an American to kill, an American to kill them, because kill an American, good thing. Get killed by an American, you're a shaheed, you know, a martyr in Islam. So they really wanted it.

Sounds as if Americans are seen by AQ as a huge value target. No mention of British royalty. Repeating. Their "biggest wish" was for America to attack because they "wanted to have an American to kill." Every American, every person who is serving, is at risk. That's the bottom line.

Prince Harry is no longer there as he should not be. They made the correct decision to insert him there in secrecy and the correct one to pull him out when secrecy was blown.

Simple.

Simple in your mind maybe; not so simple in others'.

As for Harry, I give him all the credit in the world for wanting to serve, for thinking he should serve, the same as anyone else. Too bad we don't have more people of his caliber.

Edited February 29, 2008 by American Woman

[M.Dancer]

Well, that was short lived. Nothing like letting a ministry bugger things up.

[Topaz]

I agree in principle but that has to be weighed against the coup it would be for the Taliban or Al Queda if they could kill or worse, capture him. He's not the first royal who has gone to war (his uncle, great uncle and grandfather to name a few) and probably won't be the last but those who went before were involved in wars where both sides observed accepted rules. This one is different.

I read the bio of of his gr-uncle, who wrote the book himself, last printing was 1951, called "A King's Story The memoirs of the The Duke of Windsor" In the book yes he did go to war but he wasn't allowed to be on the front lines or anywhere were he could get killed or hurt. He hated the rules of war for him.

[Rue]

Been there done that - doing it again in July.

Part of the game.

Risks are known, accepted and taken by all concerned.

Media trashed this - his men will be pissed as well.

Nothing like the civilian world.

Your casual answer shows little knowledge of the dynamic. But then again we will never know as you can lie to your hearts content.

He was - I believe (old school term) - a FAC - calling in the heavy iron. Tough and dangerous work - everyone on the opposing team wants you dead. Apparently did it real well - I salute him.

Borg

The problem is the media is now fragmented. Much of the media like the Drudge report, is in fact not the journalist media but the inter-net media, completely unregulated and ungoverned by any rules of morality or ethics and thus anything will be reported for any reason-there are now no limits.

So once again someone's safety is compromised for what amounts to be an idiotic gossip story one step up from a story as to who Paris Hilton has given herpes to.

What bothers me is how the same people that wet their pants over pictures of Harry where were they all with every other soldier? They could care less unless that soldier is some sort of celebrity for them to gawk at.

He's a damn soldier not some GI Joe doll for f..ck's sake.

I regret we civilians are this f..cking shallow and can't respect the sanctity of war and reduce it to some

Entertainment Tonight gossip tabloid story while the vast majority of you do what you do and no one gives a sh..t.

Whoever took all those pictures of him made a mockery of all soldiers. Either treat them all the same and cover them all the same way or shut the f..ck up and let them do their job and stop endangering them.

You are no sound bite to me B. You are flesh and blood putting your damn life on the line. all this bullshit glorification of celebrity status misses the point-that all your lives are equally as precious and meaningful and this is not some sort of fun and games assignment where you or anyone else is playing soldier and there is nothing glamorous about your swet and blood and the best thing we can all do is show restraint out of respect to you and any other who puts his life on the line.

[guyser]

The problem is the media is now fragmented. Much of the media like the Drudge report,

Drudge didnt break the story. Australian print media did. Drudge merely picked it up. Dont lose sight of the fact that the pics and story were in the can long ago w Harry's understanding. The Brit papers had agreed to hold back at the req of the Queen.

Rue, as a publisher, you would have done the same. Its called a scoop.

[M.Dancer]

Rue, as a publisher, you would have done the same. Its called a scoop.

And an Australian publisher doesn't need or desire the cooperation of the British Gov't.

...Even so, not knowing whether this was a tabloid or a reputable paper, it shows a remarkable lack of discretion on their part.....and simply bad form on the MoD.

Everyone knew Prince Andrew was going to the Falklands...

[eyeball]

Its refreshing to see such a high-profile representation of imperial might declaring how badly he wants to be involved in the fighting.

If only our governments could be as gung-ho about what it is we're fighting for.

[White Doors]

Perhaps it should have, since that's what using a 'risk' or 'value' factor in determining who goes to war boils down to. The bigger the "coup" the kill would be perceived to be by those making that determination, the less likely that person would be to have to serve. Seems to me that's what you're saying. That would exclude the children of those making the decision to go to war, would it not? If Harry would be a "huge value target," just think how "valuable" a target those children would be.

I'm not trying to "drag" class warfare into this; it's there, whether it "entered [your] mind" or not.

