Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 1/25/2006 6:41:43 PM EDT
Britain's Prince Harry Joins Prestigious Army Regiment, May go to Iraq


Prince Harry, the third in line to the British throne, will join one of the army's oldest and most prestigious units, making him eligible for service in Iraq, the Ministry of Defense said Wednesday. Harry, 21, will serve in the Blues and Royals regiment of the venerable Household Cavalry, which already has been deployed to Iraq. The regiment is the one most closely associated with Queen Elizabeth II, Harry's grandmother.


Britain's Prince Harry Joins Prestigious Army Regiment, May go to Iraq

LONDON (AP) 1.25.06, 9:20a -- ``It's fair to say that if his squadron goes to Iraq, he will probably go with it,'' a ministry spokesman said on condition of anonymity in line with ministry policy.

(Pictured left, Prince Harry of Great Britain, during military training exercise, England.)

News reports said Harry hopes to lead an armored reconnaissance troop, which deploys in Scimitar vehicles and acts as the eyes and ears of the force commander.

There are two divisions within the Household Cavalry: the armored division, where Harry will train, and the mounted regiment, which performs ceremonial duties, including guarding the queen on ceremonial and public occasions. At such events, they are decked out in red or blue tunics, shiny breastplates, plumed helmets and thigh-length black boots, their horses immaculately groomed.

Clarence House, the office of Harry's father, Prince Charles, said the young prince will join the Blues and Royals in April after completing his training at Sandhurst military academy in southern England.

Previous members of the Blues and Royals regiment include Andrew Parker Bowles, former husband of Charles' wife, Camilla.

James Hewitt, a former lover of Harry's mother, the late Princess Diana, also was in the Household Cavalry, but in the Life Guards rather than the Blues and Royals.

After being commissioned as an officer at Sandhurst, Harry will become a second lieutenant in the Household Cavalry.

Clarence House said the prince based his choice of the Blues and Royals ``on the variety of roles which the regiment undertakes, including reconnaissance support to airborne forces right through to ceremonial duties.''

Although Harry is keen to focus on operational work - the Household Cavalry has served in the Falklands, the Gulf, Bosnia, Kosovo and Northern Ireland - he may be required to take part in ceremonial duties.

However, he will escape sentry duty outside Buckingham Palace because he is an officer.

In an interview to mark his 21st birthday, Harry said he was keen to fight for his country.

``There's no way I'm going to put myself through Sandhurst and then sit ... back home while my boys are out fighting for their country,'' he said.

Harry is following a royal tradition by joining the military. Charles was a pilot with the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy, and Harry's grandfather, Prince Philip, had a distinguished career in the Royal Navy.

Harry's uncle, Prince Andrew, was a Royal Navy pilot and served in the Falklands war against Argentina.

Prince William, Harry's 23-year-old brother and second in line to the throne, currently is undergoing military training at Sandhurst.
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 6:44:53 PM EDT



Prince Harry on a training exercise exercise at the elite Sandhurst academy. Clarence House said Harry has opted to join the 'Blues and Royals' regiment of the Household Cavalry, which could be deployed in Iraq.
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 6:49:45 PM EDT
Good for him, I guess...?
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 6:54:55 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/25/2006 7:22:20 PM EDT by DK-Prof]
Blues and Royals is one of the coolest regiments there is, IMO. Mounted household cavalry. w00t!

... and kick-ass combat troops.





Link Posted: 1/25/2006 7:09:43 PM EDT
The best thing about British Royalty/Earls/Dukes/Princes and Lords is that many serve in the miltary, and have no qualms about combat.
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 7:13:51 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ThunderStick:
The best thing about British Royalty/Earls/Dukes/Princes and Lords is that many serve in the miltary, and have no qualms about combat.



The crown price of Denmark was the same way. He was a sergeant squad leader in my regiment when I was a private - he started as a recruit and worked his way up. He later became an officer, got paratrooper training and passed the "hell week" entry requirement to our frogmen corps. He was pretty gung-ho, but I guess he's settled down and married now.



Link Posted: 1/25/2006 7:14:58 PM EDT
wait, how many senators/representatives have children in iraq...oh yea, i forgot its america
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 7:52:26 PM EDT
If he can fight like he can party, he will make the Royal Army proud.
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 8:42:55 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Cowboy77:
wait, how many senators/representatives have children in iraq...oh yea, i forgot its america



Some.
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 9:26:26 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
If he can fight like he can party, he will make the Royal Army proud.



And no wearing of crescent armbands in theatre..

NTM
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 9:28:29 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Manic_Moran:

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
If he can fight like he can party, he will make the Royal Army proud.



And no wearing of crescent armbands in theatre..

