The mother of all targets

[Skybird]

PLEASE NOTE THAT THE POLL OPTIONS DIFFER BETWEEN VOTERS BEING BRITISH AND NON-BRITISH

So, fool Harry is about to look for a little adventure.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2062906,00.html

British officers in Iraq does not seem to behappy with him coming. The hunt for him is set up and ready to get started. sunni and Shia militias have agreed to set aside their hostilities and to cooperate in trying to capture him - his mere presence is uniting the enemy. He does not offer any special capabilities to the military that would make a difference if he goes there, or not. But everybody in his surrounding will face a drastic increase in risk levels. A general raise in hostile actions against the British can be expected as part of trying to catch him.

What do you think? Can it be justified to accept the many negative disadvantages resulting from Harry's tour in Iraq just to have him let his will to serve there? Or shouldn'T it be his best of duties to put his will behind the interests of British soldiers, for whom he makes it more dangerous and complicated without any need to do so, and without any compensation for the increased risks?

Of course, option 3 for me.

[Letum]

I can see that it is a little like Arch Duke Franz insisting on the Sarajevo trip i.e.
sending a big, important target in to a hostile zone.

I think the fundamental logic behind the decision is about the United Kingdom's
army's almost unique pride in it's dogmas.
One such dogma has always been to treat people according to rank with no regard
for their civilian profession. This means that if Harry's unit was to be sent out, his
civilian profession as a royal prince should in theory not be taken into account when
making the professional decision weather to send him with his unit.

Sticking rigidly to dogmas like this has been a matter of great pride for the British
army, and for the UK in general, for many centuries. The army would certainly feel
that this pride was dented if it had to declare that it couldn't send a officer (i.e.
Harry) to his post because it was too dangerous and that he was to be kept in
England whilst his comrades of equal rank went to fight.

For me the question is: is this pride justified, or is it a relic of pre-Victorian militaria
that has no place on the modern battlefield?
Part of me can't help but think that it is noble and glorious to die saving the
regimental colours from capture or to die to ensure that not one of England's officers
(i.e. Harry) has to stay back from the enemy when he is ready to fight with his
comrades.
On the other hand I am reminded that this is what Wilfred Owen called "the old lie";
Dulce et Decorum est, Pro patria mori. The 20th century like no other has exposed
this lie via our understanding of the horrors of the last two world wars.
For this reason I am inclined to ask the army to swallow it's pride in the old dogmas
in order to spare our service men from the additional dangers that sending a member
of the royal family into a danger zone would bring and to take new pride in the
knowledge that they made the right choice when faced with a difficult decision.

It's taken me over two hours to come to a decision on that! I must have too much time on my hands!

*edit* I have not voted because I don't think decision for him to go lacks responsibility, even tho it is the wrong decision.
May we have a "other" option to vote for?

[Ishmael]

PLEASE NOTE THAT THE POLL OPTIONS DIFFER BETWEEN VOTERS BEING BRITISH AND NON-BRITISH

So, fool Harry is about to look for a little adventure.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2062906,00.html

British officers in Iraq does not seem to behappy with him coming. The hunt for him is set up and ready to get started. sunni and Shia militias have agreed to set aside their hostilities and to cooperate in trying to capture him - his mere presence is uniting the enemy. He does not offer any special capabilities to the military that would make a difference if he goes there, or not. But everybody in his surrounding will face a drastic increase in risk levels. A general raise in hostile actions against the British can be expected as part of trying to catch him.

What do you think? Can it be justified to accept the many negative disadvantages resulting from Harry's tour in Iraq just to have him let his will to serve there? Or shouldn'T it be his best of duties to put his will behind the interests of British soldiers, for whom he makes it more dangerous and complicated without any need to do so, and without any compensation for the increased risks?

Of course, option 3 for me.

If he does deploy to Iraq, he ought to be easy for the insurgents to spot. Just look for the trailing clouds of dust from the hordes of papparazzi following him.

Seriously, putting Harry into a scouting group was madness in the first place.

[U-533]

Prince Harry was left under no illusions of his value as a scalp for Iraqi insurgents.

Scalp?...

Next it will be Ears...............and all that it implies.

____________
WHOW!
I'm a XO now...

and DAAAMMNN I look good!

[Skybird]

I can see that it is a little like Arch Duke Franz insisting on the Sarajevo trip i.e.
sending a big, important target in to a hostile zone.
(...)
*edit* I have not voted because I don't think decision for him to go lacks responsibility, even tho it is the wrong decision.
May we have a "other" option to vote for?
As far as I understand, noone expected him to go, even expected him to stay away, wished he would stay away, tried to tell him he should stay away, but then he insisted to get his tour. From the beginning neither the family nor the military was happy with that.

