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.

 

UK Prince rebukes U.S. on Iraq

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Phoenix_ Oral hygiene? whats that about, don't tell me your actually believe the whole british bad teeth thing, that's pretty ignorant lol.


Ok, just out of ignorance, then...why do they call them "National Health Teeth"?

Edit to stay on topic:
...mind you Andrew has lovely teeth. Educated in Canada, I believe.

[edit on 5-2-2008 by JohnnyCanuck]




posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck


Ok, just out of ignorance, then...why do they call them "National Health Teeth"?

Edit to stay on topic:
...mind you Andrew has lovely teeth. Educated in Canada, I believe.

[edit on 5-2-2008 by JohnnyCanuck]


I don't know, all I know is that somebody who says something like that would be in for a shock if they ever come to some parts of London lol. he probably thinks it's a place full of posh people who talk like the queen, and all those other stereotypes etc, quite the opposite lol.

Anyway we should really stay on topic hahaha, teeth?



[edit on 5-2-2008 by _Phoenix_]



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


Humor, humor...nothing more =)

Honestly, I would (mostly) agree with your generalizations. I think stereotypes are grounded in....well...some truth. You are correct that there are a whole bunch of toothless rednecks in America – some are in my family. How can I deny the logic in your post? =)

In all seriousness, it was a gross, inaccurate generalization intended (I hopped) to spark some banter back and forth. Sometimes, IMO, we get so wrapped up in debating this or that and the connection that makes us all human and connected gets lost.

Are there some in Britain that should find a toothbrush? Are there rednecks over here that could stand a shower, education and benefit from AA meetings? Of course and of course that’s a (funny I think) stereotype.

I apologize for ruffling feathers in a way not intended. I appreciate your wit in your return post and welcome any other shots across my bow!



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 04:05 PM
link   
ahhh you were talking about our teeth!
No probs mate,good point in future is to perhaps make it funny or use one of those smile icon thingys on the right.

use one of these
and you can say nearly anything!



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 



Now that did make me laugh.I think charles has the worst teeth or is it princess Anne?Must be her,looks like a horse ready for the glue factory



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by noangels
 


I think those horses may have rubbed off on her
during her 3 day eventing career.




[edit on 5/2/2008 by budski]



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 04:15 PM
link   
lol yeahh,you are on to something there!

mind you Zara phillips is no nag



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 04:15 AM
link   
Anyway...back to the topic...
I do find it quite ironic that Budski refers to the cost of funding Prince Andrew and the Royal Family - "which we pay for". It's true that taxes fund a large amount of the Royal Family's lives each year. However, since the Duke of York was talking about the Iraq conflict, it's worth pointing out the glaring discrepancy between paying for the Royal household and paying for the most costly conflict since WW2. The former costs the average UK taxpayer about 65p a year. The Iraq farce costs American and British tax payers a hell of a lot more than that. Have a look here for some guidance as to exactly how much.

Furthermore, the Royal Family is not responsible for 4,000 soldiers killed, 60,000 wounded, 700,000 Iraqi deaths and 4 million refugees. And they aren't asking for an increase in their budget.

You can call them both evils if you wish, if you are a staunch republican (in the UK sense) I'm unlikely to sway your opinion here, I should think - but if they ARE both evils, I know which I would consider to be the lesser of the two.

LW



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 04:32 AM
link   
reply to post by LoneWeasel
 


Whats ironic about it?

Lots of people know I DON'T support the war in iraq or afghanistan.



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 05:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
Another fine reason why we need a republic in Britain.

Unelected, anti-democratic, tyrants and traitors to us citizen should not be getting involved in politics. The so called "Prince" should do me a favour and leave the UK, with his dappy family members and dictator of a mother Elizabeth Windsor.




are you for real, I for one am glad of the many levers of british governance in the form of the judiciary, the civil service, the foreign office, the House of Lords and even the Royals against a so called "democratic" political class which is separate corrupt class which thinks the state is there for its resources and benefit, and has nepotism which is worse than a "Birth" driven royal system.



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 06:12 AM
link   
reply to post by blueorder
 


I'm against the royals for one simple reason - we pay millions per year to help keep the richest woman in the world in the style she is accustomed to.

I have no problem with having a german figurehead - but why pay them when they are already so rich - over 6 billion the queen is worth.
OK a lot of that is from land "owned" by them etc, but IMO they should pay their own way.

Come to that, how did they get the land?
That's right - they inherited it from people who took it from others by force and used them as slave labour.

A constitutional monarchy we are not - more like the last vestiges of imperialism.



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 06:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by budski
I'm against the royals for one simple reason - we pay millions per year to help keep the richest woman in the world in the style she is accustomed to.


I personally don't have any issues with the queen getting this dosh, particularly as the well established economic boost to the economy from Royal inspired tourism dwarfs anything she receives from the state.