NTM



Actually, I like the idea of luring them to their demise.
Link Posted: 1/26/2006 2:00:11 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:

Originally Posted By ThunderStick:
The best thing about British Royalty/Earls/Dukes/Princes and Lords is that many serve in the miltary, and have no qualms about combat.



The crown price of Denmark was the same way. He was a sergeant squad leader in my regiment when I was a private - he started as a recruit and worked his way up. He later became an officer, got paratrooper training and passed the "hell week" entry requirement to our frogmen corps. He was pretty gung-ho, but I guess he's settled down and married now.



I served in the british army, in an armoured corps regiment's recce troop as a trooper, and am aware of what it take's to be the troop leader. I wish him all the best, and hope that he is blessed with a good troop.

I sort of like the idea thet the Danish royalty work their way up through the rank's, very inspiring, someone to follow.

Toe
Link Posted: 1/26/2006 2:10:24 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:

Originally Posted By ThunderStick:
The best thing about British Royalty/Earls/Dukes/Princes and Lords is that many serve in the miltary, and have no qualms about combat.



The crown price of Denmark was the same way. He was a sergeant squad leader in my regiment when I was a private - he started as a recruit and worked his way up. He later became an officer, got paratrooper training and passed the "hell week" entry requirement to our frogmen corps. He was pretty gung-ho, but I guess he's settled down and married now.



You know what the women say: Once you go bearskin-hat, you never go back!
Link Posted: 1/26/2006 2:13:54 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/26/2006 2:14:15 AM EDT by Commando223]
wow I bet the terrorists would love to take him hostage...
Link Posted: 1/26/2006 2:46:01 AM EDT
I wonder how he likes the SA80/L85
Link Posted: 1/26/2006 2:49:48 AM EDT

Originally Posted By metroplex:
I wonder how he likes the SA80/L85




Link Posted: 1/26/2006 2:51:48 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/26/2006 2:52:22 AM EDT by vito113]
Link Posted: 1/26/2006 3:16:15 AM EDT
What is it with the British Royal Family? The youngest go off to war (Prince Andrew to the Falklands; now Prince Harry to Iraq) and the oldest stays home to keep his place in line to be King (Prince Charles and Prince William).
Link Posted: 1/26/2006 3:17:42 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/26/2006 8:16:18 AM EDT

Originally Posted By vito113:

Originally Posted By talbalos:
What is it with the British Royal Family? The youngest go off to war (Prince Andrew to the Falklands; now Prince Harry to Iraq) and the oldest stays home to keep his place in line to be King (Prince Charles and Prince William).



Prince Charles served in the Royal Navy, made Commander, Prince William is currently undergoing Officer training at Sandhurst.


ANdy



And as Harry passes out first, his older brother and heir to the throne will have to call him Sir and salute him.
However, William will one day be supreme commander of the armed forces if all goes to plan, so even if he fails to make it in the Army, he'll still have Harry saluting him in the end.
Link Posted: 1/26/2006 8:25:09 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Scope-eye:

Originally Posted By vito113:

Originally Posted By talbalos:
What is it with the British Royal Family? The youngest go off to war (Prince Andrew to the Falklands; now Prince Harry to Iraq) and the oldest stays home to keep his place in line to be King (Prince Charles and Prince William).



Prince Charles served in the Royal Navy, made Commander, Prince William is currently undergoing Officer training at Sandhurst.


ANdy



And as Harry passes out first, his older brother and heir to the throne will have to call him Sir and salute him.
However, William will one day be supreme commander of the armed forces if all goes to plan, so even if he fails to make it in the Army, he'll still have Harry saluting him in the end.




= "The Heir and the Spare".
Link Posted: 1/26/2006 8:27:43 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Johnny_Reno:



Prince Harry on a training exercise exercise at the elite Sandhurst academy. Clarence House said Harry has opted to join the 'Blues and Royals' regiment of the Household Cavalry, which could be deployed in Iraq.



Just don't shoot it left-handed, son.....
Link Posted: 1/26/2006 10:02:35 AM EDT

Originally Posted By metroplex:
I wonder how he likes the SA80/L85



Probably likes it. It's fun to shoot. I enjoyed it.

NTM
Link Posted: 1/26/2006 10:48:18 AM EDT
p

Originally Posted By Commando223:
wow I bet the terrorists would love to take him hostage...



Sure, but you can't let considerations like that hold you back. The British as a nation and the monarchy as both an institution and as a family have a lot to gain by having a young, handsome brave prince dashing off to war.
Link Posted: 1/26/2006 11:31:16 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/26/2006 11:32:52 AM EDT by raven]
.
Link Posted: 1/26/2006 11:33:59 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/26/2006 11:40:58 AM EDT by 95thFoot]

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
Blues and Royals is one of the coolest regiments there is, IMO. Mounted household cavalry. w00t!