Since I would not like to see for example parliamentaries' sons being excluded from being sent into warzones, like I repeatedly have red that it was like that during Vietnam, there is one difference. As a prince, Harry's face is known and he will be recognized. The son of this or that member of parliament simply is noone who would draw special attention by the enemy, maybe even not from his comrades.

[Letum]

Since I would not like to see for example parliamentaries' sons being excluded from being sent into warzones, like I repeatedly have red that it was like that during Vietnam, there is one difference. As a prince, Harry's face is known and he will be recognized. The son of this or that member of parliament simply is noone who would draw special attention by the enemy, maybe even not from his comrades.

You forgett the power of the press!

[SUBMAN1]

I doubt they will even know where he is. On top of that, he sends a clear message to the bad guys by him going. :up: Basically, we are not afraid of them is what that message is.

-S

[GlobalExplorer]

I must say this is really a tough question.

I'm NOT British and I think it is irresponsible of him to go to Iraq.
I'm NOT British and I think he deserves respect and the increased risks for the troops is okay.

Considering only those two options the poll gives me, I say I`m for the second one. I don`t stand behind the "it is irresponsible", and I think he will score heavily if he is prepared to take the same risks as an ordinary soldier.

But the two princes are extremely precious for Great Britain, and if not at least one of them becomes king eventually, and has children, it will be the end of the monarchy in the UK.

Moreover, if he got killed, it would lead to all sorts of diplomatic consequences, possibly even a crisis. Yeah I know some people are craving for exactly that, but it consoles me that the British are not that stupid.

So I say better not.

[Platapus]

If the media would just ignore him and not give constant position reports to the enemy, he should be ok.

I think it is honourable thing that he wants to do his part as a member of the Military. Imagine how it would be later in life when people think "sure he was in the military but he never truly served".

He should be allowed to serve just like any other new officer. No media hounding him. No position reports telling the enemy exactly where he is.

And you know what? If he dies in battle, so be it. He accepts the risk, why can't we.

I think he is acting correctly and he has my respect

[Letum]

And you know what? If he dies in battle, so be it. He accepts the risk, why can't we.


I'm just palying devil's advocate here....
What if someone else dies in battle because of his presence who would have survived he he was not there?
With the increaced risk on the Army of him being there this is not unlikely.

[U-533]

Scalps and Ears...

:up:

The more I think about the less crazy it sounds.

Yikes...

[Polak]

I think that it has to do with traditions also for a crown member to deploy into a battlezone, but the problem is that the battlezones we have today differ alot from the battlezones that existed in the past.

I believe that when he deploys, he should fulfill an administrative role, as a member of a general staff or something likewise, not a regular grunt. I also believe that he has the same right to die for England, as any other Englishman.

[GlobalExplorer]

And you know what? If he dies in battle, so be it. He accepts the risk, why can't we.


I'm just palying devil's advocate here....
What if someone else dies in battle because of his presence who would have survived he he was not there?
With the increaced risk on the Army of him being there this is not unlikely.

I am surprised that you worry more about that than the possibility of losing one of your princes. What if his brother follows him in a car accident? Wouldnt that mean the end of the monarchy?

[UglyMowgli]

He is in the army, it is his choice so why he sould stay out of combat zone.

and I think there is a batch of SAS members around him for protection.

[Skybird]

What if someone else dies in battle because of his presence who would have survived he he was not there?
that is pretty much what I was about with this poll. due to his presence, many soldiers of the British will need to face higher risks. Like in saving Private Ryan, I ask: is the interest of one man (in this case: tradition, reputation, personal decision) worth to put the lifes of man others at even higher risks? Sending messages of not being afraid, like someone put it in this thread, is of no importance here. It is purely pragmatic a problem: how many lives will be considered to be too costly for one man having his will? how much unneeded additional complication is acceptable when there is already a war going on? As the article indicated, the military in Iraq expresses "unease" about the prince's presence. In the past, medias said that the prince was urged both by his family and the military not to go there, and had a family "showdown" with the Queen about it.

[jumpy]

yay, bulletmagnet harry?

Why couldn't he have joined the navy and stayed out of trouble like andrew?

[Skybird]

yay, bulletmagnet harry?

