Here is an update on the soldier who refused to go!

[Sand]

I can only see that in a Monty Python skit.

[Cantousent]

The enemy, if they believe the prince is a high enough profile target, will probably dedicate some resources to finding out where the prince is and targetting him. Perversely, the more folks mewl about the prince's deployment, the higher profile he, and his unit, will have.

[Surreptishus]

The Royal Family wish to eliminate the illegitimate spawn of Princess Diana. That is why they sent Harry. With his bright red hair he will be an easy target.

[Sand]

How is he illegitimate? :confused:

Edited February 22, 2007 by Sand

[Surreptishus]

He isnt Charles' son.

[Sand]

You have the paternity tests to prove that? <_<

[metadigital]

Rousseau also believed that democracy only worked with smaller nations, as the administration for larger states would overwhelm the population (cost too much, basically, and the ministers (he called them "magistrates") would be too far removed from the people they represent).

that's why most democratic systems, the US' included, are actually republics. that's also why the US is split into separate, smaller states, in order to leave day-to-day operations up to fairly small governments, all modeled after the larger, national government. unfortunately, in the US, the national government has taken on many powers not specifically assigned to it, leaving the states with less and less authority as time passes. the cost is becoming prohibitive, and as suggested, the leaders are pretty far removed from the people they represent.

Rousseau identifies the issue of the government having a will of its own, similar in concept to the sovereign (will of the society) but different (when the government becomes too large). Basically the people in the government form their own, smaller society; their will becomes different to the will of the people they represent because they have more power and different perspectives, etc, and that breaks the covenant.

 

It does give pause for thought with the whole federalization of the European Union, for example, too; after all, the states in the US joined together for similar reasons, yet now they might be forgiven if they consider they might want to secede ...

 

Certainly the EU legislature is already regarded as distant and expensive (who can forget Mrs. Marta Andreasen's revelations last year; the EU's former chief accountant, was sacked by Neil Kinnock for revealing "Opportunities for fraud are open and they are taken advantage of. The most elementary precautions are neither taken nor even contemplated.") But why would they care? These politicians are directly representing anyone; the money is many times removed from them, so it's only natural that they think nothing of feathering their own nests and lining their own pockets.

 

linkie 1

daughter link 1

daughter link 2

daughter link 3

daughter link 4

(lots more on the main page)

 

There is no oversight, no "Ephors" for the EU "prince". (Please excuse the mixed metaphors, there; I know the Ephors are classical Greek (Spartan) who kept the dual Kings in check and presided over the Gerousia, or Senate-like body of the Spartans. I was just looking for an apt example of where absolute political power was tempered with an oversight; it seems the Greeks had this idea before everyone else, too.)

 

It certainly doesn't bode well that the whistle-blowers have ALL been sacked and NO PUNISHMENT has been meted out on the perpetrators the corruption. And the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, is allegedly hell bent on re-instituting the Federal programme.

[taks]

the US bureaucracy has in the neighborhood of 6 million people now, 1 out of 50 of us. they think and act like their own country in many respects. i can only imagine how many will eventually comprise the EU government.

 

taks

[Walsingham]

Eurocrats are roundly condemned by themselves above all as wasters, in my experience. However, I think that the lessson of the USA teaches us that centralised bureacuracies are like antlions. You can struggle all you like and you slide faster into the centre.

 

Going back to the soldier what would your reaction be if Harry claimed that due to a legal technicality he wasn't going? Would we accord him the same generosity offerred to this bloke of Sand's?

 

Interestingly, the last time I can recall teh Army letting a prince go on campaign in a colonial war It was the grandson of Napoleon. He too was in a cavalry recce section. They embarked on a foolhardy investigation of a kraal and were slaughtered.

[metadigital]

They wouldn't use a technicality to protect Harry, they'd just put him somewhere safe, but still on active duty (like they're going to do).

[Sand]

Depends on his motivation for not going. If he didn't want to go becuase he doesn't want to get killed is quite different than not wanting to go because you think the war is wrong and unjust.

[Walsingham]

Depends on his motivation for not going. If he didn't want to go becuase he doesn't want to get killed is quite different than not wanting to go because you think the war is wrong and unjust.

 

You say that like the two things might be unconnected!

[Sand]

In some cases they might not be while in others they might.

Edited February 23, 2007 by Sand

[Walsingham]

In some cases they might not be while in others they might.

 

True. I confess I was being mendacious. I love that word.

[Cantousent]

I've been scratching my head trying to figure out why I hadn't heard a response from Steve. It occurs to me that he now sports a moderator tag. However, that doesn't mean that he can't engage in heated debate with the inmates. I do disagree with your stance, but I've always respected your ability to argue your case, Steve. If you throw a few punches and maybe a jab or two, I won't complain about it to anyone! :Cant's friendly grin icon:

[Walsingham]

I've been scratching my head trying to figure out why I hadn't heard a response from Steve. It occurs to me that he now sports a moderator tag. However, that doesn't mean that he can't engage in heated debate with the inmates. I do disagree with your stance, but I've always respected your ability to argue your case, Steve. If you throw a few punches and maybe a jab or two, I won't complain about it to anyone! :Cant's friendly grin icon:

 

It's a lie! He says that then starts blubbing like a toddler!

[metadigital]

the US bureaucracy has in the neighborhood of 6 million people now, 1 out of 50 of us. they think and act like their own country in many respects. i can only imagine how many will eventually comprise the EU government.

Eurocrats are roundly condemned by themselves above all as wasters, in my experience. However, I think that the lessson of the USA teaches us that centralised bureacuracies are like antlions. You can struggle all you like and you slide faster into the centre.

I like JS Mill's stance:

The objections to government interference, when it is not such as to involve infringement of liberty, may be of three kinds.