... and kick-ass combat troops.


www.army.mod.uk/img/ceremonialandheritage/household/IMAGES/blue_top.GIF


photos.ar15.com/ImageGallery/Attachments/DownloadAttach.asp?iImageUnq=44691



True, dat, yo!

A buddy of mine in reenactment served 17 years in the Blues and Royals. He would alternate a TDY in London guarding the Queen with one in Northern Ireland. Occasionally they went on exercises or stationing in Germany.

He saw buddies get blown up in Belfast, and was there when the IRA mortar-bombed the Changing of the Guard in London in 1982. After that, he said, I've seen too many of my friends get blown up right before my eyes, and left when his enlistment was up. He finished as a sergeant of some kind. He then met an American woman, married her, came to the USA, started a family and now lives in Waltham MA. Last I knew, he is a security consultant for Virgin Airways in Boston. He is now a US citizen.

He was also Andrew Parker-Bowles's batman for a time, when he was first in the army. He served him when Parker-Bowles was a captain, and then later when he was a colonel. He said Parker-Bowles was the classiest guy you could imagine, a real leader who inspired his men, but that Camilla was bad news even back then, a real biotch. He still uses Parker-Bowles' old fold-up camp bed when stays in tents at reenactments, oddly enough.
Link Posted: 1/26/2006 11:37:33 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
p

Originally Posted By Commando223:
wow I bet the terrorists would love to take him hostage...



Sure, but you can't let considerations like that hold you back. The British as a nation and the monarchy as both an institution and as a family have a lot to gain by having a young, handsome brave prince dashing off to war.



I doubt it. Look more for an Algore VN TDY, with a bodyguard ALWAYS at his side.

Prince Andrew may have been a helicopter pilot, he may have been in the Falklands campaign, but the Queen and HM Govt were adamant about not letting him get into combat where he might get shot down and be used as a political ploy by the enemy. His duty was limited to flying radar coordination flights before the fleet arrived in the battle zone.
Link Posted: 1/26/2006 11:41:42 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Cowboy77:
wait, how many senators/representatives have children in iraq...oh yea, i forgot its america


How many have children of proper age to serve in the military? I'm guessing many are either too young or too old.
Link Posted: 1/26/2006 11:43:40 AM EDT
I didn't know they had FN P90's


Link Posted: 1/26/2006 11:49:42 AM EDT

Originally Posted By quijanos:
I didn't know they had FN P90's


royalmarines.mine.nu/library/sa80.jpg

An SA80 is not a P90.

Kharn
Link Posted: 1/26/2006 1:28:54 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:

Originally Posted By Cowboy77:
wait, how many senators/representatives have children in iraq...oh yea, i forgot its america


How many have children of proper age to serve in the military? I'm guessing many are either too young or too old.



Get off it Dude, Look how Bush and Gore's political dads took care of them during Viet Nam. Bush's daughters are out of high school. They could serve. There should be a draft, and if your parent is in the gov calling the shots then you should be the first to go.
Link Posted: 1/26/2006 1:40:50 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Kharn:

Originally Posted By quijanos:
I didn't know they had FN P90's


royalmarines.mine.nu/library/sa80.jpg

An SA80 is not a P90.

Kharn



that would be a terrible insult to P90's everywhere
Link Posted: 1/26/2006 2:08:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By jbweld:

Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:

Originally Posted By Cowboy77:
wait, how many senators/representatives have children in iraq...oh yea, i forgot its america


How many have children of proper age to serve in the military? I'm guessing many are either too young or too old.


Get off it Dude, Look how Bush and Gore's political dads took care of them during Viet Nam. Bush's daughters are out of high school. They could serve. There should be a draft, and if your parent is in the gov calling the shots then you should be the first to go.


Since you seem to be so interested in determining who should and should not serve, maybe it's you who should be "going."

Nah. You're too busy with homework from Miss Simpson's Earth Science class, right?
Link Posted: 1/26/2006 2:22:57 PM EDT
BTW, as I understand it, its not the "Royal Army," as the British Army is a creature of Parliament, and as is anti-monarchal. All English Civil War stuff.

Now the RN and RAF are both creatures of the Crown.

ANdy, care to chime in and set me straight?
Link Posted: 1/26/2006 2:35:36 PM EDT
The army helped restore Charles II in 1660 after Richard Cromwell decided to fold up the shop. Not very anti.
Link Posted: 1/26/2006 2:36:44 PM EDT

Originally Posted By jbweld:

Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:

Originally Posted By Cowboy77:
wait, how many senators/representatives have children in iraq...oh yea, i forgot its america


How many have children of proper age to serve in the military? I'm guessing many are either too young or too old.