Why couldn't he have joined the navy and stayed out of trouble like andrew?
Because it was written about him that he always had a fascination for tanks and ground wars and played these already as a young boy. If what was written is true, of course.

[Skybird]

He is in the army, it is his choice so why he sould stay out of combat zone.

and I think there is a batch of SAS members around him for protection.
The dilemma remains: is one man's choice worth to needlessly put additional lives at risk, or increase existing risks for others without gaining anything in compensation but increased detemrination of the enemy whose factions even do unite while attempting to catch him?

[joea]

Well I voted it is irresponsible but only cause it will mean unequal risk for his comrades...otherwise I can understand why it would not be seen as fair for one guy to get special treatment.

[down and out]

I say fair play to him
He may be a Prince but is still a member of the armed forces and as a such wants to do his bit

Prince Andrew flew helicopters aboard the aircraft carrier HMS Invincible on active service during the Falklands War.

His grandfather the Duke of Edinburgh served aboard HMS Valiant in 1941 and then HMS Wallace in 42
Even taking part in the Sicily landings

True the situation is different in that insurgents know what a valuable scalp he will be
No more so though that the other 2 examples above

[porphy]

Ok, his presence will add extra risk for those around him. Perhaps that is compensated for, with less risk for other soldiers not on station with Harry? ;)
The army should have plenty of reason to excel in Vip protection this time... Anyway, lead from the front :up:

Cheers

[tycho102]

Well, I'm not British.

But if Harry shows the same courage on The Throne, then he'll be hela improvement over Chuck. Chuck is one serious nancy-boy.
http://www.petticoated.com/prince.charles.at.mey.jpg

[Skybird]

Anyway, lead from the front
Ja, und sperr bloß die Lauscher auf! ;) :lol:

[Kapitan_Phillips]

Well, I'm not British.

But if Harry shows the same courage on The Throne, then he'll be hela improvement over Chuck. Chuck is one serious nancy-boy.
http://www.petticoated.com/prince.charles.at.mey.jpg


The only good Chuck is a Norris.

http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/1310/dchucknorrisx8wf.jpg


Prince Norris. I like that. :rotfl:

[jumpy]

^^
don't you mean Prince Chuck of Mullet? :lol:

[Kapitan_Phillips]

^^
don't you mean Prince Chuck of Mullet? :lol:


Shhhh, lest you get roundhouse kicked! :rotfl:

[bradclark1]

It's a damned if you do and damned if you don't scenario so any way he goes there will be flack. I say let him go because he won't get a lot of respect from the armed forces otherwise. What good is the expense of all that training and be combat arms to be a candy ass-ed remf (Rear Echelon Mother F) and thats what he'd be viewed as.
On the other hand he's an heir to the throne and a golden target putting his-self and his mens lives in extra jeopardy. I wouldn't be exactly thrilled to be under him.

[Camaero]

If the guy wants to serve, let him serve.

It's a good way to draw out more baddies to kill.

[fatty]

After his embarrassments with the Nazi thing and his experiments with drugs etc, I'm willing to allow him a chance to prove if he has developed the maturity and sense necessary to handle the pressure of a deployment.

[Yahoshua]

I'll sit back and see how he actually performs both in combat and in the field.

As for stature: No amount of stature should be used as a means of avoiding responsibility. He's a prince, so what? On a base level he's no greater nor lesser a human being than any of us. Moreover, if he used his rank and standing to avoid service, then why should I ever expect him to perform any differently while in the political spectrum?

http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k84/yahoshua/Smilies/popcorn-1.gif

[TteFAboB]

Sends a good message to the terrorists: our King piece doesn't sit and hide behind a wall of pawns.

Of course, that depends on the amount of VIP protection he gets.

[lesrae]

What if his brother follows him in a car accident? Wouldnt that mean the end of the monarchy?

Nope, there are plenty more waiting in the wings, although the thought of some of them as head of state terrifies me :o

