There's something RIGHT in the state of Denmark

[carebear]

RIOT,

We're both wrong.

It's a Canadian C7 (Canuck-produced Colt M16 pattern rifle) variant.

Good call on the scope. :eusa_clap

The C7 has been developed to the C7A1, with a Picatinny rail on the upper receiver for a C79 optical sight, and to the C7A2, with different furniture and internal improvements.

The C7 and C8 are also used by H?¶rens Jegerkommando, Marinejegerkommandoen and NORSOF Task Group (Norway), Military of Denmark (all branches), the Royal Netherlands Army and Netherlands Marine Corps as its main infantry weapon. Following trials, variants became the weapon of choice of the British SAS.

 

[RIOT]

Ah, those copies! I should have known seeing that the Canadian made Elcan was used. Thanks for the heads up!:cheers1:

 

[Spitfire]

Carebear, did you say the Netherlands???

Before you start telling other people in other countries what to think, maybe you should get hold of your geography.

Denmark is not the Netherlands - and Denmark IS at war. In Afghanistan. Along with your guys. But maybe you haven't noticed that either.
I have the deepest respect for our soldiers there.
But it is kind of hard to have the same respect for the Home Guard, allthough I have nothing against it or the people who spend their weekends there.

But I do have something against royalties who pretend to be interested in joining up, when basically they would rather be shopping.
But what do you know about the crownprincess of the Netherlands

 

[Miss 1929]

Well,

if their Home Guard was being drafted to fight in Afghanistan, the way our National Guard has in Iraq (stop loss=draft), maybe it would be honorable in your eyes to be in the HG?
Any way anyone (royal or not) feels they should serve their country deserves the highest praise. Who is anyone to say which branch of the service is more deserving of respect?
Maybe if George W. had actually served in the Guard instead of running away, he would have more care with the lives of our soldiers. Hopefully this experience will make the Princess more thoughtful than he has been.

 

["Doc" Devereux]

On the other hand, there might be something to be said for a royal to serve in a country they are asking their boys to fight in. But on the other hand, it isn't like the English royal family is sending them off to war.

HRH Prince Andrew, Duke of York, was a helicopter pilot aboard HMS Invincible during the Falklands War and the Queen intervened personally to stop the Admiralty transferring him to a desk job instead. He served a full 22-year term as a career officer in the Royal Navy between 1979 and 1991, retiring from the active list with the rank of Commander.

 

[carebear]

Carebear, did you say the Netherlands???

Before you start telling other people in other countries what to think, maybe you should get hold of your geography.

Denmark is not the Netherlands - and Denmark IS at war. In Afghanistan. Along with your guys. But maybe you haven't noticed that either.
I have the deepest respect for our soldiers there.
But it is kind of hard to have the same respect for the Home Guard, allthough I have nothing against it or the people who spend their weekends there.

But I do have something against royalties who pretend to be interested in joining up, when basically they would rather be shopping.
But what do you know about the crownprincess of the Netherlands

Yes, I said the Netherlands. Shall I have my crow raw or can I grill it a little. :eusa_doh:

Thank you for calling me on the error and my tone.

I got all hot and bothered and typed without thinking, flipped one "D" country with another. As a matter of fact I intended to remove the last bit of my post as it is not Lounge-worthy. I'll leave it up though, as a reminder of what temper can do.

I, of course, appreciate the Danish effort in the "real" post-9/11 war zone. I trained with Danes and Dutch in Norway at a Battle Griffin back in the '90s. Excellent troops from both countries.

Please consider this an apology.

I do continue to have no problem with Royals making the effort. I personally don't like to question a person's motive for signing up, whatever the circumstances, and, call me (correctly) sexist and old-fashioned, but the Home Guard is exactly where a female Royal (among others) should be.

 

[BellyTank]

....and the Prince Harry bit.
He's a ARV guy, really.

B
T

 

[carebear]

....and the Prince Harry bit.
He's a ARV guy, really.

B
T

ARV? Armored Reconnaisance Vehicle?

Not familiar with the acronym.

The Prince commanded a Scimitar (light armored recon vehicle) squadron of vehicles.

I prefer to do my recon on foot. Things that look like little tanks tend to get shot at by things designed to kill real tanks. On foot, it's easier to hide and/or look not worth shooting at.

 

[Vladimir Berkov]

As for the English princes, Prince Harry has more than lived up to his namesake(s) in courage and military character. He was a qualified and proficient Scimitar squadron leader. Only a direct order from the CG kept him out of Iraq with his men against his wishes, which order it was his duty to obey.

If there is a political problem to having an officer being sent overseas, then how is that officer a benefit to the service? One of the original justifications for noblemen serving automatically as officers was that of their divine right to command and rule added to their command authority and was a benefit to the fighting spirit of the regiment. It was thought common soldiers needed aristocratic officers in command positions.

But if the aristocrats are never sent into combat, what's the point? If they enlist as privates, what's the point? IMHO, the only point is that of PR, which is all that royalty is today for the most part. To look good for the masses.

 

[carebear]

That's a question for the bureaucracy. The Prince, in this case, wanted and planned to go.

The high command felt he would actually draw more attacks from the insurgents due to his political position, thus increasing the normal threat to his men.

It'd be different if the Brits were fighting an enemy who abided in any way, shape or form to the Laws of War (like, say, the Argies in '82). But since the only folks that do that anymore are Western(ized) nations and, we are all allies in this fight, the savages apparently get to skew the playing field.

