Prince Harry

Drifterwood · 02-29-2008

It's quite simple Jason, when it comes to matters of life and death we trust a Monarch, not politicians; politicians we allow to fuck around with our money. Recent events would show our system to be preferable perhaps, and besides, when we don't trust the Monarch, we get rid of them. Our Monarch carries a massive responsibility to be a stop to politicians, a stop that your system does not have.

Drifterwood · 02-29-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by jason_els

This is true, but then the Duke of Windsor, a former king, also advocated appeasement and entered into a secret agreement with Hitler to be returned to the throne once the UK fell to Germany.

Ahem

That is why we binned him.

jason_els · 02-29-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drifterwood

That is why we binned him.

He was "binned" as you say because England did not want a Queen Cutie.

Our system does have a stop however the people who wield that stop have refused to use the power to do so. Just as a monarch could also refuse to use his or her power to do so. In either case it's a roll of the dice. The right of one comes out of the polling places, the other comes out of a vagina.

Drifterwood · 02-29-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by senor rubirosa

I can't think that his advocacy of appeasement of Hitler cost a single life.
Churchill was not swayed, of course.
And Roosevelt was not swayed.
And when he said. "Democracy is finished in England," he showed he was a defeatist.
To the immediate end of his career as ambassador.
But he never really influenced anyone.
He made a fool of himself.
His intervention cost millions of lives?
About as much as Diana Mitford's did.

Perhaps, but why send such a cunt as ambassador?

Drifterwood · 02-29-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by jason_els

He was "binned" as you say because England did not want a Queen Cutie.

That's the Hollywood version J. We just knew he was a useless twat.

senor rubirosa · 02-29-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by jason_els

What I find questionable was that the Queen apparently commanded him to go and fight. That's the monarch using her power as C-in-C to override what appears to have been the decision of the UK's military commanders to keep Harry home for the safety of his unit. I have no problem with him fighting and I truly believe he wanted to go. I'm not questioning his patriotism. I am questioning the Queen stepping into the fray to further the ends of the monarchy. From my perspective, as an American, that's an abuse of power however, as all the military forces technically belong to the Queen, I can't argue with it. How you run things on your island is up to you.

If that were so, Jason, then why was the British army able to resist sending Harry to Iraq?
I think the army must have made their own decision.

senor rubirosa · 02-29-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drifterwood

Perhaps, but why send such a cunt as ambassador?

The eternal question, Drifter. The eternal question.
(Hindsight is so wonderful.)

Mr. Snakey · 02-29-2008

The reading i have done on Harry is very positive. It should be. What a brave young man he is. His mom would be proud. I see a brave young man like this and it makes me smile. Our future may be bright after all.

kalipygian · 02-29-2008

I think FDR sent Joe Kennedy Sr. to St. James to neutralize him in US domestic politics, he was kept out of the loop between Churchill and FDR, and did not influence policy.

Drifterwood · 02-29-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by uncut

The reading i have done on Harry is very positive. It should be. What a brave young man he is. His mom would be proud. I see a brave young man like this and it makes me smile. Our future may be bright after all.

Indeed Big Buddy. He is an officer, and perhaps now may even be a Gentleman.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kalipygian

I think FDR sent Joe Kennedy Sr. to St. James to neutralize him in US domestic politics, he was kept out of the loop between Churchill and FDR, and did not influence policy.

This is the accepted version in the UK.

jason_els · 02-29-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by senor rubirosa

If that were so, Jason, then why was the British army able to resist sending Harry to Iraq?
I think the army must have made their own decision.

He had to go somewhere and it was much easier to keep a lid on things in Afghanistan. I think that when the Queen realized Harry was in danger of going nowhere she ordered him out. Certainly the press embargo took some time to work out but, once it was, it was just a matter of sending him along with his unit. Again, it's no reflection on Harry. He's a good soldier by all accounts. He's in a tough position; damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.

senor rubirosa · 02-29-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by jason_els

He had to go somewhere.

Nope.

jason_els · 02-29-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by senor rubirosa

Nope.

If HM decided he had to go somewhere then he had to go somewhere. It's just that simple.

njqt466 · 02-29-2008

[quote=Drifterwood;1325329]
Quote:

When was the last time that a Kennedy, Bush or Roosevelt or any of your oh so brave rulers put themselves and therefore their families in the line of fire?

Why, oh why do you insist upon starting stuff like this?

What rank have you attained in the RAF Drifterwood?

Bill Clinton was the first President since FDR to not have served in any branch of the military.

While conservatives on both sides of the fence may disagree, I have no doubt W.J. Clinton will prove to be one of the best presidents we have had in the last 100 years. Military service does not automatically mean great, proficient, or even efficent leadership. This can be proven by the current Commander in Chief.

FYI - During World War II Gerald R. Ford attained the rank of lieutenant commander in the Navy. After the war he returned to Grand Rapids, where he began the practice of law, and entered Republican politics.

The United States Constitution names the President of the United States the commander in chief of the U.S. armed forces. However, previous service in the military is not a pre-requisite for the position of president. The following list outlines the military service (or lack thereof) of each president before becoming the commander in chief.

See also:

List of United States Presidents by military service

List of U.S. Presidents by military rank

Dragonfly20 · 02-29-2008

Perhaps the queen had decided the the royal families image would be better served to have Harry serving his country by going off to war rather than whoring, drinking and getting into inappropriate relationships with colonial girls and having all these antics splashed over the media.