Get off it Dude, Look how Bush and Gore's political dads took care of them during Viet Nam. Bush's daughters are out of high school. They could serve. There should be a draft, and if your parent is in the gov calling the shots then you should be the first to go.



I think that you want a draft to increase public support for withdrawing from Iraq. This is the wrong way to go about it.

I believe that nobody has a right to force anybody to fight, no matter what the circumstances. Our willingness to wage war should be determined by the willingness of our citizens to join the military. If we get involved in too many conflicts that the population doesn't support, we will run out of soldiers because nobody will want to join the military.

If military manpower stretches thin, then the people have "voted" with their own free will by deciding not to join the military, and we will have to re-think whether or not it's wise to stay in the fight. OTOH, The military can offer incentives to increase enlistments to counter the withering troop strength.

I think of it as the "free market" approach.

Flame suit on...
Link Posted: 1/26/2006 2:45:38 PM EDT
I wonder if you'll see mercenaries in Iraq exclusively gunning for the prince.

Link Posted: 1/26/2006 5:42:13 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/26/2006 5:43:07 PM EDT by 95thFoot]

Originally Posted By Screechjet1:
BTW, as I understand it, its not the "Royal Army," as the British Army is a creature of Parliament, and as is anti-monarchal. All English Civil War stuff.

Now the RN and RAF are both creatures of the Crown.

ANdy, care to chime in and set me straight?



There is no "Royal Army".

There is the British Army, with some "Royal Regiments".

Not all the nascent British army supported the king in the English Civil Wars, but those regiments who did, and some, like the Coldstream regiment, formerly an anti-royalist outfit, turned coat and helped put the King back on the throne, earned great favor from the king by so doing.

Some regiments became part of the Guards (Foot Guards, Coldstreamers, Scots Guards) who were not part of the army as such- their main job was to guard the sovereign. Some others became royal regiments, such as the Royal Scots and Queen's regiment, and others, unfashionable marching regiments who had everything to lose by helping the king, did anyway and became part of the Six Old Corps. These regiments formed the basis of the modern British Army, starting in the 1680s.

Part of making some regiments royal and others not was to keep the army always in competition with itself for more regimental honors per regiment- the competition has lasted to the present. The idea was to keep the army's mind off politics, and keep it focused on doing its job- expanding the Empire by keeping the peace, and defeating any enemy.
Link Posted: 1/26/2006 5:51:45 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/26/2006 6:19:33 PM EDT by Nimrod1193]

Originally Posted By 95thFoot:

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
p

Originally Posted By Commando223:
wow I bet the terrorists would love to take him hostage...



Sure, but you can't let considerations like that hold you back. The British as a nation and the monarchy as both an institution and as a family have a lot to gain by having a young, handsome brave prince dashing off to war.



I doubt it. Look more for an Algore VN TDY, with a bodyguard ALWAYS at his side.

Prince Andrew may have been a helicopter pilot, he may have been in the Falklands campaign, but the Queen and HM Govt were adamant about not letting him get into combat where he might get shot down and be used as a political ploy by the enemy. His duty was limited to flying radar coordination flights before the fleet arrived in the battle zone.



Wrong. Prince Andrew performed a wide range of missions during the Falklands War, including Search & Rescue and acting as a decoy against exocet missiles fired at British ships.
Link Posted: 1/26/2006 7:05:26 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:

Originally Posted By jbweld:

Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:

Originally Posted By Cowboy77:
wait, how many senators/representatives have children in iraq...oh yea, i forgot its america


How many have children of proper age to serve in the military? I'm guessing many are either too young or too old.


Get off it Dude, Look how Bush and Gore's political dads took care of them during Viet Nam. Bush's daughters are out of high school. They could serve. There should be a draft, and if your parent is in the gov calling the shots then you should be the first to go.


Since you seem to be so interested in determining who should and should not serve, maybe it's you who should be "going."

Nah. You're too busy with homework from Miss Simpson's Earth Science class, right?



LOL, did my time. Early 80's 19k. HOW BOUT YOU? No? didn't think so.....
Link Posted: 1/26/2006 7:40:20 PM EDT

Originally Posted By lu380:

Originally Posted By jbweld:

Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:

Originally Posted By Cowboy77:
wait, how many senators/representatives have children in iraq...oh yea, i forgot its america


How many have children of proper age to serve in the military? I'm guessing many are either too young or too old.



Get off it Dude, Look how Bush and Gore's political dads took care of them during Viet Nam. Bush's daughters are out of high school. They could serve. There should be a draft, and if your parent is in the gov calling the shots then you should be the first to go.