Line of succession

Sovereign
1. The Prince of Wales
2. Prince William of Wales
3. Prince Henry of Wales
4. The Duke of York
5. Princess Beatrice of York
6. Princess Eugenie of York
7. The Earl of Wessex
8. The Lady Louise Windsor
9. The Princess Royal
10. Mr. Peter Phillips
11. Miss Zara Phillips
12. Viscount Linley
13. The Hon. Charles Armstrong-Jones
14. The Hon. Margarita Armstrong-Jones
15. The Lady Sarah Chatto
16. Master Samuel Chatto
17. Master Arthur Chatto
18. The Duke of Gloucester
19. Earl of Ulster
20. Lord Culloden
21. The Lady Davina Lewis
22. The Lady Rose Windsor
23. The Duke of Kent
24. The Lady Marina-Charlotte Windsor
25. The Lady Amelia Windsor
26. The Lady Helen Taylor
27. Master Columbus Taylor
28. Master Cassius Taylor
29. Miss Eloise Taylor
30. Miss Estella Taylor
31. The Lord Frederick Windsor
32. The Lady Gabriella Windsor
33. Princess Alexandra, the Hon. Lady Ogilvy
34. Mr. James Ogilvy
35. Master Alexander Ogilvy
36. Miss Flora Ogilvy
37. Miss Marina Ogilvy
38. Master Christian Mowatt
39. Miss Zenouska Mowatt
40. The Earl of Harewood

[Tchocky]

What if his brother follows him in a car accident? Wouldnt that mean the end of the monarchy?
Nope, there are plenty more waiting in the wings, although the thought of some of them as head of state terrifies me :o

Line of succession

Sovereign
1. The Prince of Wales
2. Prince William of Wales
3. Prince Henry of Wales
4. The Duke of York
5. Princess Beatrice of York
6. Princess Eugenie of York
7. The Earl of Wessex
8. The Lady Louise Windsor
9. The Princess Royal
10. Mr. Peter Phillips
11. Miss Zara Phillips
12. Viscount Linley
13. The Hon. Charles Armstrong-Jones
14. The Hon. Margarita Armstrong-Jones
15. The Lady Sarah Chatto
16. Master Samuel Chatto
17. Master Arthur Chatto
18. The Duke of Gloucester
19. Earl of Ulster
20. Lord Culloden
21. The Lady Davina Lewis
22. The Lady Rose Windsor
23. The Duke of Kent
24. The Lady Marina-Charlotte Windsor
25. The Lady Amelia Windsor
26. The Lady Helen Taylor
27. Master Columbus Taylor
28. Master Cassius Taylor
29. Miss Eloise Taylor
30. Miss Estella Taylor
31. The Lord Frederick Windsor
32. The Lady Gabriella Windsor
33. Princess Alexandra, the Hon. Lady Ogilvy
34. Mr. James Ogilvy
35. Master Alexander Ogilvy
36. Miss Flora Ogilvy
37. Miss Marina Ogilvy
38. Master Christian Mowatt
39. Miss Zenouska Mowatt
40. The Earl of Harewood

Hey hey! Didn't know I had so few between me and my rightful place!

[Letum]

What if his brother follows him in a car accident? Wouldnt that mean the end of the monarchy?
Nope, there are plenty more waiting in the wings, although the thought of some of them as head of state terrifies me :o

Line of succession

Sovereign
1. The Prince of Wales
2. Prince William of Wales
3. Prince Henry of Wales
4. The Duke of York
5. Princess Beatrice of York
6. Princess Eugenie of York
7. The Earl of Wessex
8. The Lady Louise Windsor
9. The Princess Royal
10. Mr. Peter Phillips
11. Miss Zara Phillips
12. Viscount Linley
13. The Hon. Charles Armstrong-Jones
14. The Hon. Margarita Armstrong-Jones
15. The Lady Sarah Chatto
16. Master Samuel Chatto
17. Master Arthur Chatto
18. The Duke of Gloucester
19. Earl of Ulster
20. Lord Culloden
21. The Lady Davina Lewis
22. The Lady Rose Windsor
23. The Duke of Kent
24. The Lady Marina-Charlotte Windsor
25. The Lady Amelia Windsor
26. The Lady Helen Taylor
27. Master Columbus Taylor
28. Master Cassius Taylor
29. Miss Eloise Taylor
30. Miss Estella Taylor
31. The Lord Frederick Windsor
32. The Lady Gabriella Windsor
33. Princess Alexandra, the Hon. Lady Ogilvy
34. Mr. James Ogilvy
35. Master Alexander Ogilvy
36. Miss Flora Ogilvy
37. Miss Marina Ogilvy
38. Master Christian Mowatt
39. Miss Zenouska Mowatt
40. The Earl of Harewood
Hey hey! Didn't know I had so few between me and my rightful place!

Everyone is on the list somewhere!

[Skybird]

What if his brother follows him in a car accident? Wouldnt that mean the end of the monarchy?

