The Brit royals send their kids to war

01.21.13 - 5:20 pm | Tim Redmond |

(23)

Prince Harry is on the front lines. Not the Bush kids.

I'm not a big supporter of our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I've learned not to glorify military service, which often ends very badly, but I have to say: It's always interested me that when Britain is at war, the kids of the royal family are sent to fight, too. It's an ancient tradition, I guess, but it still goes on -- and it's very different from the United States. Here, people with names like Bush don't go to Vietnam; they get a cush job with the National Guard. Or if their name is Cheney they're just too busy. Any chance at all the the daughters of the president who sent thousands of others to die in the desert would be called to active duty? Nah; they're out partying.

You think maybe presidents and members of Congress would feel a little differently about these pointless military engagements if their own kids were flying the planes?

Comments

Not like the royal family is making the call

On starting or stopping the war so the comparison is not quite apples to apples.

Posted by D. native on Jan. 21, 2013 @ 6:35 pm

Tim makes a good point

And a worthwhile one - most senators and reps do not have any family member in the armed services and rarely has a president.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Jan. 21, 2013 @ 6:48 pm

It makes me ill listening to

It makes me ill listening to draft dodging chicken hawks like rush and Cheney.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 21, 2013 @ 8:41 pm

Window dressing?

Not everyone in Britain supports the anachronism of the royal family taking up tax money to live lavishly while the rest of the population is asked to endure austerity. Remember when Prince Charles' chauffeur accidentally took a wrong turn and steered the royal Rolls Royce into a working class neighborhood last year, and almost got them lynched?

The royals want to show that they're pulling their weight, so to speak. But is Prince Harry ever in any real danger? Somehow I think that everybody in his unit is tasked with keeping him safe from harm.

The royals are a bunch of anachronistic parasites whose time has come and gone. They should turn their palaces into museums and make them get real jobs for a change.

Posted by Greg on Jan. 21, 2013 @ 9:50 pm

Actually the car was accidently steered into a protest

not a "working class" neighborhood. You really need to brush up - support for the monarchy is around 80% and much higher amongst the "working class" than the elite.

It's also inappropriate for you to tell other people what kind of government they need to have. Unless you're British (and I know you aren't) it's really none of your damn business.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Jan. 21, 2013 @ 10:06 pm

Har

We're Americans. Isn't that what we do -telling other people what kind of government they need to have?

Or is that only OK when the government is one that you personally don't approve of?

I'll have to save this post and quote it every time you criticize a foreign government.

Posted by Greg on Jan. 21, 2013 @ 10:25 pm

Progressives like you enjoy telling everyone else how to run

their lives, their families, their states and their countries. You always know better than everyone else and you aren't shy about sharing your opinions.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Jan. 22, 2013 @ 9:52 am

Why it's big troll lie number eight!!!

"Progressives ... enjoy telling everyone else how to run their lives, their families, their states, and their countries."

No. It's the reactionary right that constantly seeks to compel people into dead-end jobs and usurious lending agreements; to legislate medical procedures and patient's relations with their doctors, etc.

It is the reactionary right and their right wing Democrat allies who are constantly seeking to impose U.S. control over foreign states to benefit the power elites here and abroad.

Good catch Greg.

Lucretia, at times, *seems* to have some sense -- and others here on occasion have mistaken her as having a worthwhile opinion -- but the reality is *quite* to the contrary.

Lucretia is akin to the Warner Bros. cartoon "Tasmanian Devil" spinning around and snarling.

If you try hard, it is possible imagine intelligible words describing valid concepts emanating from her weathered hole, but in fact it is only the grunting sound of hot halitosis-riven air and spittle flying past gnarled yellowed teeth and rotten gums.

Sound and fury signifying nothing.

Posted by lillipublicans on Jan. 22, 2013 @ 12:31 pm

"Lucretia, at times, *seems*

"Lucretia, at times, *seems* to have some sense..."

Damn rare times. S/he seems to have abandoned the "Troll II" run. S/he also has multiple personalities and you never know which one will show up here. It can be the forced overly syrupy sweet one on the odd occasion, but most often it's the B/Witch one who sounds completely insane, rude, crude, full of bile, venom, anger, rage and out of control and craving attention from anyone who will write the B/Witch a post. Best to ignore.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 22, 2013 @ 3:21 pm

But you don't ignore

You keep commenting on Lucretia. Clearly you are B/Witched by Lucretia. That's not surprising - Lucretia has that effect on many people. What Lucretia wants - Lucretia gets.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Jan. 22, 2013 @ 3:30 pm

The left doesn't want to tell you what food to eat

and where? Where you can send your kids to school? If you can buy bottled water on municipal property? What kind of bag you can use at the store and how much it costs? What you can charge for rent? Whether you should drive or not? What kind of taxi or car service you can use?

