17 May 2007

Harry excused from war zone

ThroneOut had predicted that Prince Harry would not see front line service from the moment it was announced. But it seems he won't even be sent to Iraq at all because "it's dangerous".

Of course it is. It's a war zone. Well over a hundred British troops have been killed already, and the soldiers face suicide bombings, snipers, IEDs and mortar attacks on a daily basis. The insurgents are already doing their best to kill or capture enemy troops, as the recent attack on a US patrol that resulted in the capture of 3 servicemen shows.

None of that deters our country's misguided leaders from throwing more cannon fodder into the unwinnable quagmire. But when it comes to the Queen's grandchild, they suddenly become much more concerned about the dangers.

So the question is, if a royal cannot be sent to a war zone because as a high-profile person he'd be a special target, what the hell is he doing in the army anyway? What was the use of wasting tax payers' money on training him to shoot guns, drive tanks and bark commands to flunkies when as soon as those skills are actually required he's pulled out because (shock!) the other side might shoot at him?

In the dim and very distant past, kings themselves would lead their armies onto the battlefield. Very often, one of them would not leave it. Those days are long gone. Sure they like the uniforms, and the medals and the parades and the posing. But it's just fancy dress, because at heart members of the royal family are pampered pansies. The closest Harry comes to combat is punching tabloid photographers, and only then if there are some beefy bouncers to make sure he doesn't get punched back.

So in few years time when Harry gets married to some useless money-grabbing tart, and wears his military uniform with a chest full of medals, you'll know for sure he got them for being the useless bastard son of a useless family, rather than for acts of bravery on the battlefield.

For more information see
Prince Harry not to serve in Iraq