RE: Prince Harry in Afghanistan!

RE: Prince Harry in Afghanistan! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Level -> RE: Prince Harry in Afghanistan! (2/29/2008 4:15:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RealityLicks But what are we doing there? "We" meaning the West, in general? Time to get ready for work, here. [:)]

NorthernGent -> RE: Prince Harry in Afghanistan! (2/29/2008 4:18:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent As it stands, Channel 4 should know better than to give these spongers any exposure. precisely because of his wealth and position (which seems to be your sole reason for dislike). You'll notice I didn't single him out; in fact, I have no problem with the personalities. It's the concept of a monarchy I have an issue with. 'Truth be told, I like him that much I've just sent a letter to the British Commander in Chief requesting that he sends him out on a reconnaissance mission to prove to the country he's totally misunderstood and he's really one of the lads.......with no arms.......in broad daylight.....right into the hornets nest......carrying a copy of "25 reasons why Jesus is better than Mohammed".....with a young Afghan woman wearing nothing except a mini skirt and a crop top with BITCH stitched across the middle....... Tally Ho!

LadyEllen -> RE: Prince Harry in Afghanistan! (2/29/2008 4:23:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent It's the concept of a monarchy I have an issue with. It requires reform yes, a major update is long overdue - but I ask again, as I have on numerous occasions, as to what better means we might develop to provide the function of Head Of State? (Note - better, not different; every existing form of this position is also problematic, only in other ways). E

NorthernGent -> RE: Prince Harry in Afghanistan! (2/29/2008 4:27:29 AM)
You receive the same answer every time, Ellen, but proceed to ignore it. A two tier system, with fully elected officials - the United States has managed it, as have other developed nations - we seem to be out on a limb in this respect. Of course, if you want a 100 page dossier on how I'm going to revamp the system, I can't give you this - but I can say that electing our officials will be a good start on the road to representation.

LadyEllen -> RE: Prince Harry in Afghanistan! (2/29/2008 4:35:21 AM)
But then NG - that is different, but certainly no better. And it fails to answer the question posed, as to who would be head of state and how would that person achieve that office? By such a mechanism we end up with two elected houses who mirror one another, and if (as I infer from your post) we propose an elected president for head of state, we wind up with single party rule from start to finish; the lower house and the upper house and the president, all from the same party. We also have the strange position that the upper house has just as much electoral authority to rule as the lower house; a confusion in the odd case where the two houses are controlled by different parties. Different is not better. And this proposal is certainly worse. I read a quote the other day which relates to this quite well - something along the lines of "its a fool who says "look at this, its old so its great" and its a fool who says "look at this, its new so its great"" E

RealityLicks -> RE: Prince Harry in Afghanistan! (2/29/2008 4:43:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Level "We" meaning the West, in general? Time to get ready for work, here. [:)] At ease, soldier. Let's adjourn the talk about the worth of the campaign in Afghanistan for another time.

NorthernGent -> RE: Prince Harry in Afghanistan! (2/29/2008 4:55:00 AM)
You have a canny knack of drawing conclusions, e.g. "certainly worse", at the infancy stage of a chat. Regardless, it doesn't have to be a complicated overhaul of the current system. I'd begin as follows: a) Transfer all royal prerogatives from the Crown to the House of Commons, so that the Prime Minister would have to seek all his authority from elected MPs, as opposed to enjoying privileges as Protector of the Crown. b) Elect our Head of State - liberate the Windsor family to live their own lives and bring the Prime Minister under democratic control. c) Replace the House of Lords with an elected senate. d) Free the Church of England from state control. e) Separate the legal system from the idea that justice is dispensed in the name of the Queen. In a nutshell, I advocate the creation of a genuine democracy. In the event she still wants to run around calling herself "the Queen", that's fine by me; but hereditary power and dispensing law and justice in her name, is certainly not fine with me.

RealityLicks -> RE: Prince Harry in Afghanistan! (2/29/2008 4:59:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen ... whatever the merits or lack thereof in the Labour decision for war. E LE, one of the powers the PM took from the monarch in 1688 was the power to declare war without recourse to anyone else. In 1939, Chamberlain declared war on Nazi Germany on behlaf of the whole Empire! However, both in Afghanistan's and Iraq's case, (2002 and 2003 respectively) Blair gave MPs a prior vote before deploying troops. Brown has asked that that power be reviewed and I think the Lords' view was that it should be retained, especially in emergencies.

NorthernGent -> RE: Prince Harry in Afghanistan! (2/29/2008 5:10:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: chellekitty is a sponger anything like a hoser? What's a hoser?....like a sprinkler?

bipolarber -> RE: Prince Harry in Afghanistan! (2/29/2008 5:24:39 AM)
Wow! Prince Harry actually had to serve on the front lines? You mean his "Daddy" didn't pull strings to make sure he served at home in the UK equivilent of the National Gaurd? That he had to actually risk his ass, and will be serving his full hitch instead of going AWOL in the last weeks of his tour? (while tens of thousands of his generation fight and die?) That he's not getting special treatment because he's the son of a rich and powerful oil clan? Good for Harry. Good for the UK. I'd be proud.

