The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

  • Hi Guest - Did you know?
    Hot Topics is a Safe for Work (SFW) forum.

Prince Harry not going to Iraq because apparently war is dangerous

quasar

quasar

Cruise Director
JUB Supporter
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Posts
17,488
Reaction score
76
Points
48
Location
Lincoln, UK
Website
danny-uk.blogspot.co.uk
To be fair, the main reason is not so much the danger that HE would be in, but more about the danger his fellow soldiers would be in. They signed up to fight in an army, not to become a specific high level target simply because of who they were fighting with.

Had he been allowed to go, his fellow soldiers would have been subject to a far more intense campaign than their equals in other regiments.
 
The last thing, I heard about this, he was going. I think, with him going, it would put a big target on the unit. If he was captured, all hell would break loose. I know Iraq is already hell.
 
And to his credit, he wants to go. He's not happy about being left behind.
 
quasar21 said:
To be fair, the main reason is not so much the danger that HE would be in, but more about the danger his fellow soldiers would be in. They signed up to fight in an army, not to become a specific high level target simply because of who they were fighting with.

Had he been allowed to go, his fellow soldiers would have been subject to a far more intense campaign than their equals in other regiments.
Click to expand...
I totally agree with your statements and comments on this matter. Well done for a Brit.:p
​

eM.:( ​
 
MattieMich said:
"These threats exposed him and those around him to a degree of risk I considered unacceptable." Degree of risk? You mean getting shot or blown up? And the rest of the military doesn't face this?

I don't even think we, or our allies, should be there but this is just a stupid reason for pulling him out. He deserves the same treatment the rest of the military does. What's the old conservative argument? "He knew what he was getting into when he signed up."

It's not a stupid reason for pulling him out, it is common sense. Insurgents in Iraq named Harry as the #1 target of all US/UK personnel in the country and announced a huge all-out targeted campaign to kill him in a propaganda coup. Of course other members of the UK forces face a general risk but statistically it is, believe it or not, low and nothing like as great as this heightened specific risk. His degree of risk, and therefore the degree of risk of those around him, is the greatest of all - and completely unnecessary as he would only be going in a regular capacity, it's not as if he has a unique role to play, except for propaganda purposes on the British side.

Harry is the grandson of the head of state and colonel in chief of the second biggest force in Iraq. He's the son of the next head of state and the brother of the one after, and so on,as well as being Diana's son. He is much more famous throughout the world than George W Bush's children and the US would never send the child or grandchild of the President into foreign combat if they had been announced in this way as a specific target.
Click to expand...
 
It's laughable to think that people that resort to using IEDs know or care who they are blowing up. Everyone serving is in equal danger... The fact that they consider it too dangerous for a prince to serve speaks volumes about the reality of this war. They don't mind sacrificing other people that are serving, but would rather not sacrifice royalty. If this war was actually worth fighting, no one would be beyond serving and sacrificing.

Even if he did serve in Iraq, Prince Harry's biggest threat would likely be being killed by friendly fire and then having a propaganda campaign launched in his name, à la Pat Tillman.
 
I'm not going to argue about the fact that they don't want him to go.... he's royaty.....

thats exactly where i've got a problem.... they made such a big isue of HIM going to the army.... IF that's the way they feel about the way if he's going to the army then they should feel the same way that in the ARMY there might be actualy someone shooting back at you!!!!

EITHER go to the army OR stay out of the ARMY....
 
I completely agree ^

He and his aids at the palace knew fully well what was involved in him joining the army and yet there was still confusion about whether or not he was going on the front line. Do the other soldiers get this much fuss kicked up about them going on the front line? No, because they aren't royalty and their presence in the army won't potentially make them more of a target than Harry's presence will. If I were the family of the guys in Harry's squardron id' be breathing a sigh of relief in finding out he wasn't going.
 
Effortless_Pro said:
Certainly I'm the last one to point those out.
It just seemed like you said he had "AIDS" and some people on here sometimes have problems with the reading and I would bet my bottom dollar you'd have someone say "WHAT HARRY'S GOT AIDS?!"

Just sayin'.
Click to expand...

Sorry, wasn't having a go, just pissed off at myself for missing out a letter we call E. Now imagine if Harry had contracted aids on the call of duty, the world would be up in arms. :rolleyes:
 
While I respect and honor Prince Harry's intentions, did anyone really expect that a member of the Royal Family would be sent into the pits of Baghdad? Not to mention the "mood" of the people regarding the entire matter of this war and its creator (Bush)...a mood that ousted Tony Blair after 10 years of outstanding service to the country

Let's get real. You also won't see Bush or Cheney's kids headed for Baghdad. Perish the thought.
 
At least he was willing to go and not hide behind his daddy like Bush did.
 
PreTTy PeTe said:
the dude was never going..............

what the fuck no one understands this?
Click to expand...

I agree... I have nothing against prince Harry and i don't doubt that he wanted to serve in Iraq, but it's clear they were only trying to maintain his royal image and legacy by making him into a "warrior". I doubt it was ever likely that he would serve in any meaningful manner in Iraq. Though, now they have a really good excuse to keep him from serving. These well funded and organized insurgents might use their highly advanced technology and intelligence sources to track him down and target him specifically. :rolleyes: Everyone knows it's much less dangerous for countless non-royal soldiers to get attacked at random.
 
Well conspiracies are the meat of gossip. I find there to be a lot of difference in a single individual targeted vs a whole army. It is also naive to believe that the insurgents blow things up willy nilly. Not only are they capable of thinking they are very astute as to the best use of thier means.

I hate this war and was at best luke warm to it's inception. I try to reserve judgment on the basis that I know very little actaully and I defer to the nation's leaders. I'm sorry they have been such a terrible dissapointment. I am sorry this has become on of the worst cluster fucks of the US military.

I have no agenda on the English or thier royalty but from a practical matter, If I were the commander and had one individual who was singly targeted by insurgents, I would think twice about putting all the unit into that risk. To talk about other boys being shot at and the risk of all troops is a red herring. The general risk of war is understood, it is the specific threats that are necessary to consider. If one of my boys was a part of his batallion and because of foolish thinking he was killed thorugh a concerted effort to target on group specifically or one soldier then I would be very upset and rightly so. If my son died because of the random bloodshed of war it is difficult but understandable. Other wise would be negligent.

On a tactical ground Harry could boost morale if he were as the ancient royalty to take arms and to run his army and do well, but that isn't the case here is it? Nor do I believe our English friends here on JUB, who dislike the royal family, would approve of the royal family reasserting it's influence through armed conflict. There are always several considerations to make when comming to decisions. Rash players generally lose the long term competition, which is of course the problem with American foreign policy at the moment and George Bush in general. But that is another discussion.
 
agaymale said:
All the other royals have served in some form or fashion. Charles was a junior officer on board a ship during Vietnam, and Elizabeth was a mechanic during WWII. Harry wanted a chance to serve. He will still serve, just not with his current battalion.
Click to expand...

How did Charles end up in Vietnam? Harold Wilson kept the UK out of that mess.

I agree it's not great for the monarchy as an institution if the spare for the heir gets whacked, but it must be hard to explain to the families of ordinary Brits whose kids are dying over there that their kids live are not all that precious. I wonder whether this will further diminish the standing of the monarchy?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top