Apparently, there's a debate as to whether Britain's Prince Harry should be deployed to fight in Iraq. My simple question: Why not?
If they had feared that the third guy in line to the throne would be sent to Iraq, maybe they should have stopped him from becoming an officer in the MILITARY! That usually does the trick! The fact is that if he's elgible to go, then he should go.
I don't believe it's a valid argument to say that because he is a recognizable figure, he will somehow draw violence. Americans are recognizable and we draw violence in Iraq everyday. Why is he so special?
My opinion is that if Nancy Pelosi were elgible military personnel, even though she's third in line to the presidency, I'd say send her too. If you're in a position of power or influence, the wise thing to do is to remove yourself from any risk of being sent to military combat.
Why would America send someone from Britain to fight in Iraq?
The Brits are also entangled in Iraq since they are our allies, they have troops there and in Afghanistan as well.
--Pauperes Commilitones Christi Templique Salomonis--
~ check out my art at http://miniwookie.deviantart.com ~
I think you've missed the point. America isn't responsible for sending him.
The HTR
Back in the day, kings and princes, earls and barons would go to war I dont see how today should be any different, in fact it would be easier for royalty to do that now a days since the reprecussions of doing so would probably not send a whole nation into turmoil. If Harry is qualified to go so he should go.
--Pauperes Commilitones Christi Templique Salomonis--
~ check out my art at http://miniwookie.deviantart.com ~
Hell yes he should go. If Britain's so worried that he'll die in Iraq, maybe they should withdraw. Maybe if G.W. Bush (the cowardly bastard that he is) had actually fought in Vietnam, he'd be a little less cavalier about sending young Americans out to die.
(if you can't see the fnords they won't eat you)