Prince Harry will complete his training at Sandhurst in April
Posted on 01/31/2006 6:09:15 PM PST by saquin
Prince Harry is to be sent to Iraq next year as a troop commander and is likely to patrol the hazardous border with Iran, defence sources have disclosed.
The third in line to the throne will join the Army's 1st Mechanised Brigade, which will be deployed to Basra in May 2007.
The prince has told colleagues that he is determined to go on operations and be treated as normally as possible - not kept out of the line of fire.
Defence chiefs, in consultation with the Prince of Wales's office, will have to devise a plan that will not put his life or those of his troops in any greater danger. Substantial planning will go into the deployment and the media is likely to be asked for co-operation on security aspects of the mission.
As a troop commander in the Blues and Royals, the prince will have the rank of cornet, equivalent to a second lieutenant, in charge of 11 men and four light tanks.
The reconnaissance formation will patrol the long border with Iran where weapons, insurgents, drugs and money are smuggled.
The prince's men will use night vision equipment to find terrorists trying to bring in sophisticated bomb making devices.
The desert patrols last up to 10 days with supplies being dropped from aircraft. The work is said to appeal to the soldiers as a mixture of Lawrence of Arabia and Prince 'is a cracking officer' the early SAS long-range desert patrols of the Second World War.
Although the mission will be hazardous, the prince is keen that his royal position will not disqualify him.
"There's no way I'm going to put myself through Sandhurst and then sit on my arse back home while my boys are out fighting for their country," he has said.
Instructors at Sandhurst have been impressed by Prince Harry's approach. "He is going to be a real asset to the Army," a senior officer said. "It would be a real shame if the Palace or MoD did not allow him to go on operations because he is a cracking officer."
Prince Harry will complete his training at Sandhurst in April
I agree. Well said.
We're good.
"Ok, so what of Jeltz25 in #3. That's a pretty ignorant comment IMO"
At a quick look at his/her/it's posts, seems to be pretty liberal.
They're SLEEPER TROLLS
that have just been activated.....
bastards!!....
ok, fess up... was it the last tape by al-zwahari ... what is the code word.....
WHAT IS THE FREQUENCY, KENNETH?
It started with the frozen strawberries I tell you....I'm not paranoid....
LOL!
ROTFLMAO!!
Bravo.
If I should ever meet up with Dick Cheney I will ask him why he allowed this rot to continue.
there is a lot of information on this here I did not have or know....the lack of replies may indicate that no one else on this thread knows more than you on the subject, in this case....
"Your taking part in questioning some peoples patriotism. Why are you doing this? This is something that a liberal would do not a conservative.
"
You're kidding? FR members question other members' patriotism ALL THE TIME on threads, usually as a substitute for actually debating ideas. Some posters combine the two. There are some posters who spend a fair % of their posts questioning the motives of other posters.
So your saying it's ok to question a person's patriotism? I see it as just attacking others. There is no validity in attacking someones patriotism. Even if the attack has some validity.
It is so much easier, and more effective to actually rebut someones argument than to attack their beliefs or person. And I agree with you that it does happen ALL THE TIME. Doesn't make it right though.
"So your saying it's ok to question a person's patriotism?"
I never said that or anything resembling it. I did say FR members did it all the time, and it is from people who espouse conservative values. Just because people on FR do it doesn't mean I think it is OK.
If there is doubt on this, try starting a thread called 'President Bush, architect of a New Welfare State' and list all his social and domestic spending priorities. I promise that some of the replies you will get will question your patriotism and will not espouse liberal values. Quite a few of those that do this will not actually dispute anything you are saying, though.
No, I already did that with another handle questioning the Patriot Act, not all of it, just most of the redundant stuff. I got banned for life with that handle and had to reappear as phoenix, kind of a play on words with the handle, If you know what I mean.
Go Prince Harry, you rock!
No one forced Harry in to the limitary either. He could be chilling in the South of France with a bevy of beauties right now. I'm not saying the President's daughters should be drafted. It is admirable that Harry is willing to go.
My question was more a rehtorical one. Fdr's children fought in WW2, LBJ's went to Nam. Do you think if W had a son he'd be in Iraq.
Is combat the only way a woman can serve? There's plenty of women in Iraq. The military has tons of jobs and tasks. My post wasn't meant to criticize anyone. In a free country people can do what they want. It was more to point out the improbablility of a Child of such an important political figure in the US actually fighting in a hot war in this day and age. It was meant to give Harry credit for something that virtually no one else in his poisition would even think of doing.
LOL!
If your post was meant to commend Harry, which he deserves, than you should have said so. Also, it was Harry's choice to join the military. As it is the Bush daughters' choice. If they choose to do so, then that's great. If they don't, then I wouldn't fault them in that decision.
I have never been banned, but the patriot act seems like something I am going to hate seeing a hillary or a spitzer get their hands on.
Honestly , I don't believe the constitution was set up to deal with suicidal fanatics like we are seeing today, nor do I think it was intended to. I cannot imagine the founding fathers doing anything but large-scale expulsion from the US territories, at the least, if faced with gunpowder-bomb-fanatics of muslim origin.
My only beef with royalty is one spoiled Royal Princess
that thought of herself instead of Duty, Honor and Country
and one Royal Highness that seems to have some odd new-
age views that don't always seem to mesh with his position.
Beyond that I believe most Americans admire the royals
more than you might imagine. Even Mark Twain wrote
about the royals only 100 years after our Revolution.
You mention the Dems kids but leave off the Republican's.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.