• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Prince Harry off to Iraq

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
*whistles* Ballsy if true. Little bit odd that he's a cavalryman, up to this point I thought that the vast majority of Brit royalty were Navy men. Interesting note here:
But the most convincing argument against Harry seeing action in Iraq is the attention it will attract to his troop from homicide bombers. A target of the third in line to the British throne will be a magnet to fanatics for hundreds of miles around.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, I can see the truth in that. Might not be a good idea to send him over after all.
 
Originally posted by: tvarad
A brave but stupid decision. What a trophy he'd be if he were to be captured by the militants. The British will probably invest in another batallion just to make sure that that doesn't happen.
Click to expand...

Exactly correct. Remember Iraq was formed due to British military might. I strongly suspect that killing the British heir would be looked on in some Iraqi circles much like killing OBL would here. This is not WWI or WWII (or even the Falklands) where a royal serving in a war zone has some value. On the plus side, Harry survives and maybe 100 other soldiers are tied up protecting him. The down side is obvious.
 
Originally posted by: tomywishbone
The Sun?:laugh:😀:laugh:. That article must be correct. I'm sure the National Enquirer will confirm everything.

She's flying from London to Reno to Rio? What is she... retarded?
Click to expand...


She's going to have a bet. That he won't make it out alive. I mean dead.
 
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
It shows the pathetic state of the British military. When you have to bring in inbred brats to maintain military levels, you know you have a problem. And I thought that the US was doing bad...
Click to expand...

I'll have you know that Harry is the only one who is NOT inbred.

Harry and his Daddy.
 
Originally posted by: daniel49
Text

I admire his spunk. Hope they don't stick him behind a desk, if he wants to fight.
Click to expand...
He's clearly orders of magnitude braver than our current "leaders" here in the U.S., that's for sure.
 
Originally posted by: yllus
*whistles* Ballsy if true. Little bit odd that he's a cavalryman, up to this point I thought that the vast majority of Brit royalty were Navy men. Interesting note here:
But the most convincing argument against Harry seeing action in Iraq is the attention it will attract to his troop from homicide bombers. A target of the third in line to the British throne will be a magnet to fanatics for hundreds of miles around.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, I can see the truth in that. Might not be a good idea to send him over after all.
Click to expand...

True. This is a different kind of enemy. He would certainly become a huge target, and protecting him would presumably become one of the core responsibilities of his unit. It might be wiser for the Royal Army to send him, well, anywhere else. In all fairness, at this point this story is apparently based only on a comment made by his girlfriend, who may not even know whether it's true herself.
 
Originally posted by: tvarad
A brave but stupid decision. What a trophy he'd be if he were to be captured by the militants. The British will probably invest in another batallion just to make sure that that doesn't happen.
Click to expand...

:thumbsup:
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Does this take away the argument about the rich not sending their kids off to war?
Click to expand...

Does a million working poor who qualify for welfare take away the argument that all people on welfare are lazy?

Besides; loki8481 said it best:

Originally posted by: loki8481

not really... come back when the sons and daughters of the people who actually voted for the war get shipped out.
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by: tvarad
A brave but stupid decision. What a trophy he'd be if he were to be captured by the militants. The British will probably invest in another batallion just to make sure that that doesn't happen.
Click to expand...

You don't think they will put Prince Harry on point? :laugh:
 
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Craig, have you ever served in the military? if so, when, where, and with whom?
Click to expand...

E.D. "... but know I what the heather is and what a billow be ... "

The greater part of Craig's contribution deals with how one uses power. Is it for right or for wrong... When one fights against that power it is always from their perspective and not from the vista of the one wielding the big stick..
Craig also points out that those most closely enrobed in the flag of the US do so because they need to.. not because of what it stands for but what it enables them to propound and effect...

The war back in 177X was supported by 1/3 the people... the loyal subjects of the Crown didn't much care for it and 1/3 we apathetic...
I should add that Hancock had warehouse full of tea purchased before the tax was lifted and would lose a fortune now that the tea on those ships in Boston harbor was cheaper than his... I wonder what act put the tea in the sea back then..

I wonder what was in the minds of the British Soldiers in Concord and Lexington.. I wonder if they looked for brothers and cousins during the shooting... nah... they were much to proper for all that....
And that terrorist... Francis Marion... imagine us calling him a hero... fighting like that...

 
iraq war opinion aside, this is one redeeming quality of the british royal family, their willingness to get down and dirty when necessary. the british people and loyalists throughout the british commonwealth continue to support them because of this.
 
Surprising, considering the general opinion of the Iraq war in Britain. Why a royal would lay down his life for what is considered American imperialist interests is beyond me. An earlier poster questioned the credibility of the source; can we get a confirm from something other than Fox reporting on hearsay?
 
Originally posted by: slash196
Surprising, considering the general opinion of the Iraq war in Britain. Why a royal would lay down his life for what is considered American imperialist interests is beyond me. An earlier poster questioned the credibility of the source; can we get a confirm from something other than Fox reporting on hearsay?
Click to expand...

Since you're the one questioning, the burden of proof is on you to find it.

Godspeed.
 
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: Craig234
Oh, I understand 'courage', daniel; more important is the moral awareness to know when to not commit violence, and it takes greater courage to stand up for right against the pressure to kill; but people like you tend to worship courage to make up for your own deficiencies, as if you can have some rub off if you are enough of a military sycophant.

It's why you attack any who speak up for what's right so strongly, because they threaten to take away the security blanket of your lies. It's just pathetic, but worse, as a voting citizen of a powerful nation, your snivelling fear lets you vote to harm others without any price. And you use the word courage? You have no right to type it.

You try to make up for with attacks what you lack the 'real stuff' for - a reasonable point of view, logic, and other common virtues of a poster.

It's why you see the sleaziest wrap themselves most tightly in the flag, to hide their own shortcomings - and then have the gall to call others who defende principles 'unpatriotic'.

You have a chance to grow into a man someday, daniel, some of you snivellers do; good luck with it for all our sakes.
Click to expand...

Am I assuming that you think that we were wrong to fight against the British in a WAR in order for you to say these things? What about when we defended our country through WAR in order to uphold those beliefs?

Interesting that the very rights which allow you to say those have been taken through the means by which you deem so inferior to your obviously inflated idea of self-worth and moral superiority.
Click to expand...

the revolution wasn't about freedom of speech. At all.
 
Originally posted by: daniel49

You should work for Kerry. You sound like a pompous ass just like him.
Who are you to question these young men and women who choose to serve in the armed forces. They are doing what they feel is necessary to protect freedom even for people like you.
Click to expand...

Wow you missed that point entirely. When will people understand that iraq had nothing to do with defending freedom?
 
Originally posted by: kentp
lookalikes?

Text
Click to expand...


I'd not be surprised if someone already determined the parents of the young man.. we know one of them... and the other.. well from my POV... it looks like Charles has not contibuted much if anything to either...
 
i dont know, william is a bit of a tool, and he has a bald patch, so thats two things in common. also his bird is a bit of a heffer, thats three, where as harry goes for blondes and tits.
 
Originally posted by: daveymark
Originally posted by: slash196
Surprising, considering the general opinion of the Iraq war in Britain. Why a royal would lay down his life for what is considered American imperialist interests is beyond me. An earlier poster questioned the credibility of the source; can we get a confirm from something other than Fox reporting on hearsay?
Click to expand...

Since you're the one questioning, the burden of proof is on you to find it.

Godspeed.
Click to expand...

You failed Intro to Philosophy in college, didn't you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top