The left is as controlling as the right - there's not much difference between them other than the areas they want to control.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Jan. 22, 2013 @ 3:48 pm

Like I said, a big troll lie is one that gets told over and over

and is defended to the end.

Okay, I'll pretend to bit: where, Lucretia, has the Left ever told anyone what food they must eat and where/where you can send your kids to school/etc., etc.?

Posted by lillipublicans on Jan. 22, 2013 @ 4:46 pm

Oh here in San Francisco for example

Where the SFUSD send kids to whatever school they decide is best for them no matter where you live. You can request a school but you're not guaranteed any of your choices. My neighbor didn't get one of her top 15.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Jan. 22, 2013 @ 4:59 pm

Choice is tyranny in the mind of the Right

In many cities, you have NO choice. Zero. None. The government tells you that your kids WILL go the school closest to your house. It doesn't matter if that school is your first choice or your 58th. You have no say in the matter. Don't like it? You're welcome to move. Don't have that option? Tough.

Here in SF, we try to incorporate choice. We give people options. 85% get one of their top 3, but of course some schools have fewer spots than people desiring them. So not everyone gets what they want, but at least we try.

You market ideologues would probably put those spots up for auction to the highest bidder. Don't like your choice? Tough, make some more money.

Posted by Greg on Jan. 22, 2013 @ 6:10 pm

Oh I do

I can afford to send my kids to private school. What else I can afford to do is rent my single family home in San Francisco to someone who's not protected by rent control, since rent control doesn't cover single family homes, AND take advantage of my Prop 13 protections to make BIG bucks - while shmucks like you keep footing my property tax bills because I have an attorney who figures this all out for me!!

See - it's genius. You're merrily dancing around a bonfire consuming your own future and that of your kids!! And I'm getting richer!!!

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Jan. 22, 2013 @ 8:29 pm

Learn a thing or two about

Learn a thing or two about the "costs of the royal family" before you go off spewing idiotic nonsense. The royals money comes from land leases which are perpetually held in a trust that cant be sold or owned by a sovereign. The income from these lands has always exceeded the "cost" of having the royal family.
In 2007-8 the lands generated 200 million and the cost of running the royal family was around 40 m.

Posted by Greg_the_diKC on Jan. 23, 2013 @ 12:59 pm

Yes, Greg, but isn't it also true that the Royal Family never

had to pay income tax on any of that income until very recently, after a public outcry about that?

Queen Victoria, apparently, was dismayed that her family had no money or assets outside what came with the throne and, perhaps fearing a French-style revolution, took steps to ensure the financial dynasty we now see with the Windsors. Two of the four royal homes now belong to the family, not the crown.

Goes to show how fast a portfolio can grow, compounding for 150 years, if only one doesn't have to ever pay tax.

Posted by anon on Jan. 23, 2013 @ 1:07 pm

The queen also doesnt have to

The queen also doesnt have to carry a passport or have a drivers license. They call it the mystery of the monarchy. Who cares. You spend your entire life as the embodiment of a nation and let me know how it goes.

Posted by Greg_the_diKC on Jan. 23, 2013 @ 1:38 pm

Incest will do that to you everytime

Feel me?

Posted by anon on Jan. 23, 2013 @ 2:03 pm

Actually didn't Biden's son serve overseas?

Either Iraq or Afghanistan. I know McCains son also served overseas.

Posted by D. native on Jan. 22, 2013 @ 6:34 am

Eddie Izzard : "That's one F-ing Saved Queen!"

"Unless you're British (and I know you aren't) it's really none of your damn business."

Here's a Brit who appears to think that it's our business. So much so that he brought his act to the U.S. It's hilarious

http://www.frequency.com/video/god-save-queen-eddie-izzard/50581852

Posted by Guest on Jan. 22, 2013 @ 3:50 pm

Any excuse to meddle in other's affairs

Is one a progressive will take!

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Jan. 22, 2013 @ 4:35 pm

Tim's keywords/tags for this

Tim's keywords/tags for this article are:

"Afghanistan, George W. Bush, Iraq War"

It's not just George W. Bush. Where's Obama's name, as well as the D and R congress which are complicit in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Are you not aware that during his first term Obama escalated Afghanistan and talked about doing so during his first campaign? It's curious (sarcasm) Obama's name is missing as well as the words "Democrats" and "Republicans."

Your keywords are very partisan. Partisans don't hold as much credibility as those who are objective in my opinion, because they are biased, as revealed by your choice of keywords.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 22, 2013 @ 5:32 pm