It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US Troop Increase, really protection for Prince Harry?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 12:45 PM
link   
As many of you may have recently seen, news channels have been paying a lot of attention to both the "US troop increase in Iraq" and "Prince Harry of Wales being deployed in Iraq". Now it is my little suspicion that this troop increase is really for the protection of Prince Harry. If President Bush wanted an increase, why now? He could have done it months ago. The idea that he was waiting for the results from this past Novembers election, holds no water. Prince Harry will be deployed in Iraq, according to reports, in May of this year. The Bush administration has said, in response to the increase that, "We will know in the coming months if it has worked." I ask you this, what is happening in the coming months??? Harry's deployment to Iraq.

I may or may not be wrong, but I think this is something worth looking into.




posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 12:53 PM
link   
If it was for prince Harry it would be the UK sending troops. Uncle Bush might care about prince Harry, but not so much that he would send 20.000 US body guards.



posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 01:01 PM
link   
oh but isn't cheeky Harry the Anti-Christ? Oh no, thats Charles...or is it William


I can't see the Americans giving a damn about protecting Harry. Unless you go in for the whole Bush is related to him, blah, blah. Which could possibly be true. But by using the same logic, so am I.



posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 01:03 PM
link   
But as we know, Bush and the British are in bed together under the whole NWO conspiracy. And as we also know, the British are to timid to get involved to deeply in anything, therefore it would make perfect sense is the British asked for the, as you say, "20,000 US body guards." It's all part of a bigger picture, and it's all unfolding right in front of our faces, but nobody is realizing.



posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 02:37 PM
link   
Yeah, I dunno, sounds like quite a stretch to me. Kind of like trying to find something there that's really not. Could it just be that we're sending more troops over because the job isn't getting done in Iraq? They are putting up more of a fight than we thought so we need more troops? Yeah, that sounds more likely. Who'd want to protect that little snot anyway??



posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 02:41 PM
link   
I don't think that the US government cares enough about a spoiled British royal to send 20,000 Americans to babysit him.



posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 06:30 PM
link   
I think maybe this will happen!


1st Lt Prince Harry Whales will fall in combat, thus causing a massive assault by British and American forces that has never been seen before.



posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 07:27 PM
link   
wouldn't the Prince be stationed with the British forces deployed
in-&-around the Basra areas & the Ports adjacent to Kuwait?

the US 'Surge' troops that you mentioned, are for Baghdad proper (mostly ?Green-Zone?)
and the secret is that the first 20-21,000 troop deployment are only the first phase.... for the reason, is that an effective force the military must have 3X the first deployment so that a full 3 shifts of troops can monitor/search-destroy the insurgents in the metro area (of 5 million Iraqis) of Baghdad

Let's watch & see IF, Prince William (poster boy for recruitment) doesn't come down with an 'inopportune' case of appendicitis or some other ailment after a very brief tour-of-duty in Iraq....then after a 'recovery' get redeployed to Afghanistan where an abundance of NATO personnel are in concert with the coalition . serving there, He will 'have faced the enemy' in 2 theatres of action (war hero)........just a potential fictional scenario!?

don't we all CYA as the need arises?


Edn

posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 07:37 PM
link   
Not to sound rude but I don't think the UK would trust the US at protecting Prince Harry not to mention it just wouldn't happen in the first place anyway, we protect our own, especially when it comes to the royal family.



posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 08:05 PM
link   
You honestly believe that President Bush is sending 20,000 troops against the will of the majority of Americans is to "protect" Prince Harry? Even the thought of sending 20,000 more Americans to stabilize the country sounds ridiculous... let alone to act as bodyguards to Prince Harry.



posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 05:34 AM
link   
I cant believe the British Government would allow prince harry anywhere near american troops.
Can you imagine the fallout if there was another in a long line of "friendly fire"incidents.



posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 05:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by TehLoneGunman
As many of you may have recently seen, news channels have been paying a lot of attention to both the "US troop increase in Iraq" and "Prince Harry of Wales being deployed in Iraq". Now it is my little suspicion that this troop increase is really for the protection of Prince Harry. If President Bush wanted an increase, why now? He could have done it months ago. The idea that he was waiting for the results from this past Novembers election, holds no water. Prince Harry will be deployed in Iraq, according to reports, in May of this year. The Bush administration has said, in response to the increase that, "We will know in the coming months if it has worked." I ask you this, what is happening in the coming months??? Harry's deployment to Iraq.

I may or may not be wrong, but I think this is something worth looking into.



Harry will be in the Basra area. The "surge" troops will be in Anbar province, and Baghdad.

Were you sober when you posted this? It's way out there, not to mention pretty funny.



posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 08:43 AM
link   
The US troops are just as likely to shoot a British troop as an Iraqi. The British government wouldn't trust them to look after him.

I'm sure he will have a couple of SAS babysitters when he goes over and he will be kept as far away from the Yanks as possible.



posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 09:00 AM
link   
A million men to Babylon, I tell you - Finish the damn thing and install another CIA sympathetic dictator - oops,

That was my inner neo-con talking.

Well good for Prince Harry - at least the royal family occasionally still exemplifies the courage and character of leadership.

I don't think he's sent the troops for Harry. It's hard to imagine what he's thinking with all the half-hearted bungling that's gone into Iraq.



posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 09:32 AM
link   
i was going to quote a few folks but as read this i thought wtf are you folks on ?????
I mean really 20 thou troops for 1 man


Andrew showed his true colours in the Falklands and he had no babysitters, he just got on with his job ( commendably too, even from his fellow aviators)

The rest of this thread:
What are you trying to put forward? Its all dross/speculation/having a dig/downright nonsense.

end ex



posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 10:48 AM
link   
Prince harry will never see any action!!!!



posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 11:31 AM
link   
Why not?

There have been many examples of Royals in combat, most recently in the Falklands with Prince Andrew.

I think this theory is bloody stupid, mind you, but all the crap you guys are throwing at Harry is uncalled for. He passed the course same as any other cadet and is doing the job, same as any other. He has expressed a desire to not treated any differently, other wise he would quit as there would be no point.



posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
Why not?

There have been many examples of Royals in combat, most recently in the Falklands with Prince Andrew.

I think this theory is bloody stupid, mind you, but all the crap you guys are throwing at Harry is uncalled for. He passed the course same as any other cadet and is doing the job, same as any other. He has expressed a desire to not treated any differently, other wise he would quit as there would be no point.


Agree with Stumason. His father did not want him to go; Harry actually chose himself to go to Iraq. Respect for his brave decision, unlike others, he was in the position to refuse deployment.



posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 11:47 AM
link   
One of the funniest thread ideas I've seen, Hahaha


20,000 US troops to protect Our prince Hahaha




posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 12:23 PM
link   
Id be more worried about our guys shooting him than the other guys *end humor*


but seriously i didnt know that the british were in baghdad where most of the troops are going....



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join