I think that you want a draft to increase public support for withdrawing from Iraq. This is the wrong way to go about it.

I believe that nobody has a right to force anybody to fight, no matter what the circumstances. Our willingness to wage war should be determined by the willingness of our citizens to join the military. If we get involved in too many conflicts that the population doesn't support, we will run out of soldiers because nobody will want to join the military.

If military manpower stretches thin, then the people have "voted" with their own free will by deciding not to join the military, and we will have to re-think whether or not it's wise to stay in the fight. OTOH, The military can offer incentives to increase enlistments to counter the withering troop strength.

I think of it as the "free market" approach.

Flame suit on...



Let me ask you this. Do you think that there might be some economic factors weighing in the decision for someone to enlist? My belief that there should be a draft has nothing to do with Iraq. If this country is at war then all classes of society should be shouldering the burden. It cracks me up that people wonder why this country is headed the way it is. Bush and Gore's dads were in the guv, so they go to the Nat'l Guard. I don't even want to talk about Clinton. Hey, that's all right. That's leadership material there. It's right that the politically connected should not have to carry that burden. Nobody is pissed, business as usual. That is the scary part, Sheeple. hinking.gif
Link Posted: 1/26/2006 7:53:56 PM EDT

Originally Posted By jbweld:

Let me ask you this. Do you think that there might be some economic factors weighing in the decision for someone to enlist? My belief that there should be a draft has nothing to do with Iraq. If this country is at war then all classes of society should be shouldering the burden. It cracks me up that people wonder why this country is headed the way it is. Bush and Gore's dads were in the guv, so they go to the Nat'l Guard. I don't even want to talk about Clinton. Hey, that's all right. That's leadership material there. It's right that the politically connected should not have to carry that burden. Nobody is pissed, business as usual. That is the scary part, Sheeple.




Why?

If some people WANT to serve, either because they love their country, crave the "adventure", want some training, education, maturity, or just want to make money some other way than a boring 9-5 job, why in the world would you FORCE other people into a type of dangerous servitude just to justify some abstract principle about social justice.

Life is SUPPOSED to be easier if you are rich and powerful. That's the American Dream. What's the point of working your ass off to build a great life for your kids, just so Mohammed in Crapholeistan can put a 2 cent bullet in your kid's brain? If there are enough people to volunteer for that job, why force others into?


Your argument could also apply to coal mining, or some other dangerous job. Rich peoples' kids don't do those jobs either. And those jobs are just as important to our "national security" because we need the energy. If you draft people to work in the army, why not draft them to work in coal mines too?
Link Posted: 1/26/2006 8:04:06 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:

Originally Posted By jbweld:

Let me ask you this. Do you think that there might be some economic factors weighing in the decision for someone to enlist? My belief that there should be a draft has nothing to do with Iraq. If this country is at war then all classes of society should be shouldering the burden. It cracks me up that people wonder why this country is headed the way it is. Bush and Gore's dads were in the guv, so they go to the Nat'l Guard. I don't even want to talk about Clinton. Hey, that's all right. That's leadership material there. It's right that the politically connected should not have to carry that burden. Nobody is pissed, business as usual. That is the scary part, Sheeple. hinking.gif




Why?

If some people WANT to serve, either because they love their country, crave the "adventure", want some training, education, maturity, or just want to make money some other way than a boring 9-5 job, why in the world would you FORCE other people into a type of dangerous servitude just to justify some abstract principle about social justice.

Life is SUPPOSED to be easier if you are rich and powerful. That's the American Dream. hat

Your argument could also apply to coal mining, or some other dangerous job. Rich peoples' kids don't do those jobs either. And those jobs are just as important to our "national security" because we need the energy. If you draft people to work in the army, why not draft them to work in coal mines too?



Then I guess you have no problem with Teddy Kennedy, cuz after all he is entitled. What the hell does working in a coal mine have to do with defending your country?????????
Link Posted: 1/26/2006 8:10:41 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/26/2006 8:11:51 PM EDT by DK-Prof]

Originally Posted By jbweld:

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:

Originally Posted By jbweld:

Let me ask you this. Do you think that there might be some economic factors weighing in the decision for someone to enlist? My belief that there should be a draft has nothing to do with Iraq. If this country is at war then all classes of society should be shouldering the burden. It cracks me up that people wonder why this country is headed the way it is. Bush and Gore's dads were in the guv, so they go to the Nat'l Guard. I don't even want to talk about Clinton. Hey, that's all right. That's leadership material there. It's right that the politically connected should not have to carry that burden. Nobody is pissed, business as usual. That is the scary part, Sheeple.




Why?