MichiganHeadmast -> RE: Prince Harry in Afghanistan! (2/29/2008 5:25:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx What is to be commended? He is in a foreign country trying to thug them out of their shit. That makes him a thief and a thug, hardly something I would consider commendable. thompson Got a bit of nostalgia for the days of taliban retards shooting women in the head for attending college or working, do ya?

mnottertail -> RE: Prince Harry in Afghanistan! (2/29/2008 5:28:17 AM)
It is of great import to me that 'Prince Harry in Afghanistan' and 'Youth in Asia' are running pretty much neck and neck for our interest the last day or so. Prophetic coincedence? I think not.

thompsonx -> RE: Prince Harry in Afghanistan! (2/29/2008 5:44:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MichiganHeadmast quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx What is to be commended? He is in a foreign country trying to thug them out of their shit. That makes him a thief and a thug, hardly something I would consider commendable. thompson Got a bit of nostalgia for the days of taliban retards shooting women in the head for attending college or working, do ya? MichiganHeadmast: Why you would draw the conclusion you did from my post confuses me. Do you really think we are in Afghanistan to prevent men from spanking their women? thompson

Lucylastic -> RE: Prince Harry in Afghanistan! (2/29/2008 6:57:20 AM)
"Daddy" served in the Air Force, "Granny" served in the Army, "Grandad" served in the Navy and so did his "Uncle" for 22 years. Oh and even "Wills" served. Its a "tradition" that the family serve. And while I know Sandhurst is not yer average grunts training facility and they are or were all "officers" the fact is that they served their country.... Im not an ardent monarchist, but I guess I have leanings, lol. I blame that on the males in my life who all spent time in the forces. Lucy

NorthernGent -> RE: Prince Harry in Afghanistan! (3/2/2008 9:59:43 AM)
Lucy, Just about all of my family served in the forces and fought in wars of a sort: Dad - RAF - fought in Aden. Uncle - bomb disposal expert in the army - fought in the Falklands and Northern Ireland. Grandads killed in WW2 A Great Uncle in the Navy killed in WW2 - ship sunk about 300 and odd died. Great Grandads killed at the Battle of Ypres in WW1. There's a plaque in our Workmen's club in the village I was brought up in with the names of lads killed in WW1 and WW2 - over a hundred from my village alone and there are countless villages/towns/cities up and down the country with the same plaques. What a senseless waste of life. Maybe I've missed a trick here and there, but I don't recall any members of the monarchy dying in a war.

Lucylastic -> RE: Prince Harry in Afghanistan! (3/2/2008 10:14:22 AM)
NG Ive seen more than a few of them too, the plaques , the loss of life and workingmans clubs and legions......yesssssssss I agree War is hell, Ive lost a few people myself...however, my father, grandfather uncles and hubby were staunch in their belief of fighting for queen and country(well grandads time it was a king, but you get my drift). I lived on a naval estate during the falklands, lost quite a few guys to it and after 12 years in and four tours of NI convinced my hubby it was time to get out before he lost it. Heheheh my history of the monarchy is rusty after Elizabeth 1, so im claiming a no fair rule, but Harold did....it was in 1066 !! Lucy

pahunkboy -> RE: Prince Harry in Afghanistan! (3/2/2008 10:30:53 AM)
Pulliing him out defies logic. We are there, that that the terrorsits are not here. so if Harry is "here" then so too are the terrorists. I think we should move the White House there. because if we dont they will come here. See? [flawed idea] The Queen her persono to me seems cold and distant. I ponder tho- that ok- he serves and a zillion ladies want him. but he seems to dislike the public life. so how does he determine which lady wants him for him, and not his title ? I give the guy credit. His intereview was romantic. if I were 20 years younger and female- he would be a good catch. well the little I know about him. How can a soldier be less safe when it is already a war zone, when the west is already the great satan? oddly he found it refreshing to be away from the media....hence a war zone. i want a prince!!!

Sinergy -> RE: Prince Harry in Afghanistan! (3/2/2008 12:41:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bipolarber Wow! Prince Harry actually had to serve on the front lines? You mean his "Daddy" didn't pull strings to make sure he served at home in the UK equivilent of the National Gaurd? That he had to actually risk his ass, and will be serving his full hitch instead of going AWOL in the last weeks of his tour? (while tens of thousands of his generation fight and die?) That he's not getting special treatment because he's the son of a rich and powerful oil clan? Good for Harry. Good for the UK. I'd be proud. If I remember correctly, Harry demanded to serve in the rank and file without allowing his father and grandmother to pull strings to keep him safe. I have a lot of respect for him for that. It was the British military that had a problem with it. Sinergy

dcnovice -> RE: Prince Harry in Afghanistan! (3/2/2008 12:42:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: bipolarber Wow! Prince Harry actually had to serve on the front lines? You mean his "Daddy" didn't pull strings to make sure he served at home in the UK equivilent of the National Gaurd? That he had to actually risk his ass, and will be serving his full hitch instead of going AWOL in the last weeks of his tour? (while tens of thousands of his generation fight and die?) That he's not getting special treatment because he's the son of a rich and powerful oil clan? Good for Harry. Good for the UK. I'd be proud. If I remember correctly, Harry demanded to serve in the rank and file without allowing his father and grandmother to pull strings to keep him safe. I have a lot of respect for him for that. It was the British military that had a problem with it. Sinergy He was quite disappointed he couldn't serve with his squadron in Iraq, I believe.

seeksfemslave -> RE: Prince Harry in Afghanistan! (3/2/2008 2:59:32 PM)
LadyE seems to think that if the UK monarchy was allowed to die a natural death then the post Head of State must be political. Why is that? Surely people of proven distinction could be found to undertake the role for say 5 years or so. So when the Chinese PM or GWB or Barack Obama visits the UK the ceremonial part of the visit would be separate from the political. King Wotsit of Saudi Arabia might not like that but "tuf" shit I say. As long as they buy our fighter jets. What we have at the moment is lamentable, pathetic, anochronistic, encourages and supports useless "hangers on" and helps to maintain the class system that IMO has done so much damage to the UK. I also think that the reasons given for withdrawing 'arry from Afghanistan are spurious to the point of being lies. If decisions are taken that the military will be used to further a cause then all sectors of society should contribute. Just as happened in WW1, for whatever reason it was decided to fight that or any conflict. Not sure that Royals fought in WW1 but the offspring of aristocrats certainly did.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125