Perhaps some sort of cull on the "lesser" royals would be beneficial, and oul Andy's use of the jet for golf is a classic example!




I have no problem with having a german figurehead - but why pay them when they are already so rich - over 6 billion the queen is worth.
OK a lot of that is from land "owned" by them etc, but IMO they should pay their own way.


fair enough, Ive no issue due to the reason above, the billions brought in via tourism-



Come to that, how did they get the land?
That's right - they inherited it from people who took it from others by force and used them as slave labour.



1. In 1066, William the Conqueror & his men took over the lands of Harold & the Anglo-Saxon nobility. For ordinary farmers, this was merely a change in overlords. Domesday Book records this.

2. The monarch, in medieval times, was the largest landowner in the kingdom. It is this land which has always provided the bulk, or a very large part, of royal income. In the medieval period, the largest aristocratic & ecclesiaistical landholders 'held their lands of the king', ie, they supplied him with fighting men when needed, or paid money in lieu. These 'tenants-in-chief' had subtenants, who did the same in return for the land they 'held'.

3. In the 15th century, all this changed into a market-based landlord/tenant relationship which then developed into what we see today. Aristocratic landowners had long since become independent of the Crown. The Crown estates developed in exactly the same way: the royal family are landowners in exactly the same sense as any others. As with them, land management improved considerably in the 19th century & more so in the 20th.





A constitutional monarchy we are not - more like the last vestiges of imperialism.




I think the debate on the monarchy is a minor sideshow in comparison with the loss of freedom, civil service independence, parliamentary disgregard, corruption, nepotism etc shown by the politcal class, the alleged "democractic" arm of our state



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 06:46 AM
link   
This topic is about what Prince Andrew said.

And I think he had a valid point.

Just because he is a "Royal" doesn't mean hes not entitled to an opinion, and , as a serving officer in the Navy, I would suggest his opinion on this matter is a damn site more valid than those of elected politicians who have never set foot in a warzone in their life without being escorted by heavily armed security forces who "lock down" the areas they travel to

[edit on 6/0208/08 by neformore]



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 07:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by blueorder


I think the debate on the monarchy is a minor sideshow in comparison with the loss of freedom, civil service independence, parliamentary disgregard, corruption, nepotism etc shown by the politcal class, the alleged "democractic" arm of our state


Well said, Blueorder - the fact of the matter is that the Queen has an absolutely negligible effect on your democratic rights, whereas the government you elected seems to have made the erosion of those rights part of its strategy and raison d'etre.

LW

P.S neformore - if your avatars get any more alluring, I may have to transfer my affections from Cheryl to Nicola, even despite Mrs Cole's current difficulties...



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 08:06 AM
link   
Somebody give the Duke of York 10,000 men and see what he can do to improve the situation out there in Iraq instead



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 08:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by citizen smith
Somebody give the Duke of York 10,000 men and see what he can do to improve the situation out there in Iraq instead


I'm not sure thats a good idea.

They'd have problems with hills



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 08:27 AM
link   
Hell, If it was up to me I'd get rid of all of them.
Round them up and shoot the whole damn lot!
Politicians that is, of all kinds.
They have failed us miserably.
Democracy?

Don't make me laugh, voting once every 5 years for a different shade of blue so that they can then go and do whatever they please with no accountability at all.
That's not democracy in my book.

I'd rather be governed by a family of German Greeks than continue this farce.


Andrew has got it bang on this time.

[edit on 6-2-2008 by Freeborn]



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by LoneWeasel
Well said, Blueorder - the fact of the matter is that the Queen has an absolutely negligible effect on your democratic rights, whereas the government you elected seems to have made the erosion of those rights part of its strategy and raison d'etre.
LW



couldn't have put it better, and one should consider that other target of the "modernisers" and trumpeters of "democracy"- the House of Lords, it is their lack of political/elected status, in my opinion, that has helped them prevent / delay many of the assaults on our freedom by the elected class- not least of which recent "incitment" laws




P.S neformore - if your avatars get any more alluring, I may have to transfer my affections from Cheryl to Nicola, even despite Mrs Cole's current difficulties...


disturbingly, I find myself attracted to the ginger one in that avatar!



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


The point is, that the royals are not supposed to interfere in politics - and that's what he's doing.

If he wants to put forth his opinion, let him write to the letters page in the times, not berate elected heads of state - he has no business doing this.



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


Seriously ? What gives someone the right to an opinion ? And who are you to say he shouldn't have one .
I think EVERYONE should stand up for what they believe in . Especially if there right.
Hopefully this will start others not "in the know" To question whats going on . I think he in the perfect position to make an educated opinion on this . Heck you are all here spouting yours and i am willing to bet most of you have never even seen a battlefield let alone ever been in a position to make a difference.

So if you want to take his right to voice an opinion away . Its probably best if you start by example and not have one yourself



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join