Again, the Prince had to be convinced, and even then ordered, to not go.

If there is a political problem to having an officer being sent overseas, then how is that officer a benefit to the service? One of the original justifications for noblemen serving automatically as officers was that of their divine right to command and rule added to their command authority and was a benefit to the fighting spirit of the regiment. It was thought common soldiers needed aristocratic officers in command positions.

But if the aristocrats are never sent into combat, what's the point? If they enlist as privates, what's the point? IMHO, the only point is that of PR, which is all that royalty is today for the most part. To look good for the masses.

 

[carter]

This looks like service to me.

Military Service by Queen Elizabeth II and her family.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/05/17/europe/EU-GEN-Britain-Royals-Military.php

This doesn't appear to be a matter of weekend drills and a bit of training in the summer.
This appears to be what is expected within the royal family. This is both traditional education and preparation for those who are in the line of succession to the throne.

 

[Tommydean]

looks like an AR to me.. i would get rid of those mags.. put in some Mag-pull
P-mags.
Tom

 

[Edward]

[QUOTE="Doc" Devereux]HRH Prince Andrew, Duke of York, was a helicopter pilot aboard HMS Invincible during the Falklands War and the Queen intervened personally to stop the Admiralty transferring him to a desk job instead. He served a full 22-year term as a career officer in the Royal Navy between 1979 and 1991, retiring from the active list with the rank of Commander.[/QUOTE]

I do wonder what changed between 1982 - when Andrew was apparently right on the front line (though his big brother, being the next in line to the throne, was not permitted to serve there) and now, when Harry asn't allowed to go to Iraq. Cynical I may be, but without getting too far into the politics, it seems to me that while the Falklands was a very popular war (and no doubt instrumental in Thatcher's 1983 win, unpopular as she had been at home prior to that conflict), Iraq being such a controversial action, you can only imagine how much worse it would be for the government had Harry Wales come back in a bodybag. I'm certain that had far more ever to do with it all than him being too high profile a target.

I'll be interested to see what happens in the next generation of Royals (if, indeed, there is one) - will they too be expected to go into the military, or will Edward Windsor be only the first to break with this tradition?

 

["Doc" Devereux]

I think, Edward, that you're quite right about reaction to Prince Harry coming home in anything other than a healthy condition, but that's exactly what would make him a high-profile target. As Carebear says, that would be damned bad news for his men, too, and probably get in the way of their contribution in theatre.

And can you imagine the reaction if a prince of the realm were taken hostage? The government would find themselves in an impossible position. Much as I applaud the prince's desire to go with his men, in this case the situation required his absence. It was a political decision, yes - but also one of acceptable strategic risk.

Mind you, the Admiralty apparently didn't originally want Prince Andrew to go south - so make of that what you will.

 

[Edward]

I wonder, when eventually the monarchy is replaced with an elective figurehead, whether we'll see a similar debate concerning the children of a future president?

 

[Staredge]

[QUOTE="Doc" Devereux] And can you imagine the reaction if a prince of the realm were taken hostage? The government would find themselves in an impossible position. Much as I applaud the prince's desire to go with his men, in this case the situation required his absence. It was a political decision, yes - but also one of acceptable strategic risk.

[/QUOTE]

I think this was more the worry. As I recall, the press said that there weren't going to be any special markings to denote his presence in his unit. Of course, if the press would keep their bloody mouths shut, no one would have known he was there to begin with!

 

[carebear]

I wonder, when eventually the monarchy is replaced with an elective figurehead, whether we'll see a similar debate concerning the children of a future president?

Having given this at least 30 seconds thought, I'd say "no".

The Monarchy reigns (this is within the internal but still valid mythology of monarchy of course) by a right not originally "granted by the people" but rather by some higher power, therefore with that right come particular responsibilities and duties for the people and land but not owed to them directly, if that makes sense. Part of your right to reign is being willing to fight and die for the land and people given to your care by that higher power, your children will (could) inherit that position and thus have the same duties and responsiblities you have.

In contrast, when you are elected you don't "reign", you are merely a citizen like anyone else and have only the responsibilities and duties of any other citizen. Your position of authority is granted, is temporary and can be revoked. Your children do not stand to inherit your elective position and thus are free to do whatever they want to as individuals.

They should have no more expectation than you did at their age or as has the baker's children. To expect something from an elected official's children that is not demanded from every other citizen's child is to start to place the elected in a more "monarchial" standing. Which we have tended to do in this country since Washington.

 

[Spitfire]

If the press kept their mouth shut, there would be no reason for royalties to go, would there?

 

[carebear]

If the press kept their mouth shut, there would be no reason for royalties to go, would there?

I think once the country decides to go to war, the royals are on the hook to some degree.

I'd agree the way to avoid anyone having to go to war is to pick the wars better.

But that heads straight into politics.

 

[Edward]

Carebear, that makes sense. The comments over the Bush kids were the same, I gather, as might have been said of Tony Blair and whoever else: would they have been as much in favour of going to war if their own kids were going to be sent to fight. Certainly a idfferent consideration. It seems to me that for as long as the monarchy lasts, it makes sense that they be pressed into military service if they are going to be the (nominal) heads of regiments at a future date. Personally, though, I'd prefer it if it was all a bit more upfront that they were being trained to gain an insight into what their men would face rather than the hyperbole about "serving the country" when it's patently obvious they'll never be allowed in the way of any real harm. But hey.... I'm sure they're damned if they do and damned if they don't.