I thought it was AQ were were after, but I see you left mention of them out in this post. Was that deliberate? As far as I know, it wasn't the Taliban that was responsible for terrorist activity nor was it the Taliban that wanted to kill "infidels" from the western world. So I'll respond to your question in terms of AQ, and in that case, the answer would be that according to your line of thought, yes. We should have left them alone and deprived them of the opportunity to kill and/or be killed by Americans, since Americans are "huge value targets:"

...the biggest wish of Al Qaeda after Sept. 11 was that American troops attack Afghanistan. That was their biggest wish. They knew when it would be bombs, but their biggest wish was like they were like wishing America, begging America to send troops, you know, ground troops.

[Why?]

Because they wanted to have an American to kill, an American to kill them, because kill an American, good thing. Get killed by an American, you're a shaheed, you know, a martyr in Islam. So they really wanted it.

Sounds as if Americans are seen by AQ as a huge value target. No mention of British royalty. Repeating. Their "biggest wish" was for America to attack because they "wanted to have an American to kill." Every American, every person who is serving, is at risk. That's the bottom line.

Simple in your mind maybe; not so simple in others'.

As for Harry, I give him all the credit in the world for wanting to serve, for thinking he should serve, the same as anyone else. Too bad we don't have more people of his caliber.

Are you being daft on purpose?

He was there! He DID serve! only when it was made public did they have to pull him and rightly so. Why is it you want to make this a class issue? How absurd?

If the son of the POTUS wanted to serve then serve. But it would have to be in secret like Harry was. Quite simple.

Your juvenile logic does not serve you well.

If everyone is the same risk, then why does the POTUS and the POTUS' family need such a large security contingent while on US soil in the US capital?

People are NOT the 'same'. fact of life. The enemy knows this and we do too notwithstanding those on the left hat are unable or unwilling to bring their head out of the sand.

As far as AQ and the Talib? I don't want to get into that conversation and despite my question, I could care less about what you think about the reasoning or validity of the Afghan war is. I rest my case with the Afghan people, Nato and the UN, but thanks for coming out.

[Guest American Woman]

Are you being daft on purpose?

He was there! He DID serve!

Take a deeeeep breath. There. Feel better now?

only when it was made public did they have to pull him and rightly so. Why is it you want to make this a class issue? How absurd?

Yes, he was there. "Was" being the operative word. Furthermore, he was there because he wasn't allowed to serve in Iraq, as he had wanted to. But. He's not there now, is he?

As for my wanting to make it a class issue, I'm wanting no such thing. I'm responding to what you said. You said "risk value" should be a factor as to who serves in war and who doesn't; you said those with a high risk value shouldn't serve, and I mentioned "those who vote for war" and their children in regards to "risk factor," not class. I've mentioned the children of the POTUS. That would be comparable to Harry in regards to a "risk factor," would it not? So I'm not "wanting" to make it about anything. I'm responding to what is. And according to you, that's "risk factor."

If the son of the POTUS wanted to serve then serve. But it would have to be in secret like Harry was. Quite simple.

Yes. We saw how "simple" it was with Harry being in Afghanistan, eh? That worked out real well.

But your wanting to make it "in secret" is putting it in a different catagory than "everyone should serve." All the "high risk" soldier/family would have to do is leak it to the press and lo and behold, they wouldn't be serving any more. But they'd look the good guy for 'wanting' to serve, eh?

Again, I give Harry all the credit in the world, and "quite simply," he should have been allowed to serve his tour, same as everyone else. And that, and only that, has been my point. "Risk value" has no place in who does or doesn't serve in war.

Your juvenile logic does not serve you well.

So the insults continue. Says a lot about your inablity to counter what I said, in case you're unaware of it.

If everyone is the same risk, then why does the POTUS and the POTUS' family need such a large security contingent while on US soil in the US capital?

I've been referring to those in a war zone. We are talking about war, are we not? Furthermore, I clearly and repeatedly said that even in a war zone some are at more risk than others, so I have no idea what you're on about here.

People are NOT the 'same'. fact of life. The enemy knows this and we do too notwithstanding those on the left hat are unable or unwilling to bring their head out of the sand.

So you claim quite adamantly that people aren't the same, that this is a fact of life, and evidently I'm unable to see that because I have my head in the sand. You say this in the same post you accuse me of wanting to make this about class. And you don't even see the complete contradiction on your part, do you?

As far as AQ and the Talib? I don't want to get into that conversation and despite my question, I could care less about what you think about the reasoning or validity of the Afghan war is. I rest my case with the Afghan people, Nato and the UN, but thanks for coming out.

I see. Despite your question to me, you "could care less" about my answer. Makes a lot of sense. But then, I'm guessing you make a habit of not caring about what you can't respond to/refute. Btw, I think you meant "couldn't care less."

Edited February 29, 2008 by American Woman

[jazzer]

But then again we will never know as you can lie to your hearts content.

And you can live in your delusions.

Edited February 29, 2008 by jazzer

[jazzer]

deleted