[Closed] Ministry of Defence Cuts (Prince Harry)

A serving royal in an illegal war? tsk tsk.

To be fair, a quick look through history suggests the royals have never been the greatest believers in the rulings of international institutions. Why start at this stage in the game?

Illegal war? Aren't we here at the invitation of the democratically elected government of Afghanistan under a UN Security Council resolution?

illegal war?

I think you're getting Afghanistan mixed up with Iraq

I think you're getting Afghanistan mixed up with Iraq

Let's not let fact's get in the way of a good rudebwoy rant.

Ed Macy's book "Apache" is a pretty good read, as an Apache gunner (The Army let the NCOs drive!), Harry has my full respect.

I think you're getting Afghanistan mixed up with Iraq

i don't think I am actually. When did the US invade Afghanistan? What conditions need to apply for one nation to invade another? Where those conditions met in 2001 when the bombardment & invasion of Afghanistan began?

konabunny - Member

So glad someone believes all of that laser-guided clean kill propaganda.

Hi, defence engineer working on lasers here, can I help?

Prince Harry is so annoying! He shouldn't be such a flaunt, he carries on with a gaggle of open mouthed brown nosers around him, spending tax payers money, wide eyed and as if his actions have no consequences. William, to his credit has more decorum. Harry strikes me a callous and insensitive.

It beggars belief that he's in that cockpit through merit or talent.

Possibly the most idiotic comment on STW today.

He's a dilettante. He left school with middling-to-poor A levels in Art and Geography, and went straight into Sandhurst.

It beggars belief that he's in that cockpit through merit or talent. His pilot must have drawn a very short straw.

Right on. Why are people celebrating the fact that he might have killed someone? This is another life we're talking about.

... followed by another...

Possibly the most idiotic comment on STW today.

its a bit early to be calling that

Possibly the most idiotic comment on STW today.

I dunno - that thread on religious nutjobs has come contenders

[img] [/img]

This book is a few years old but gives an interesting overview of UK defense spending. Not sure that I agree with all the authors conclusions but it is thought provoking stuff.

[url= http://www.amazon.co.uk/Lions-Donkeys-And-Dinosaurs-Blundering/dp/0099484420/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1358851373&sr=8-1 ]Amazon link to book[/url]

Possibly the most idiotic comment on STW today.

Thank you very much!

I'm guessing it's beyond you to explain why you think that, but you could start by looking at the more usual entry requirements for Sandhurst if you like.

As for Harry... he's done a damn site more to defend this country than I have. Fair play to him. He didn't have too. He wanted too.

Whilst not questioning the courage of people doing a difficult job under fire - he isn't defending our country. He is furthering the commercial and political agenda of another country entirely. In my view, without the American drive to commercially, culturally and politically dominate the rest of the world since the end of the Second World War, we wouldn't be in the position of facing terror threats from other regions.

I'm guessing it's beyond you to explain why you think that, but you could start by looking at the more usual entry requirements for Sandhurst if you like.

Have you had your belief in our socially mobile meritocracy shattered? 😆

johnners - Member

Possibly the most idiotic comment on STW today.

Thank you very much!

I'm guessing it's beyond you to explain why you think that, but you could start by looking at the more usual entry requirements for Sandhurst if you like.

I take it you do know the entry requirements to Sandhurst yourself then...?

Harry met the minimum requirements for entry to Officer training - 2 A Levels...

Anyway, he could have been in scope for redundancy - just had the notification myself - the eligibility criteria have been cut right down, in terms of ops, only those on or about to go are exempt. Those who've just returned would be eligible for the chop, so by that token he'd be in the frame if he weren't a pilot.

Jamj1974: you are well within your rights to believe that. I think you may have a point re American foreign policy, in the past certainly.

My point is that we retain the moral high ground. We use lethal force as a last resort, we only use it against the "bad guys", and we take great pains to ensure nobody else is hurt. We don't go around shooting schoolgirls in the face. So all this talk of "somebody's life", you are talking about somebody who will have been responsible for a few deaths himself.

I think some people genuinely believe our lot fly round the countryside mowing down farmers like in Apocalypse Now.

Illegal war? What's a legal war, one where the other side agrees to be attacked.

Or is it where you and your buddies create a organisation and give it the power to legitimise your actions. What a con.

My point is that we retain the moral high ground

😯

*waves from the moral high ground*

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

I like the bloke, as others said the middle east is a barbaric hole and the prospects if shot down and captured aren't great.
I approached the army a few years ago to see if they required my skillset (paramedic) out there, at the time the press was full of reports of hideous injuries from IEDs and I felt I could help as a medic....they politely declined my offer, I was 35 at the time so understandable I suppose.
My sister dated a paratrooper for a while, he crossed the border into Iraq with the yanks in 2003 (I think?) and seemed to enjoy army life.
I also like his hard partying attitude and couldn't give two hoots that it's done on my taxes!

Much easier to post some funnies than answer the argument with proof to the contrary. If you'd read it properly you'd have seen I was talking about our conduct of the counter insurgency, not the political level decisions to go in in the first place.

I don't doubt that they have been schooled, educated and groomed to take on these roles but let's not pretend it isn't a choice

Can you recall the last time a Prince choose to not do this - serve in the military - they even let theatre loving fan of the musicals Edward have a crack at being a marine as an example of how much it is expected of them.

