Should Harry be sent to the front lines?

yeah like in the olden days it was the king who lead troops into battle, and they often met a sticky end there. so why the change now??

i kind of understand why they don't want to send him but FFS he signed up for the army, he's trained for this, he wants to go, his troop want him to go - so can't they just let him go?! blimin nanny state and all that...

Typical military FUBAR.

If theyd kept it quiet and just sent him things would have been a lot easier but the press have to open thier big gobs again so the bloke wont have a chance to prove himself. Feel sorry for the pampered little prince i really do

Forget Harry, the British Army fullstop should not be in Iraq.
We invaded a sovereign state. Totally out of order in my books.

Sorry if this point has already been made!

Originally Posted by the_runt69

If theyd kept it quiet and just sent him things would have been a lot easier but the press have to open thier big gobs again so the bloke wont have a chance to prove himself. Feel sorry for the pampered little prince i really do

100 % agree

Yes he should. Can;t see why they're so bothered about a royal getting done in out there... he ain't one, so what's the problem?

Originally Posted by SVeeedy Gonzales

Yes he should. Can;t see why they're so bothered about a royal getting done in out there... he ain't one, so what's the problem?

What, like, James Hewitt is his dad? (allegedly )

This is going to sound really horrible and I kinda don't mean it (and kinda do). I kinda think he should go, and then get shot up - lose a limb or two or his life.

As it stands, we have young kids coming back in body bags on a weekly basis and countless more coming back with their life shattered - limbs lost etc. But we just don't pay much attention to these, it's only when "someone important" gets killed/wounded that we, the press etc, sit up and take notice and realise that war is truly a diabolical hell and not the armchair version of Counterstrike. Gunshots and explosions rarely kill quickly, dieing in excruciating pain in the desert is not glorious, it's hellish.

If our leaders (and by that I'm really referring to politicians, but in times past that would include royals) are not prepared to risk their nearest and dearest then I don't see how they have the right to gamble with the lives of others.

I don't think I'm going to heaven for that comment

Originally Posted by MiniMatt

I don't think I'm going to heaven for that comment

I don't think you are either. Treason isn't punishable by death these days.

I agree though. There was once a time when the King himself was expected to lead his army on to the field in battle.

Where does Harry come in the pecking order agian?

Another war fought by propoganda. "Oh you send Harry & we're going to be kind, we'll send him home without his ears!" (Vague reference to beheadding to my mind). Scare tactics & nothing more. Send the boy!

I think the thing is that he would be a target and so would increase hostility and therefore a risk to others.

Also he would be a real prize for the bad guys.

I think treason is still a punishable offence by death