If some people WANT to serve, either because they love their country, crave the "adventure", want some training, education, maturity, or just want to make money some other way than a boring 9-5 job, why in the world would you FORCE other people into a type of dangerous servitude just to justify some abstract principle about social justice.

Life is SUPPOSED to be easier if you are rich and powerful. That's the American Dream. What's the point of working your ass off to build a great life for your kids, just so Mohammed in Crapholeistan can put a 2 cent bullet in your kid's brain? If there are enough people to volunteer for that job, why force others into?


Your argument could also apply to coal mining, or some other dangerous job. Rich peoples' kids don't do those jobs either. And those jobs are just as important to our "national security" because we need the energy. If you draft people to work in the army, why not draft them to work in coal mines too?



Then I guess you have no problem with Teddy Kennedy, cuz after all he is entitled. What the hell does working in a coal mine have to do with defending your country?????????



Teddy Kennedy is an asshole - but he is entitled to all the benefits that his family has worked so hard to bestow upon him. That's the beauty of capitalism. What are you, a communist?

Your argument seemed to be that
(a) it is "unfair" for the kids of rich and powerful people to not have to serve
(b) everyone should "shoulder the burden" when the country needs them

If you are raising those arguments, then it suggests a more generalized logic that if the country NEEDS people, they should be able to draft them for any unpleasant or dangerous job.

Have you seen the price of oil lately? We NEED more and cheaper coal for our domestic energy production. What do you think powers the manufacturing plants that build our fighters, vehicles, bombers, and manufacture our munitions? Coal, that's what -a nd that's why it is vital to our natinal security. And CLEARLY, only poor and desperate people work in coal mines, right? Certainly no Bush's or Gore's kids, right? By your logic, that is just as "unfair"

I'm just pointing out the LOGIC in what you are saying.

Of course it sounds ludicrous to you - but that's because you own logic is ludicrous.
Link Posted: 1/26/2006 8:28:45 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:

Originally Posted By jbweld:

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:

Originally Posted By jbweld:

Let me ask you this. Do you think that there might be some economic factors weighing in the decision for someone to enlist? My belief that there should be a draft has nothing to do with Iraq. If this country is at war then all classes of society should be shouldering the burden. It cracks me up that people wonder why this country is headed the way it is. Bush and Gore's dads were in the guv, so they go to the Nat'l Guard. I don't even want to talk about Clinton. Hey, that's all right. That's leadership material there. It's right that the politically connected should not have to carry that burden. Nobody is pissed, business as usual. That is the scary part, Sheeple. hinking.gif




Why?

If some people WANT to serve, either because they love their country, crave the "adventure", want some training, education, maturity, or just want to make money some other way than a boring 9-5 job, why in the world would you FORCE other people into a type of dangerous servitude just to justify some abstract principle about social justice.

Life is SUPPOSED to be easier if you are rich and powerful. That's the American Dream. hat

Your argument could also apply to coal mining, or some other dangerous job. Rich peoples' kids don't do those jobs either. And those jobs are just as important to our "national security" because we need the energy. If you draft people to work in the army, why not draft them to work in coal mines too?



Then I guess you have no problem with Teddy Kennedy, cuz after all he is entitled. What the hell does working in a coal mine have to do with defending your country?????????hr


Teddy Kennedy is an asshole - but he is entitled to all the benefits that his family has worked so hard to bestow upon him. That's the beauty of capitalism. What are you, a communist? hat(a) it is "unfair" for the kids of rich and powerful people to not have to serve
(b) everyone should "shoulder the burden" when the country needs them

If you are raising those arguments, then it suggests a more generalized logic that if the country NEEDS people, they should be able to draft them for any unpleasant or dangerous job.

Have you seen the price of oil lately? We NEED more and cheaper coal for our domestic energy production. What do you think powers the manufacturing plants that build our fighters, vehicles, bombers, and manufacture our munitions? Coal, that's what -a nd that's why it is vital to our natinal security. And CLEARLY, only poor and desperate people work in coal mines, right? Certainly no Bush's or Gore's kids, right? By your logic, that is just as "unfair"

I'm just pointing out the LOGIC in what you are saying.

Of course it sounds ludicrous to you - but that's because you own logic is ludicrous.



Teddy's family worked hard huh?

His ol'man was a bootlegger dude. That is how that family came into money. If dope becomes legal tomorrow, you could have another "Kennedy Family" in 10 or 15 years. But hey, that's cool in your opinion..hinking.gif In the states that have coal mining, that is a good job. People stand in line to get those jobs. It doesn't matter what you or I think regardless. This nation is one more conflict away from a draft. Looks like it might be coming soon, China and Iran. Then what? Fuck it? Head to Canada? Might as well, you could run for president in 20 years.
Link Posted: 1/26/2006 8:36:38 PM EDT

Originally Posted By jbweld:

Teddy's family worked hard huh?