 

The first is, when the thing to be done is likely to be better done by individuals than by the government. Speaking generally, there is no one so fit to conduct any business, or to determine how or by whom it shall be conducted, as those who are personally interested in it.

...

The second objection is more nearly allied to our subject. In many cases, though individuals may not do the particular thing so well, on the average, as the officers of the government, it is nevertheless desirable that it should be done by them, rather than by government, as a means to their own mental education

[Cantousent]

I've been scratching my head trying to figure out why I hadn't heard a response from Steve. It occurs to me that he now sports a moderator tag. However, that doesn't mean that he can't engage in heated debate with the inmates. I do disagree with your stance, but I've always respected your ability to argue your case, Steve. If you throw a few punches and maybe a jab or two, I won't complain about it to anyone! :Cant's friendly grin icon:

 

It's a lie! He says that then starts blubbing like a toddler!

 

I'd report you right now, but what good would it do? *grumble mumble weep*

[Walsingham]

Prince Andrew was a helicopter pilot

[Cantousent]

Prince Andrew was a helicopter pilot

 

Which is quite safe, so it doesn't count. :Cant's slight smile with a raised eyebrow icon:

[metadigital]

Prince Andrew was a helicopter pilot

So the emphasis in your comment was "Army". I see.

[Walsingham]

Cme on, Meta you know me well enough to know when I say Army I mean the Army. Not the Forces.

 

And yeah, Cant, I didn't mean to do the man down. helicoptering in the Falklands was hardly light duties. The casualty list tells you that. I was simply talking about an Army example.

[SteveThaiBinh]

What a surprise, Steve. You know, if it looked, even a little, as if the kid were trying to avoid going to the war, then he'd be pilloried. Folks would call him a coward or worse. Now, if he insists on fulfilling what he undoubtedly feels is his obligation, then folks can charge him with being selfish. How pathetic.

 

He is a member of the armed services. As such, he should fulfill whatever obligations are necessary to act within the role of his commission. That's regardless of how many people want to make it a no win situation for the prince. Even if some so-called "Objective" arbiter made the decision that he should not serve in Iraq, folks would still blame the royal family. After all, it would have been fixed. Undoubtedly it would be a conspiracy. :Eldar's disgusted look icon:

 

...And what message would it send to the good people of Great Britain? Folks already claim that money and power insulate the rich from risk. When one of the royal family, as part of a regular deployment, is sent to a war zone, he's just getting "what he wants regardless of the consequences."

 

It's not even that I'm a fan of the royal family. Mostly, I don't care about them. Still, your argument seems particularly unfair. Of course, I'm not surprised.

OK, here goes.

 

No-one is accusing Harry of cowardice - indeed it would be absurd to do so. His uncle Andrew saw active service in the Falklands - being royal is no guarantee that you won't be sent into harm's way. To join the modern army is to expect to go to war. I would also imagine that when he joined he was told that there might be circumstances in which his celebrity would make it impossible for him to be sent into certain situations, for the reasons I mentioned. There was a great deal of press speculation and pundit commentry at the time, and the consensus was that that the way it had to be. There was no suggestion that this would be Harry's decision - therefore the question of his bravery doesn't enter into it. It is, I believe, a Ministry of Defence/Clarence House decision.

 

And it's with these two unpleasant institutions that I have the problem. Clarence House (the Prince of Wales' office) used, then briefed against and sought publicly to villify Princess Diana. I don't doubt Harry or William's sincerity in joining the army to serve their country, but I also will admit that I suspect the royal courtiers of pushing them to do so in the hope that some of the public's respect for the armed forces (still reasonably high) will rub off on a very tarnished Royal Family.

 

The Ministry of Defence - well, don't get me started, but their latest triumph was holding in their possession for years a video tape that shed light on how a British soldier was killed by friendly fire while simultaneously lying to his widow that such a tape did not exist. I could go on about soldiers killed because they'd been ordered to give up their protective clothing, refusal to accept Gulf War Syndrome despite mounting scientific evidence, closure of military hospitals, etc. It's part of the Blair spin machine now, and headlines are king.

 

Harry is not and can never be just another anonymous soldier. He's third in line to the throne. There is a real decision to be made, case by case, as to whether his celebrity is an acceptable factor or one that potentially interferes with mission objectives. Everyone knows that. No-one thinks it's cowardice on his part. If it's only his military commanders making the judgement, then I'm reasonably happy, but if its the MoD and Clarence House, I don't trust their objectivity. They have other agendas.

 

I'm aware that in the US, much has been made of whether senators or administration officials would send their own family to the war that they voted for. Michael Moore has been very theatrical on this issue, if I recall correctly. I don't think you can compare the two issues. Harry is a bigger celebrity than a senator's son, and the fact that he may at times need to be specially shielded is not controversial in the UK, I think, it's seen a matter of making his honourably-motivated presence operationally viable and useful.

[Cantousent]

Well, for what it's worth, my wife agrees with your position. Her reasoning is a bit different, however. She think sending the youngest is okay if his unit is called. She does not think the next in line should be called to the war. Frankly, I still say that, wherever they're assigned, the royal family should fulfill their obligation. On the other hand, I don't really think about the royal family very often. :D

[metadigital]

There is another consideration, too: aristocracy (and royalty in extremis) gain rank much faster than others (call it a hangover from when the aristocracy paid for their own regiments), so a member of the royal family wouldn't be a grunt (at all) for much time ... the fact that both the Princes are serving as soldiers is pretty amazing in itself. I'd have expected them to be made Officers of some level beyond skirmishes almost before they passed basic training. After all, they are "born to command". (Yes, I am aware that in order to command it is necessary to learn to follow, but in my experience Britain isn't. ;p )