Even the queen served during the war

No idea when the last Royal did not serve so I am not sure it is in any sense a choice

As for suggesting the royals get where they are due to merit I find it hard to believe, even on stw , that anyone can be that naive.

Phil: a legal war is one supported by the UN Security Council. Of the five permanent members, who can each veto an action, china and Russia are hardly Uncle Sam's "buddies". France is arguably not either!

He would not be flying the Apache if he hadn't been up to it. I know this because I know and understand the military flying training system, having worked in and around it for 10 years or so. What's your expertise, junkyard? Or is it just prejudice? You said yourself Prince Edward didn't make it as a marine.

Love him or hate him he's out there and doing a job.

My question is how much is his additional security costing while he's there, wouldnt it be better to keep him in the UK and spend that money elsewhere i.e. keeping other soliders safe and in jobs?

Mr Woppit - Member
It beggars belief that he's in that cockpit through merit or talent.
Possibly the most idiotic comment on STW today.

This and this...

airtragic - Member
He would not be flying the Apache if he hadn't been up to it.

+1 to both

He probably has less security in Afg than he does in the UK, so it's a taxpayer saving (sort of)!

Yes, thanks airtragic, I'm well aware of this.

The whole idea that the UN have the power to make something like war 'legal' is just ridiculous since the only ones with any real power in the UN are the 5 permanent members.

They may not be best buddies but they do a lot of business and trade. This is always going to be the number one priority so vetoing an invasion is never going to happen.

Much easier to post some funnies than answer the argument with proof to the contrary. If you'd read it properly you'd have seen I was talking about our conduct of the counter insurgency, not the political level decisions to go in in the first place.

well, we could start here if you like:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/mar/29/afghanistan-british-army-crimes

The whole idea that the UN have the power to make something like war 'legal' is just ridiculous since the only ones with any real power in the UN are the 5 permanent members.

They may not be best buddies but they do a lot of business and trade. This is always going to be the number one priority [u]so vetoing an invasion is never going to happen[/u].

That would be why they didn't sanction the war in Iraq then?

He would not be flying the Apache if he hadn't been up to it. I know this because I know and understand the military flying training system, having worked in and around it for 10 years or so. What's your expertise, junkyard? Or is it just prejudice? You said yourself Prince Edward didn't make it as a marine

As for suggesting the royals get where they are due to merit I find it hard to believe, even on stw , that anyone can be that naive.

Not sure i have made any comment on his ability to fly a helicopter or to command a unit or to join the SAS. I simply made the point that being HRH and called Windsor opens some doors for you such as getting there in the first place to be trained - do you really think he had just as much chance as anyone else in being recruited?

What standard he can fly to I have no idea and made no comment on it.

Hilarious so many of you think the Royals dont get special treatment How can anyone think that being HRH does not open doors for you 😕

That would be why they didn't sanction the war in Iraq then?

The security council haven't actually had to vote on it's legality yet. (and it's unlikely they ever will)

The ICJ might, but they ruled against the USA before. Who promptly told them to jog on.

So what power do they (the UN) really have in these matters?

Nor will they ever vote as it will just be vetoed

Exactly.

Non of the 5 members would veto the invasion before hand. And now they can't vote to make it illegal with retrospect as US or UK will veto that motion.

So basically the 5 members can get away with what ever they want.

johnners - Member

Possibly the most idiotic comment on STW today.

Thank you very much!

I'm guessing it's beyond you to explain why you think that

The idea that the Army would put someone into a two-person team in charge of £10.5 millions-worth of helicopter with the job of using sophisticated high-tech weapons systems to protect the troops on the ground from attack, who had no "talent" or "merit" for the job is....

stupid.

+1 Mr Woppit
I also think that to a large extent the royals have a very 'directed' life style in terms of what they can or cannot do not unlike the freedom most of us enjoy to follow whatever future we want. Press intrusion, security and the government over sight of my life are a few things I wouldnt welcome.

Yossarian, that's an interesting article. We have the moral high ground because, as it says, we investigate such incidents and we punish the guilty. We have just sent a load of squaddies down for murder. The insurgency don't do this, in fact murder, kidnap, intimidation etc are policy instruments for them. When you use military force there will always be innocent victims, but I'm pretty confident the insurgency have killed rather more innocent bystanders than we have, and you can surely draw a distinction between accidents and deliberate policy? Would the bulk of afghans want the Taliban back? It's a messy and unpleasant situation but I stand by my comments.

I'm sure being royal does open doors, but so does being an old boy, knowing the bloke that runs the company, whatever. Human nature I think, we all have to make the best of the opportunities we get.

This book is a few years old but gives an interesting overview of UK defense spending. Not sure that I agree with all the authors conclusions but it is thought provoking stuff.

I dont know Lewis Page (ex RN) but having spoken to people who did know him whlist he was serving, he has a bit of a chip on his shoulder so "Lions, Donkeys and Dinosaurs" should be treated accordingly... at best its a closing time "and anohter thing...." style rant at worst, its pure Daily Mail hyperbole....

Harry is no more Royal than I am, 'bout time they stopped lying (like that'll ever happen :roll:)

BristolPablo +1, Lewis page is very poorly regarded by defence journalists and the like. The book is supposedly an expanded cliche fest of the sorts of opinions I was trying to counter on the first page. He rose to the heady rank of lieutenant in the RN so I don't think he will have had any first hand experience of procurement, he's just listened to all the hoary old opinions in the mess and written them down in a book.

Aye. There is that....

[img] [/img]