His ol'man was a bootlegger dude. That is how that family came into money. If dope becomes legal tomorrow, you could have another "Kennedy Family" in 10 or 15 years. But hey, that's cool in your opinion.. In the states that have coal mining, that is a good job. People stand in line to get those jobs. It doesn't matter what you or I think regardless. This nation is one more conflict away from a draft. Looks like it might be coming soon, China and Iran. Then what? Fuck it? Head to Canada? Might as well, you could run for president in 20 years.



Huh? Those miners over the last two weeks didn't seem to like their jobs very much.

Link Posted: 1/26/2006 8:50:34 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/26/2006 8:51:59 PM EDT by DK-Prof]

Originally Posted By jbweld:

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:

Originally Posted By jbweld:

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:

Originally Posted By jbweld:

Let me ask you this. Do you think that there might be some economic factors weighing in the decision for someone to enlist? My belief that there should be a draft has nothing to do with Iraq. If this country is at war then all classes of society should be shouldering the burden. It cracks me up that people wonder why this country is headed the way it is. Bush and Gore's dads were in the guv, so they go to the Nat'l Guard. I don't even want to talk about Clinton. Hey, that's all right. That's leadership material there. It's right that the politically connected should not have to carry that burden. Nobody is pissed, business as usual. That is the scary part, Sheeple.




Why?

If some people WANT to serve, either because they love their country, crave the "adventure", want some training, education, maturity, or just want to make money some other way than a boring 9-5 job, why in the world would you FORCE other people into a type of dangerous servitude just to justify some abstract principle about social justice.

Life is SUPPOSED to be easier if you are rich and powerful. That's the American Dream. What's the point of working your ass off to build a great life for your kids, just so Mohammed in Crapholeistan can put a 2 cent bullet in your kid's brain? If there are enough people to volunteer for that job, why force others into?


Your argument could also apply to coal mining, or some other dangerous job. Rich peoples' kids don't do those jobs either. And those jobs are just as important to our "national security" because we need the energy. If you draft people to work in the army, why not draft them to work in coal mines too?



Then I guess you have no problem with Teddy Kennedy, cuz after all he is entitled. What the hell does working in a coal mine have to do with defending your country?????????



Teddy Kennedy is an asshole - but he is entitled to all the benefits that his family has worked so hard to bestow upon him. That's the beauty of capitalism. What are you, a communist?

Your argument seemed to be that
(a) it is "unfair" for the kids of rich and powerful people to not have to serve
(b) everyone should "shoulder the burden" when the country needs them

If you are raising those arguments, then it suggests a more generalized logic that if the country NEEDS people, they should be able to draft them for any unpleasant or dangerous job.

Have you seen the price of oil lately? We NEED more and cheaper coal for our domestic energy production. What do you think powers the manufacturing plants that build our fighters, vehicles, bombers, and manufacture our munitions? Coal, that's what -a nd that's why it is vital to our natinal security. And CLEARLY, only poor and desperate people work in coal mines, right? Certainly no Bush's or Gore's kids, right? By your logic, that is just as "unfair"

I'm just pointing out the LOGIC in what you are saying.

Of course it sounds ludicrous to you - but that's because you own logic is ludicrous.



Teddy's family worked hard huh?

His ol'man was a bootlegger dude. That is how that family came into money. If dope becomes legal tomorrow, you could have another "Kennedy Family" in 10 or 15 years. But hey, that's cool in your opinion..



Yes - in my "opinion" capitalism is cool. I'm in favor of letting people keep their wealth and property.

Are you not?

I JOKINGLY called you a communist, but perhaps you really are one. Do you think that the wealthy should give up their money to the state, in addition to giving their children into servitude?



In the states that have coal mining, that is a good job. People stand in line to get those jobs. It doesn't matter what you or I think regardless.



People stand in line to get jobs at coal mines only because the local economies are depressed, and there are no other good jobs in those towns. They are NOT great jobs, and the reason they pay relatively well, is because of how shitty a job it is.



This nation is one more conflict away from a draft. Looks like it might be coming soon, China and Iran. Then what? Fuck it? Head to Canada? Might as well, you could run for president in 20 years.



Is that last part directed at me? If so, you have illustrated - not only that your argument is so weak that you have to resort to personal attacks, instead of actually discussing the flawed logic of what you are suggesting - but also that you are a douchbag (unless I just misread it). For your information, when I served in the army (overseas in the old country), I was DRAFTED, and served multiple years active duty (in addition to reserve and guard).