Nope, there are plenty more waiting in the wings, although the thought of some of them as head of state terrifies me :o

Line of succession

Sovereign
1. The Prince of Wales
2. Prince William of Wales
3. Prince Henry of Wales
4. The Duke of York
5. Princess Beatrice of York
6. Princess Eugenie of York
7. The Earl of Wessex
8. The Lady Louise Windsor
9. The Princess Royal
10. Mr. Peter Phillips
11. Miss Zara Phillips
12. Viscount Linley
13. The Hon. Charles Armstrong-Jones
14. The Hon. Margarita Armstrong-Jones
15. The Lady Sarah Chatto
16. Master Samuel Chatto
17. Master Arthur Chatto
18. The Duke of Gloucester
19. Earl of Ulster
20. Lord Culloden
21. The Lady Davina Lewis
22. The Lady Rose Windsor
23. The Duke of Kent
24. The Lady Marina-Charlotte Windsor
25. The Lady Amelia Windsor
26. The Lady Helen Taylor
27. Master Columbus Taylor
28. Master Cassius Taylor
29. Miss Eloise Taylor
30. Miss Estella Taylor
31. The Lord Frederick Windsor
32. The Lady Gabriella Windsor
33. Princess Alexandra, the Hon. Lady Ogilvy
34. Mr. James Ogilvy
35. Master Alexander Ogilvy
36. Miss Flora Ogilvy
37. Miss Marina Ogilvy
38. Master Christian Mowatt
39. Miss Zenouska Mowatt
40. The Earl of Harewood

That reads like the cast for a new Robin Hood movie!

[The Avon Lady]

What if his brother follows him in a car accident? Wouldnt that mean the end of the monarchy?

Nope, there are plenty more waiting in the wings, although the thought of some of them as head of state terrifies me :o

Line of succession

Sovereign
1. The Prince of Wales
2. Prince William of Wales
3. Prince Henry of Wales
4. The Duke of York
5. Princess Beatrice of York
6. Princess Eugenie of York
7. The Earl of Wessex
8. The Lady Louise Windsor
9. The Princess Royal
10. Mr. Peter Phillips
11. Miss Zara Phillips
12. Viscount Linley
13. The Hon. Charles Armstrong-Jones
14. The Hon. Margarita Armstrong-Jones
15. The Lady Sarah Chatto
16. Master Samuel Chatto
17. Master Arthur Chatto
18. The Duke of Gloucester
19. Earl of Ulster
20. Lord Culloden
21. The Lady Davina Lewis
22. The Lady Rose Windsor
23. The Duke of Kent
24. The Lady Marina-Charlotte Windsor
25. The Lady Amelia Windsor
26. The Lady Helen Taylor
27. Master Columbus Taylor
28. Master Cassius Taylor
29. Miss Eloise Taylor
30. Miss Estella Taylor
31. The Lord Frederick Windsor
32. The Lady Gabriella Windsor
33. Princess Alexandra, the Hon. Lady Ogilvy
34. Mr. James Ogilvy
35. Master Alexander Ogilvy
36. Miss Flora Ogilvy
37. Miss Marina Ogilvy
38. Master Christian Mowatt
39. Miss Zenouska Mowatt
40. The Earl of Harewood

That reads like the cast for a new Robin Hood movie!
I was thinking more in the line of a new Dennis Moore sketch.

[Tchocky]

He steals dum dum dum
And dum da dum dum doooo

Dennis dum
Dennis dee
Dum dum dum

[AntEater]

Re the whole Harry business, of course the second poster is right.
The 21st century military is not the place for glory or even glory seekers.
On the other hand, it occured to me that in a certain way, a monarchy IS the military.
Might sound strange, but what else are monarchies than the perpetuated rule of a family from a warrior caste?
Military, war and such is the foundation of a monarchy. All militaries of all monarchies (no matter how constitutional) are "his Majesty's" military, except today's Japan, of course. Soldiers of a monarchy swear loyalty to a person and to a family first, to a country second. And traditionally, sons of lesser noble families make up the officer ranks.
Of course this whole warrior caste concept is about as obsolete as the concept of a family ruling over a country by divine right.
But as long as a country is a monarchy, the monarchy must maintain its hold over the military.
So, thanks to mass media and the blasphemous idea that all men are somehow equal, the Queen has no choice but to send a prince into a hugely unpopular war, if she (or better the elected government she is supposed to represent) sends other men and women to that hugely unpopular non-war in Iraq.

[GlobalExplorer]

After his embarrassments with the Nazi thing ...

