bwfc_sue Posted May 17, 2007 Share Posted May 17, 2007 Just listening to the debate on 5 Live as to whether he should have been allowed to go to Iraq. I'm with the thinkers that if he went it would put other soldiers lifes at risk and I think they are at enough risk on their tours as it is. Am not big on the royal family and personally couldn't give two hoots as to whether he went or not, he joined the army knowing he could possibly have to go into combat, which I think he did want to, but to put others at risk by him being there is a no no. Anyone think different? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
no balls Posted May 17, 2007 Share Posted May 17, 2007 I think he'd be a target and a trophy kill for the insurgents (or murdering scum as I prefer to call them.) Therefore, I think he shouldn't go for the sake of the safety of the soldiers around him. I do often wonder, isn't it a shame the folk who go round killing willy nilly didn't have the balls to do that when Saddam was in power if he was the tyrant we are lead to believe, I'm sure if they'd put their minds to it, they could've stormed a Golden palace or two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members bolty58 Posted May 17, 2007 Members Share Posted May 17, 2007 Correct decision. The lads p1ssed off and fair play to him. Must be fooking frustrating training hard for summat and then being denied the chance. As others have said, those murderous bags of sh1t can't be given a potential propoganda bonanza and it ain't fair to put his mates in much greater danger than is already the case. GSTQ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Churchill Posted May 17, 2007 Share Posted May 17, 2007 He's a f*ckin mard arse!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest as Posted May 17, 2007 Share Posted May 17, 2007 It should have been kept quiet & he should have gone & been there now. He seems alreet that ginger prince. Gets pissed, smokes weed, gets laid & he likes giving the journo's a slap outside nightclubs too - fair play to him. His brother is a drip tho. Crawley calls the insurgents his 'brothers' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SatanGreavsie Posted May 17, 2007 Share Posted May 17, 2007 Quiz question - if the Queen, Charles and William were killed tonight, he would take the throne. What would his title be, King.....? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Site Supporter Spider Posted May 17, 2007 Site Supporter Share Posted May 17, 2007 Henry IX? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members bolty58 Posted May 17, 2007 Members Share Posted May 17, 2007 Crawley calls the insurgents his 'brothers' Aye, watch him. Besides Londons artsy fartsy brigade, I have heard a rumour that the hook handed bastud gets invites to his vegetarian barbecues.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweep Posted May 17, 2007 Share Posted May 17, 2007 Henry IX? I think you're right, as he wasn't christened Harry was he.............he's really a Henry, and I don't think there have been anymore of those since the infamous Henry IIIV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest as Posted May 17, 2007 Share Posted May 17, 2007 Aye, watch him. Besides Londons artsy fartsy brigade, I have heard a rumour that the hook handed bastud gets invites to his vegetarian barbecues.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whites man Posted May 17, 2007 Share Posted May 17, 2007 I think you're right, as he wasn't christened Harry was he.............he's really a Henry, and I don't think there have been anymore of those since the infamous Henry IIIV They pick whatever name they want, their "king" name is not necessarily their christened one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
no balls Posted May 17, 2007 Share Posted May 17, 2007 They pick whatever name they want, their "king" name is not necessarily their christened one. That's just a shit idea though isn't it? What's wrong with Henry IX? If that's the case then, if I ruled the world, I shall amend my name to Queen Cherise-Leanne the first! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whites man Posted May 17, 2007 Share Posted May 17, 2007 The ginger freak is James Hewitt's lad anyway, send him out to do his job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crawley White Posted May 17, 2007 Share Posted May 17, 2007 Aye, of course its all the insurgants fault and has nothing to do with the fact that we invaded a country without a UN mandate and right royally fucked up the the rebuilding process afterwards. We didn't know what fire we were lighting when we went in, and we should of. Its the lasting stain on Blair's premiership. Of course, by saying this you'll think I'm taking 'sides'. I'm afraid that it isn't that simple, yes the insurgents are murdering hundreds of people but funnily enough they weren't until we went in. As soon as you start policing the world without the UN then you can't lecture to other nations about liberties. I have a family member out there and my godaughter is about to join the RAF as a pilot trainee and we often have discussions about this topic, it would be good if you could let someone else have a viewpoint, as they do, without branding them unpatriotic, which funnily enough is the last refuge of the Neo-con. On another note, did anyone see the documentary on Balke's Jerusalem last night. Good to see the real meaning of the song/poem get a public airing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uriah rennie Posted May 17, 2007 Share Posted May 17, 2007 He's a f*ckin mard arse!! great signature Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