Ironically, I'm not particularly opposed to a draft, and I believe it can be a good thing, if done right - I just find your particular reasoning for why you think there should be a draft to be somewhat odd. It sounds like old tired socialist "class war" kind of logic about how the rich people deserve to suffer just like the poor downtrodden proletariat.

We probably largely agree on a lot of things, despite this "argument"
Link Posted: 1/26/2006 9:57:32 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Nimrod1193:
Wrong. Prince Andrew performed a wide range of missions during the Falklands War, including Search & Rescue and acting as a decoy against exocet missiles fired at British ships.



+1.

I don't know where that other information came from.

Here's his military bio. He's done rather well, before he joined the Navy it seems he passed out as a Royal Marine which is no mild course in itself, and was also a helicopter warfare instructor pilot.

NTM

__________________________

NAVAL CAREER

The Duke of York joined the Royal Navy in 1979 on a short service commission, as a Seaman Officer specialising as a pilot.

He entered Britannia Royal Naval College, Dartmouth, where he took the full range of initial professional training and concurrently undertook the Royal Marine 'Green Beret' course with the Young Officer's batch of 1979 at the Commando Training Centre, Lympstone.

He was awarded his Green Beret the week before he passed out of Dartmouth in front of The Queen at the Lord High Admiral's Divisions.

After passing out of Dartmouth, Prince Andrew went on to elementary flying training with the Royal Air Force at RAF Leeming, Yorkshire, where he learnt to fly the Bulldog.

Subsequently he went through basic flying training with the Royal Navy at Royal Naval Air Station (RNAS) Culdrose, Cornwall, where he learnt to fly the Gazelle helicopter. He received his Wings from The Duke of Edinburgh in April 1981, as well as winning the award for the best pilot.

After converting onto the Sea King helicopter and conducting operational flying training, he joined his first front-line unit 820 Naval Air Squadron before embarking in the Anti-Submarine Warfare Carrier HMS INVINCIBLE.

Only six months later, Prince Andrew was to see active service. Along with his squadron, he sailed in HMS INVINCIBLE as part of the Task Force that sailed to the South Atlantic to regain the Falkland Islands.

Throughout the conflict he flew on various missions, including Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) and Anti-Surface Warfare search (ASUW). He also helped in casualty evacuation, transport and Search and Air Rescue (SAR).

After completing his first front line tour in July 1983, Prince Andrew was appointed to 702 NAS at RNAS Portland in September to convert on to the Lynx helicopter. On promotion to Lieutenant in February 1984, The Queen appointed him a Personal Aide-de-Camp.

In May of that year, on completion of his conversion training, he joined 815 NAS as the Flight Pilot in the Type 22 Frigate HMS BRAZEN where he served until March 1986.

The Lieutenant's Greenwich Course and Helicopter Warfare Instructors (HWI) Course continued the Prince's professional training, and he returned to 702 NAS early in 1987 as a staff Helicopter Warfare Instructor.

In May 1988, having been selected for transfer to the General List for officers, he joined the Type 42 Destroyer HMS EDINBURGH as an Officer of the Watch to earn his Watchkeeping and Ocean Navigation Certificates, a pre-requisite for a General List officer.

After the year's seagoing appointment that included a Far East and Australia deployment he was awarded his Certificates, and returned once again to RNAS Portland to form HMS CAMPBELTOWN Flight. He joined 829 NAS in September 1989 and served as Flight Commander until the autumn of 1991.

In 1992, The Duke of York was appointed to the Army Command and Staff Course at the Staff College, Camberley and, in February that year, was promoted to Lieutenant Commander.

On completion of the Staff Course he was selected to command the Hunt Class Minehunter HMS COTTESMORE from April 1993 until November 1994. The Duke of York returned to flying duties with a refresher course in 702 NAS before taking up the appointment as Senior Pilot 815 NAS at RNAS Portland, where he served until October 1996.

The Duke of York was appointed to join the Ministry of Defence, London, in January 1997 as a staff officer in the Directorate of Naval Operations with specific responsibility for Frigate and Destroyer aviation.

In January 1999, the Royal Navy announced that he was to be promoted to Commander and take up an appointment within the Diplomacy Section of the Naval Staff.

In December 2000 it was announced that The Duke of York would conclude this appointment in April 2001, before he formally left the Royal Navy at the end of July 2001.

In July 2005 His Royal Highness was promoted to Honorary Captain in the Royal Navy.

___________________

As for the rifle, I wouldn't have minded an L85A2K instead of an M-4 in Iraq. Not much room in a tank.

NTM
Link Posted: 1/26/2006 11:07:13 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/26/2006 11:11:09 PM EDT by vito113]
Top Top