Yeah I remember that .. excuse me but .. I found it amusing ..

http://www.swastika-info.com/images/current_news/prinz-harry-desaster2.jpg

.. that fool .. it doesnt even look right .. :rotfl:

[TLAM Strike]

Prince Andrew flew helicopters aboard the aircraft carrier HMS Invincible on active service during the Falklands War. Wasn't his job to spoof ASMs? :hmm:

As for Harry stick him up north in Kurdistan somewhere, him and his securty detachment would probaly double the number or Coalition troops there. ;)

[Heibges]

I think it is outstanding that he is going.

Lead from the front all the way!

I'm waiting to see the Bush Twins commissioned into the Air Defense Artillery next.

[baggygreen]

It is a bit of a pickle, isnt it.

If somebody, anybody prevents him from going, there will be a perception of him as a coward. It will be a perception that many people will fail to shake.

If he does go, as it is technically his duty to, then yes, british troops in general will come under increased pressure in Iraq and you know, given the way the media just loves to publish every single detail about the monarchy, it wouldnt surprise me if we even get given exact gps coordinates for the poor blokes bed.

What is the right thing for him to do?

flip a coin, i reckon.:arrgh!:

[Skybird]

It is a bit of a pickle, isnt it.

If somebody, anybody prevents him from going, there will be a perception of him as a coward. It will be a perception that many people will fail to shake.

If he does go, as it is technically his duty to, then yes, british troops in general will come under increased pressure in Iraq and you know, given the way the media just loves to publish every single detail about the monarchy, it wouldnt surprise me if we even get given exact gps coordinates for the poor blokes bed.

What is the right thing for him to do?



To sit and think about this: "Am I so strong in ability or knowledge that I really would be a contribution for the mission, or am I a burden? Does my presence make a difference that compensates for the complications and increased risk others have to face becasue of me? Is it for the best of the soldiers being there if I go, or just to increase the risks they are already facing?"

A good commander, I assume, would always think about what is the best for the mission, what is the best for the men, before considering his own career.

If he concludes that he would be more burden than contribution, than he would show true grandeur to accept to take the flak from the media, and step back. That would be a kind of courage that actually would be of worth in this case. One courageous man more or less in Basra doesn't make a difference, on the other hand.

[OddjobXL]

For me to be able to decide on whether this is an honorable choice or a vainglorious one comes down to knowing what his men think. If they look on him as a good leader and a source of pride, one they're willing to take the risk for, then I'm all for it. If he's seen as a spoiled brat who's going to get everyone killed for the sake of his ego then, no, he shouldn't go.

There's no way I can know what the answer is but I'm pretty sure the British military command must. If they're reluctantly going along this this, or going along with it on any level, they must think he's a capable commander who'll do well by his men and they by him. Otherwise, Prince Harry's image be damned, they wouldn't be taking this risk on their own shoulders or be willing to waste the assets doubtless being deployed just to back him up. I think I've read there are special SAS teams that will be around just to cover his unit if something goes wrong.

[dean_acheson]

did the poll question come from the NYT?

how about, "I'm not British but am proud to see that he has the guts to go."

[Skybird]

Not from the NYT, no.

And your alternative option - confuses me. Because strangers having no link to the Royals by nationality hardly can be proud of what some stranger is doing. Because of that, I separated the answers by nationality.

[Heibges]

Will his not going mean a collapse in moral for British Troops. Will they look at is as getting off easy?

Plus, there are probably lots of rather well-to-do folk in that Regiment anyway. It is a special unit isn't it?

[baggygreen]

I understand your point skybird in that a good commander looks out for his men first and foremost, etc.

But i just feel like one can't discount the negative repercussions if he were to avoid deployment. It is easy to avoid the bad media by not reading it. But so many people DO read it, and many people's opinions are influenced by the media. If they hear it often enough, they're likely to believe it. Further, this bloke has a chance to rule Britain one day, again lets be frank, regardless of who decides (hypothetically) that its not for him to be deployed, his character will be tarnished. many foreign leaders will likely not have the respect for him because of the damaging perception that he chickened out of active service.

Regardless, he seems set on going - i just reiterate my wish for the media to stop advertising where he will be based, when he leaves, yada yada. you only make the enemy's task easier!

[baggygreen]

So, it appears that he is going - the decision is made.

Now what we need is for the media to cease its coverage of the poor guy and let him go with no more fanfare than any other soldier!

Also, a similar survey was done on a popular australian site, interesting result: 10944 in favour of deployment, 4391 against. thats from ninemsn.com.au

ps sorry asw for draggin up a page 2 or 3 thread ;)