Should Prince Harry go to Iraq? - Page 6

Orior · 29-04-2007, 22:37

Why send Harry to Iraq, where his presence might endanger other soldiers (whose job is to go where danger is).

Instead bring Iraqis to Buck house and let them reduce the lot to smithereens.

Xaccers · 30-04-2007, 09:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orior

Why send Harry to Iraq, where his presence might endanger other soldiers (whose job is to go where danger is).

Instead bring Iraqis to Buck house and let them reduce the lot to smithereens.

Just to confirm, by "the lot" you're refering to the Royal Family, not the building?

TheDaddy · 30-04-2007, 20:31

He is going

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6609385.stm

marky · 30-04-2007, 20:40

Good luck to the lad and lets just hope the media stay away and let him do his job.

NitroNutter · 30-04-2007, 20:40

It was a no win dilema either way, If he goes he is an obvious increased risk of being targetted. If he doesnt go it would be seen as the first sign of weakness and tensions would increase anyway not that they are not allready.

Orior · 30-04-2007, 23:27

Its great that young Hewitt is off to foreign lands, to meet interesting people and to kill them. He could be the last royal since XXX to have a confirmed kill. Who was the last royal to have a confirmed kill?

30-04-2007, 23:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by marky

Good luck to the lad and lets just hope the media stay away and let him do his job.

don't patronise him, marky, if he couldn't do the job it would have come out, by now, shirly

TheDaddy · 30-04-2007, 23:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orior

Its great that young Hewitt is off to foreign lands, to meet interesting people and to kill them. He could be the last royal since XXX to have a confirmed kill. Who was the last royal to have a confirmed kill?

I would guess at Richard III, plenty have lead men into the 'thick of it' since, notably Charles 1st nephew for one but I can't remember seeing any reports of them 'getting stuck in' themselves

Orior · 30-04-2007, 23:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

I would guess at Richard III, plenty have lead men into the 'thick of it' since, notably Charles 1st nephew for one but I can't remember seeing any reports of them 'getting stuck in' themselves

Which century? Was that the crusades?

TheDaddy · 30-04-2007, 23:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orior

Which century? Was that the crusades?

War of the Roses 1485

Berezovski · 03-05-2007, 19:58

How does James Hewitt feel about the possibility of his young son getting savaged by the Iraqis?

BBKing · 03-05-2007, 23:16

Quote:

Who was the last royal to have a confirmed kill?

The Queen, pheasant, 2000

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1031343.stm

Actually, jokes about huntin and fishin notwithstanding, Prince Phillip did serve in the Royal Navy in WW2 including at the Battle of Matapan, which ended with a couple of thousand dead Italians (and jokes about glass bottomed ships). I shouldn't think anyone would have beaten that for a bag since, he says callously.

Mr Angry · 04-05-2007, 01:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orior

Who was the last royal to have a confirmed kill?

Charles, according to Al Fayed.

TheDaddy · 04-05-2007, 08:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by BBKing

The Queen, pheasant, 2000

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1031343.stm

Actually, jokes about huntin and fishin notwithstanding, Prince Phillip did serve in the Royal Navy in WW2 including at the Battle of Matapan, which ended with a couple of thousand dead Italians (and jokes about glass bottomed ships). I shouldn't think anyone would have beaten that for a bag since, he says callously.

They aren't his 'confirmed' kills though, which is what the question was, that said apparently he has killed one of almost everything, so it stands to reason, he's bagged the odd native

lightboy · 07-05-2007, 01:00

if its safe enough for tom and dick !