I FIGHT TO LOSE!
I FIGHT TO WIN!
Posted on 05/01/2007 10:57:32 AM PDT by Stayfree
What a contrast! Dirty Harry fights to lose, Prince Harry fights to win. Since Dirty Harry has no prinicples he has to sell out his own country to gain power, Prince Harry proves his principles by risking his life to fight in Iraq for his country.
Hmmf... For a minute there, I thought you were talking about Clint Eastwood.
Yeah, it’s not dirty, it’s dingy!
Personally I dislike the idea of Prince Harry in the theatre of war simply because the enemy is concentrating effort to kidnap him. This creates onerous security task that would not otherwise be necessary, and further creates target in which others may die unnecessarily protecting from said kidnapping attempt. Then too, what if the enemy were to succeed?
Nah, it’s Dirty Harry, the guy who made a million bucks on a shady land deal with a constituent that needed some special favors in Harry’s legislation efforts.
Terrible as it would be if he were killed or kidnapped, I think it’s better to risk his life than to coddle him and turn him into another total loser like his father. The monarchy needs to produce someone that the British people can admire, or it will probably fade into extinction after the Queen dies.
So he’s a kid just like mine...let him serve and if he’s captured, so what? He’s worth no more than any one of our sons.....
BTW, there is no such thing as “royalty”.....only the inbred leftovers of a few medieval warlords who coerced and threatened their populace into subservient submission by lying about their “godlike” aura.....
The “Prince” makes great bait......
Yes...it should be DINGY Harry...:)
“Dirty Harry” would be a compliment...
“Terrible as it would be if he were killed or kidnapped,..”
True as you state, however my concern isn’t entirely Harry, it’s the possibility of those around him dying to protect him from becoming the loser his father is. I believe it better that Prince Harry be behind the lines for the sake of the health and welfare of others.
“The “Prince” makes great bait......”
And that’s my point. I’m not concerned with “Royalty”. The Brits are concerned with “Royalty”. Personally “Royalty” with all of the airs etc. makes me ill.
It’s the soldiers that are necessary to protect that “Prince” that concern me and are the heart of this post. If Prince Harry weren’t on the front lines, the other soldiers could concentrate on their duties of fighting a war without the necessity of worrying about “Prince Charles the Loser’s” darling little boy.
I say get the inconvenience of Harry out of the place and let him make his headlines someplace others won’t die protecting him.
I suspect that there are a lot fewer assets being employed to protect Prince Harry in Iraq than there would be if he was in England. He is going to get protection no matter where he is. His presence in Iraq is a thumb in the noses of those who oppose this war. Here you have an heir to the throne willing to put his keister on the line to protect the citizens of England from Islamo-terrorism. He knows he is a ready made target and he is willing to take the risk. Those who are with him know the risk as well. Everyone involved is a volunteer.
Even though the U.S. has a $50 million price tag on Bin Laden’s head, I think the Brits should up it to $100 million if someone would bring his head personally to Prince Harry.
The purpose of a prince is to lead his people.
Harry Reid is no Harry Callahan.
Actually, I really meant use him as bait......
Maybe in this small way, he can start to pay for all the oppression and thievery the royals perpetrated on their “subjects”.....
Also, I admire the kid for becoming a soldier and going through with his “contract,” despite the fact that he has to function in a fish bowl, and that his grannie is in charge of the whole shebang. I am sure he could easily have become a playboy whose most onerous task would be to plant trees and cut ribbons. Instead he has taken up an honorable and admirable profession and insisted that they let him get on with it. I pray that no tragedy occurs, but if it does, he will at least be dying for a noble cause, which is more than you can say for his snotty critics who conceal their anti-war, anti-Blair sentiments behind their constant sneering at him. They really aren’t fit to shine his boots.
British royalty has always served (the spares, not the heirs). It is a fine tradition. Sometimes they do not survive the experience.
On the other hand, sometimes the bait has to wiggle.
On the gripping hand, he wants to go.
That whole issue was settled over 300 years ago in the English Civil Wars and turmoil starting in 1642 and not ending until the Glorious Revolution of 1688.
Or is one beheaded King, a dictatorial Republic, the slaughter of 10% or the population of Great Britain, a restoration, a Parliamentary Coup de'Etat and almost 50 years of mayhem and destruction to establish the principle of executive (Royal) subornation to Parliament not good enough for you?
To all the posters on this thread who are ‘worried’ about Harry, don’t.
The English definition of Royalty is noblesse oblige - royalty serves the people and leads from the front. Harry will do nothing less than his duty and his appearance in Iraq is the biggest V-sign to the islamofascists that the west can give. To have a direct descendant of Richard the Lionheart return to the holylands to crusade against the moors is his destiny.
It is a shame that the high-profile sons of Americas old money ruling elites aren’t volunteering to serve in Iraq and following Harry’s example.
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.