no balls Posted May 17, 2007 Share Posted May 17, 2007 yes the insurgents are murdering hundreds of people but funnily enough they weren't until we went in. Because they were too spineless to depose their leader, who it is known was letting them live in poverty whilst lining his own pockets. And do you think in a 'civilised' society these 'insurgents' as you and the BBC call them, would set free their country from an imposed regime by simply murdering anyone or everyone in their way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crawley White Posted May 17, 2007 Share Posted May 17, 2007 Because they were too spineless to depose their leader, who it is known was letting them live in poverty whilst lining his own pockets. And do you think in a 'civilised' society these 'insurgents' as you and the BBC call them, would set free their country from an imposed regime by simply murdering anyone or everyone in their way? 'Spineless?' Priceless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
no balls Posted May 17, 2007 Share Posted May 17, 2007 'Spineless?' Priceless. So, prey tell, you tell me why they didn't depose Saddam then? Were they all happy living in poverty whilst he was building Golden Palaces like Barratts do estates? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest as Posted May 17, 2007 Share Posted May 17, 2007 Aye, of course its all the insurgants fault and has nothing to do with the fact that we invaded a country without a UN mandate and right royally fucked up the the rebuilding process afterwards. We didn't know what fire we were lighting when we went in, and we should of. Its the lasting stain on Blair's premiership. Of course, by saying this you'll think I'm taking 'sides'. I'm afraid that it isn't that simple, yes the insurgents are murdering hundreds of people but funnily enough they weren't until we went in. As soon as you start policing the world without the UN then you can't lecture to other nations about liberties. I have a family member out there and my godaughter is about to join the RAF as a pilot trainee and we often have discussions about this topic, it would be good if you could let someone else have a viewpoint, as they do, without branding them unpatriotic, which funnily enough is the last refuge of the Neo-con. On another note, did anyone see the documentary on Balke's Jerusalem last night. Good to see the real meaning of the song/poem get a public airing! Caught a whopper. For the record, I agree with a lot of what you say, good old George W Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crawley White Posted May 17, 2007 Share Posted May 17, 2007 Caught a whopper. For the record, I agree with a lot of what you say, good old George W Hook, line and sinker.... In the words of Labbi Siffre, 'I should have known better...' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Site Supporter Spider Posted May 17, 2007 Site Supporter Share Posted May 17, 2007 Aye, of course its all the insurgants fault and has nothing to do with the fact that we invaded a country without a UN mandate and right royally fucked up the the rebuilding process afterwards. We didn't know what fire we were lighting when we went in, and we should of. Its the lasting stain on Blair's premiership. Of course, by saying this you'll think I'm taking 'sides'. I'm afraid that it isn't that simple, yes the insurgents are murdering hundreds of people but funnily enough they weren't until we went in. As soon as you start policing the world without the UN then you can't lecture to other nations about liberties. I have a family member out there and my godaughter is about to join the RAF as a pilot trainee and we often have discussions about this topic, it would be good if you could let someone else have a viewpoint, as they do, without branding them unpatriotic, which funnily enough is the last refuge of the Neo-con. On another note, did anyone see the documentary on Balke's Jerusalem last night. Good to see the real meaning of the song/poem get a public airing! You forgot to mention that they had the best free health service in the world under old Sadders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweep Posted May 17, 2007 Share Posted May 17, 2007 Aye, of course its all the insurgants fault and has nothing to do with the fact that we invaded a country without a UN mandate What the hell has the UN got to do with it. At the end of the day, the civilised countries of the world needed to secure the oil reserves, as such, both the UK and US went steaming in, and quite rightly so. These Arab types who are only one step up from savages are clueless, and without guidance from us, they would go to rack and ruin, and doubtless hold us to ransom over the oil in years to come. It's all about the oil, and as we are the bigger stronger nation, we should do all we can to ensure we will continue to have access to major reserves of it for years to come. As with all things, there is a natural pecking order, we just happen to be at the top of it, and stuff anybody else further down Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Site Supporter barryk32 Posted May 17, 2007 Site Supporter Share Posted May 17, 2007 The daft red ginger knew he was a Prince before he joined the army. Would you employ a taxi driver knowing full well he's not going to get behind the wheel. Workshy arse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Casino Posted May 17, 2007 Moderators Share Posted May 17, 2007 Hook, line and sinker.... In the words of Labbi Siffre, 'I should have known better...' jim diamond, or have i been entrapped Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crawley White Posted May 17, 2007 Share Posted May 17, 2007 jim diamond, or have i been entrapped Yep it was Jim Diamond - LS was Something Inside (So Strong) wasn't he? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts