Harry in Iraq?
 

**Not sure if this should be in Politics or not, if so feel free to move it.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006 ... html?s=icp
Basically comes down to Prince Harry joining the Blues and Royals. If his division is sent to Iraq then he would go too. I think this is a good thing. Finally have someone of great rocognization actually joining up to support their beliefs.

Re: Harry in Iraq?
 

[quote="Unknown_Sniper":6c4fc]**Not sure if this should be in Politics or not, if so feel free to move it.

[url="http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/25/111858.shtml?s=icp"]http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006 ... html?s=icp[/url]
Basically comes down to Prince Harry joining the Blues and Royals. If his division is sent to Iraq then he would go too. I think this is a good thing. Finally have someone of great rocognization actually joining up to support their beliefs.[/quote:6c4fc]

it might be more trouble than help...im sure he would have a retinue of security around him 24/7....unless the brits really dont value his life etc. if no one makes a fuss and he is milling about we might see his ass on one of those kidnapper videos with a bag on his head about to have his royal head lopped off by Buttocks!!!

So he graduated from sandhurst and went right off into Iraq?

Guys got balls thats for sure.

I say all the better. The kid wants to do it let him. Yes its a risk for him to take but its the same for every other soldier. If he had proper training he should come out fine.

Prince Andrew was a helicopter pilot for the Royal Navy in the Falklands war but he was flying a helicopter around the fleet acting as a missile decoy... Quite an appropriate posting for a Royal. If Harry is in Iraq he would be a prime target for any fundamentalist & it wouldn't surprise me if he were given a safer role out there. The Blues & Royals are part of the Household Cavalry, the guys who march around on horseback in London & drive the tanks for the army. I can't really think of any minor roles for a tank commander so I hope he kicks some azz.

i thought this was regarding the next harry potter book. anyone for quidditch?

i doubt they would give him a front line role if he goes to iraq. but i dont know about the royal army/marines.

Well from what I understand hes graduating from the Acadamy therefore he would be leading a squad or something. And if he his in the armored division, well they dont exactly let tanks go to waste in iraq.

who cares

[quote="Fluffy_Bunny":49e5f]Prince Andrew was a helicopter pilot for the Royal Navy in the Falklands war but he was flying a helicopter around the fleet acting as a missile decoy... [/quote:49e5f]

Yeah, I was just gonna mention that....and that was a bloodier war than Iraq...

[quote=Tripper]Yeah, I was just gonna mention that....and that was a bloodier war than Iraq...[/quote:d7d9e]

Bloodier than Iraq? I doubt it. Not trying to compare the bloodiness of a war, it's all bloody but Iraq is far worse then the Falklands in terms of deaths and wounded.

655 killed, 1,100 wounded, 11,313 prisoners - Argentina
255 killed, 746 wounded - England

Edit: Nevermind, England has lost 98 in Iraq.

[quote=Stammer]Bloodier than Iraq? I doubt it. Not trying to compare the bloodiness of a war, it's all bloody but Iraq is far worse then the Falklands in terms of deaths and wounded.

655 killed, 1,100 wounded, 11,313 prisoners - Argentina
255 killed, 746 wounded - England

Edit: Nevermind, England has lost 98 in Iraq.[/quote:5f23e]

You doubt it? Try editing that part of your post.

...Consider the length of the wars also. Falklands was four months long. rolleyes:

[quote=Tripper]You doubt it? Try editing that part of your post.

...Consider the length of the wars also. Falklands was four months long. rolleyes:[/quote:890af]

True, but also consider England isn't deployed throughout Iraq either. You should be more specific too, you should have said "The Falklands is far more costly to England then Iraq is." you made it sound as if Iraq is lesser then the Falklands. Maybe so for England.

[quote=Stammer]True, but also consider England isn't deployed throughout Iraq either. You should be more specific too, you should have said "The Falklands is far more costly to England then Iraq is." you made it sound as if Iraq is lesser then the Falklands. Maybe so for England.[/quote:bc722]

I'm sorry I didn't describe it to your exact detail, your fucking highness.

calmdown:

Calm down...I'm just trying to make clear what you said in you're original post, didn't think it was going to send you into a tantrum.

Calm down? lol. You're the one who just HAD to point out an insignificant piece of bullshit just to flex your intellectual muscles. Too bad you made a mistake, and I called you out. Then you played the anal retentive argument card....and over something so inessential. rolleyes:

Oops. Did I say inessential? I actually meant Insignificant.

in·es·sen·tial (n-snshl)
adj.
1. Not essential; unessential.

____________________________________

in·sig·nif·i·cant (nsg-nf-knt)
adj.
1. Not significant, especially:
a. Lacking in importance; trivial.
b. Lacking power, position, or value; worthy of little regard.
c. Small in size or amount.
2. Having little or no meaning.
2. Without essence.

The difference in these two words meant that had I not corrected you, you would have TOTALLY BEEN THROWN OFF OH NOOOOOOOO.