This story is archived

Britain Divided Over Reversal on Harry »

Posted by: STONERS 2 years, 5 months ago

Archived 81 0 drops

Some military families expressed unhappiness at what they saw as special treatment.

Read Full Story at news.aol.com »

Submitted By:

STONERS

Welcome to my profile...I've started a ""STONERS Daily News Group"" Please stop by and have a look and join if you like it ...

Who Also Submitted:

This Story is Archived and Commenting is Closed

Comments: 58

Avg rating: (+6/-0 6)
STONERS
May 17, 2007, 2:21 p.m.
"It is not safe for any of them out there," Gella Tomlin, the wife of a British soldier, told the British Broadcasting Corp. "Who do I need to speak to in order to stop my husband being sent there later in the year?"
"It would appear that Harry's life is more valuable than my son or the other nearly 150 service personnel who've given their lives," Keys told the BBC.
(((Even though he is a really big target-I think it isnt fair))) if he wanted to serve then let him.)))
Avg rating: (+8/-0 8)
BronxBomber
May 17, 2007, 2:47 p.m.
Reg Keys - whose son Thomas was killed while serving in Basra in 2003 - said the decision was distasteful.
"It would appear that Harry's life is more valuable than my son or the other nearly 150 service personnel who've given their lives," Keys told the BBC.
Well then, if prince Harry is spared, then what, pray tell? What's the point of training him to be a tank commander???
For Show???
So in other words, other british soldiers are less valuble because they don't have royal blue blood coursing through they're veins...Geez!
Avg rating: (+2/-0 2)
Shadowolf
May 17, 2007, 2:55 p.m.
Odds are that Prince Harry himself thinks of this as a Royal pain...
Avg rating: (+4/-0 4)
Radiofreeeuropa
May 17, 2007, 3 p.m.
Well I do think it would be suicidal for him to go, It would be similar to sticking Bushe's daughters in Az Zubayr and having non stop media overkill pointing out to terrorists just where they could be found. It's all stupid.
Avg rating: (+6/-0 6)
Frankenmacer
May 17, 2007, 4:29 p.m.
With money and priivilege you can get away with anything. All this does is send a message to the rank and file and their families that a royal life is worth more theirs. It's ok by me, though, because this drives a further wedge between the royal family and the people of the UK and overseas crown possessions and may possibly hasten their own abolition.
Avg rating: (+5/-0 5)
eugenegerard
May 17, 2007, 4:42 p.m.
Britons are walking around everyday in a 1984 country. Over a million cameras watch their every move. They get arrested for simply reading the wrong material in the wrong place. They seem to be willing to accept it. The sheeple there are accepting the National ID card that BUSH& Co. want to foist on the US. I hope we wake up before we lose our liberty like the Brits.
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
BrianJJohnson
May 17, 2007, 4:57 p.m.
i have no problem with not putting the king on the front lines.
Avg rating: (+5/-3 2)
abntv
May 17, 2007, 7:27 p.m.
I seem to remember when it was common place for a king to be on the battlefield...
Well I really remember it from history lessons not real life.
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
natashas
May 17, 2007, 9:11 p.m.
I think they wasted time and money wich they could of spent on actual soldiers. It is nice to know politics play even more roles in the war. I am not against the Prince getting some training in the service, but I am very angry that they are giving him this education during a war when his position and the position of his men could be used to protect other soldiers and people.
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
evelyna
May 18, 2007, 12:48 a.m.
He would cost a fortune in bodyguards and intelligence. He would definitely be kidnapped. Kidnapping is the only economy Iraq has to make money.
But they could send him somewhere else to serve. It is probablly just a boyish dream.
Avg rating: (+6/-0 6)
HistoricallyCorrect
May 18, 2007, 1:09 a.m.
i'm completely against the war, but i honestly thought it would've been cool to have a fightin' noble again. am i alone?
Avg rating: (+4/-0 4)
GBM636
May 18, 2007, 3:06 a.m.
I believe that Harry is more than willing to go and serve as his fellow fighters are, But i also can see where this freedom of the media is and can cause a possible harm in telling the world about his deployment, as they seem so all fired set on telling when any one is deployed and what the plans are in any deployment i think that should be information that is not released by the media. Not just for Harry but for any service member. The enemy does not need advance notice of what is or is not coming , all that does is allow them time to plan around it and makes thing more dangerous.
Avg rating: (+4/-0 4)
ontherock
May 18, 2007, 7:18 a.m.
Sure he is willing to go.
His life is not more valuable than any other but the lives of those around him are just as valuable. If he goes he risks the lives of all around him.
Get over it it's as simple as that.
Why make it more than it is??
He is Royalty, everyone knows what he looks like and he is a danger to all around him over there. I wouldn't want him around.
Avg rating: (+5/-0 5)
texangelwings
May 18, 2007, 8:57 a.m.
America's first President George Washington was on the front line and fought in battle.
Many Kings in history lead their military into war and battle.
Weither it is a son or a daughter, no father nor mother wants to see their child go to war, nor to be injured nor to be killed.
It is the choice of the son or daughter to do follow their conscience. He is an adult who wants to follow his heart.
Avg rating: (+3/-0 3)
jzinkjazz
May 18, 2007, 10:36 a.m.
What is the the big deal,count how many AMERICAN POLITICANS SONS OR DAUGHTERS ARE IN THE WAR,OR EVEN IN THE SERVICE
Avg rating: (+10/-0 10)
aceofspades1
May 18, 2007, 11:07 a.m.
The royal family is taken as a symbol of Britain the world over - look how Americans couldn't get enough of the Queen recently - The Brits take these leeches with a grain of salt - they know how the rest of the world romanticizes them. The Iraqis know that too - killing or capturing the prince would be a blow to Britain on the world stage. The threat to the safty of prince should not be treated any differently than any other British soldier - it is the threat to to Britain that is of more concern.
Avg rating: (+5/-0 5)
Truzseeker
May 18, 2007, 11:17 a.m.
Indeed, send in more peasants for fight for us lords !
OnionHeadComment has been removed: User banned.
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
Shadowolf
May 20, 2007, 3:05 a.m.
Are you tryin' to imply that the Iraqis would NOT be wild about Harry???
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
LOCKNLOAD
May 20, 2007, 11:04 a.m.
...Did anyone really believe Lt. Harry would be assigned to combat duty in harms way???...get real...his uncle Prince Andrew was in combat years ago and distinguished himself proud to serve....not this jet/set offspring Prince Harry 'eh wat!!...Harry would serve the Crown well at Embassy cocktail parties and such....plenty of innate banter, tons of booze and let the girls be handy...the Royals live far above all other Brits yet there is so much scandal to the lineage of the Kings and Queens throughout English history....they have it...knocked, but good!!....stiff upper lip, chaps...cheerio.