Poor old Prince Harry won’t be allowed to participate in his country’s illegal invasion of Iraq because there is an unacceptable risk to his safety. The commander of the army has prohibited him from serving a tour of duty as the Prince is likely to be targeted by the patriotic Iraqis protecting their country from foreign invaders.
But is the Prince the only one being targeted? I would have thought that any member of the “Coalition of the Gullible” who is parading around Iraq would be a potential target. Following this logic, is it is unacceptable for Prince Harry to be there because he may be killed, it is unacceptable for ANY soldier to be there on the same grounds. Six hundred years of in-breeding should not be the basis for determining the head of state of any country, but to use it as an excuse to not send someone to war is a bit rich.
The gossip mags must be tearing their hair out. Imagine all of the great cover stories they could get if Harry was over there with the lads, mixing it up with his coalition partners. Here’s a picture of Harry in a tank in Baghdad, here he is commanding his troops in the desert, here he is shooting civilians, look, now Harry is torturing some prisoners, here he is with his brains splattered all over the inside of an armoured personnel carrier, (the latter being the fault of the paparazzi who were chasing him when he drove past the improvised explosive device).
What is the point of joining the army if you aren’t allowed to fight?
How different history might have been if Henry V after giving his bold Saint Crispin’s Day speech, had then retreated out of the line of fire rather than leading his troops into battle.
Surely this is just another example of what an antiquated notion the Royal family is.
Here’s some advice Harry, quit the army, get a real job and stop being a parasite to the community like the rest of your family.