Should Prince Harry have been sent to frontline combat in Iraq?

Question

I'm asking this as impartially as I can. I'm a Scotsman and a nationalist to boot so I couldn't care less what happens to him. I'm just curious as to when everyone else feels about it? Should he have been allowed to be deployed with his division in Iraq, or have the scales of power tilted to protect the spare to the throne of the UK?

Answer 1

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker

Sure, it should be his choice..the media just has to stop reporting his every move and treat him like any other Soldier.

I wonder if Jenna or Barbara every stopped by the local recruiting station

Asker's Rating:

Asker's Comment:

I agree, the media has played a large part in the decision not to sent him to the theatre of war. I also agree that not enough politicians offspring are making the ultimate gesture in support of thier parents ideals.

Answer 2

i don't know, maybe he should have... : /

Source(s):

Yahoo! is getting out of hand. Arm yourself with knowledge.
http://consumerist.com/consumer/yahoo/wa…

Answer 3

no

Answer 4

The cost to protect him and putting a target in the Iraq theater that would be highly prized by the terrorists make it not worth the benefit of him being there.

Answer 5

Prince Harry has a responsibility to his country first and foremost, and since there were threat made to his lif already is was in the best interest of England to keep him away.
Secondly his responsibility to his men. He did mention that in an interview. SO.... good for him, cheers mate!!

Answer 6

I would not want a target like that in my unit! :)

Answer 7

I think the decision they made it is OK. If they send him to Iraq everybody know that, the area in Basra just a little bit quieter than in Baghdad, but after he is there can be happen the British troops get more attacks and there is another soldiers loosing their life's too. So I guess it is better like that.

Answer 8

Why should he be different then my brother who's life is on the line.

Answer 9

I could care less about Prince Harry. But no I don't believe they should have, he's an obvious prime target from a political standpoint. Worse than that he'd do nothing but put everyone around him in severe danger (even moreso than they already are being over there).

Answer 10

No, because he would be putting the other troops in his division in more danger. They had already sent word that they were waiting for him to first cut his ears off and more than likely kill all the other troops with him. He would have caused more danger to his troops than he would been of use to them.

Answer 11

hes not being sent

Answer 12

What makes him more special than any other soldier? And last time I checked, the UK had an all-volunteer military. He joined because he WANTED TO.

Answer 13

I think the right decision was made. Just by his being there, he would have made the entire unit a prime target and undoubtedly would cause many more casualties than just the prince.

They don't have a huge force and even a smaller number of tanks. It wouldn't be too hard to pinpoint him.

Answer 14

YES, he should be deployed like the rest of the soldier's, he is a soldier first and foremost before he is anything, or at least that's what they tell our kid's, and what a lame excuse saying he will be in more danger than anyone else in his unit, because, do the British or American military make a habit of pinpointing anyone else's whereabouts, and also will the terrorists be more sympathetic towards other soldier's than they would be with him?? I think not.

Answer 15

Being that he would be a greater target and would endanger the lives of all of those around him because of his status, I would say no.

If he were not royalty, then heck yes!

This is not an issue of his patriotism or his integrity. This is about protecting the heir to the English thrown. An enemy is always going to look for a way to hurt a country most...why not attack the succession line? So, it would not seem very smart to put it out there on the front line for them to easily access.

Answer 16

Yes, It shows the ragheads that UK is a strong force and the would have a hard time getting to Harry. If the Brits don't send him it will show their weakness. Just like the Brits did the the 15 Soldiers were kidnapped, The Brits should have invaded Iran the minute they were taken and bombed the sh** out of iran

Answer 17

NO. I know that it doesn't seem "fair", but would you want to be in a platoon with him walking down a dark and deserted street in Basra. It is a death sentence to all of those with him. He is a target of opportunity with great media value. I support that he is doing his military time and all the crap, but Iraq is hard enough on street troops as it is. That would only make their job that much harder. But here is a good question, if something would happen to him, would it rally the British people or make even more a negative issue about your troops there?

Answer 18

yes......another rich person getting away with something an ordinary person would not be able to do.........why bother joining if he isnt gonna follow through with it....did he get scared??? hello how many other young men would love the opportunity to get out.....

Answer 19

NO...we have loved ones over there that we want to come home safe....harry is just a target to get our guys killed....keep him out of there

Answer 20

yep, arnt all the troops being targeted, not just him?

Answer 21

Its not a question of should he be sent, he VOLUNTEERED, and because he volunteered I feel he should be allowed to go. Its sad that today our stars dont serve their country...back in WWII many movie stars fought and did well in combat, Clark Gable was a fighter pilot who EARNED his wings and EARNED his ace status by shooting down Germans. A few others(I forget their names) served on B-17 bombers. Even Harrys family served in WWII and the Falklands War.

Yes, he volunteered to serve his country and should be allowed to go.