KEY POINTS:
Prince Harry will not now be going after reported plans by insurgent groups to kidnap and kill Harry.
So should he have gone?
This forum debate has now closed. Here is a selection of your views on the topic.
Le Fox
Just because you are in the military, doesn't mean you have to go to Iraq, there are plenty of other hot spots to visit around the world.
It would be nice, if the media, could stop reporting on every place Harry will be,& maybe he would be able to complete his duty without having to worry about placing other soldiers in the firing line, merely because of his possible presence.You are not dealing with rational people. The way Harry is being reported, he will be the same sort after scalp for Arabs, as Bin Laden is for the USA.However, I were an enemy, I would rather be caught by the USA.
Kansas City
I think it's sensible. Prince Harry will be an obvious target - endangering anyone who is with him, not only that but if he did get kidnapped, more lives would be put in danger in order to resuce him. It's not wisdom to give those you are fighting against a target such as that.
Matthew
The military is finally realising people die in war and someone as important as a prince can't be killed, whereas 'lesser' people can be. A rare transparent example of two codes of morality being expressed in society.
Scott Joseph
What is the point of military training for scions of royalty if it is "too dangerous." The British, who 67 years ago where standing alone against the gravest threat to Western Civilization since the fall of Rome, now wimp out to a group of scum. The correct response to their threats should have been, "Touch Harry and you'll start buying body bags by the metric tonne."
Cheesed off!
What a bunch of losers!! What is the point of him training and not going? Or is it that they know the war in Iraq is wrong and are now don't want Harry to die for oil? Or could it be the depleted uranium shells causing cancer killing 1 in 4 Iraqis? How many British PMs and US Congress have family members enrolling for the war in Iraq for that matter. Not many... Gutless wonder.
Roger Philp
Wrong decision - Harry is a serving soldier - the politicians decided to interfere in Iraq there should be no exceptions. An NZ doctor serving in the RAF has been courts-martialed for refusing to serve. Leaders lead they do not hide at home.
Proud Kiwi
I suppose the British have more "disposable" soldiers to send to Iraq rather than put their "adorable" Prince Harry in the line of fire.
In the past the Royal family sat nice and comfortably in safety way behind enemy lines whilst the peasantry of British and ANZACs put their lives at risk. The peasants of both Britian and the ANZACs were viewed as nothing more than cannon fodder by the military hierarchy in World War One. Recently I read an apt statement said by an Indian judge in 1948 about the British. He said "The British are a just lot. They have left India in exactly the same state of chaos as they found it." I think we could apply that statement to Iraq but include the USA as well as Britain in that statement.
John Robb
Commonsense has prevailed and British soldiers will now not be put to further risk protecting this privileged little prat from Iraqi freedom fighters and his own 'Boy's Own' fantasy of being a warrior prince.
Chieftain
The British Army made the wrong decision by not deploying Prince Harry. He is a soldier and a Warrior in the finest tradition. He has been cheated, and has every right to be very angry. If he presented a hi-profile target for the Enemy: good. That's *their* problem, not his, it would make the enemy much easier to find. He's got the lads with him, and they are loyal, and between 'em they could have done Royal damage to the bad guys. Harry should be crapping Thunder right now: I don't blame him. along with his Uncle Andrew, the only useful Royal since WW-II and they squander his talents! Crikey.
Earlier views before the decision was reversed:
Concerned Mum
It is sad that this precious 'boy' wants to put himself in the firing line to feel that he belongs. The British government needs to have a rethink. The US president will not be sending their children to the war zones, not now not ever.If something did happen to Harry, I can visualise every one denying responsibility & the finger pointing to all departments. The constant advertising of his going to the war zone has also set him up as a target. If the insurgents really want to capture him, I am certain they will.....these people are fanatics & do not value life as we see it. Prince Charles should protect his youngest son & decide for Harry to play soldiers at home. I notice that he has not commented about his son or seem concerned at the prospect of losing his boy. It would be a tragedy for Britain & the world, but especially to Prince William should anything happen to Diana's baby boy.
Monty
I don't think this is a good idea; we still do not want to understand this is an oil fight not for human rights.
Mary A
I am amazed to read the comments in this forum stating that Prince Harry if sent to Iraq, will be fighting for his country Britain. Nothing could be further from the truth! The reason the UK is involved in Iraq is because Prince Harry's Grandmother's Prime Minister has his head stuck right up the American President's backside! None of the young military personnel from the US, the UK, Australia and other countries are fighting in defence of their own countries. They are there because of America's greed and desire to dominate the oil fields, thereby giving the US more uncontrolled power, or so they hope! Nothing to do with fighting terrorism or protecting home territories at all!
L. L. Kirk
ho cares if this young foreigner from a foreign country goes to fight in another foreign country to fight in a war that's none of our business. There are a lot more important things for us to worry about.
John
There is no way he should be going into Iraq. It will just create a huge burden on the already stretched personnel around him. They will be concentrating all their focus on protecting him 24/7 which will simply put more soldiers lives at risk and divert resources that would be better utilised elsewhere.
Beans on toast
here will be no caring who Harry is beyond killing him for political and psychological gain. They will hang him in the streets and pull his legs off, a western figurehead degraded in death. War is as much about psychological tactics as it is territorial and ideological victory. Saddam was hanged on national television, Harrys pretty much lining up for the same fate. And while they are at it all the blokes surrounding him will probably die too. Would you wanna watch that at 6pm while you ate your dinner?
Davr0s (Whangaparaoa)
Yes Harry should go. He's a Ginger! If he didn't go the rest of his army mates and public would think that he's just another wannabee with a silver spoon up his bum.If he goes he may put the rest of his platoon in harms way. Whatever he does he will get some sort of rubbishing so the only upside is that if he does go and gets done in; at the end of the day its only another Ginger! Who knows he may sit down with Osama and his mates over a cup of tea or lashings of ginger beer and sort the entire war out!
Tine (Jakarta)
Prince Harry should be able to obtain an opportunity to enhance his military experiences in ways that consistently contribute to his skills with as much as the benefits and minimum potential risks to life as any other soldiers of the British Army. He is however a legitimate heir of the British Imperial Kingdom and thus, by his birth rights, he is entitled to certain privileges including on the life protection against any potential life-threatening situations that may eliminate his chance to surviving the throne or the one of contributory to raising his life to dangers. In this respect, Prince Harry should not be encourage to take up a position in the British Army that leads him to be stationed in Iraq especially at this stage.
Richard
Will that make Harry the first Royal to serve in the Middle East since Richard the First then? If so, hope that he does not make the same mistake and try to return to England via Austria as if he does his arrival might be delayed for some time until the ransom can be raised.
Lizzie
Security or no security, Harry seems as thick as two planks and he'd still manage to fumble his way into a road mine all by himself never mind the insurgents trying to ping him. Remember that Nazi shirt debacle? Anyone who's fully aware of his or her social and public responsibilities (i.e., third in line to the throne) with 1/12th of a normal functioning brain would've known not to wear it at a party. Anyway, I just feel sorry for the soldiers around him who'll, like as not, get it in the necks because of him.
PeterD
No. There shouldn't be any troops in Iraq, let alone a spoiled royal. Tony Blair should have pulled his troops out of Iraq years ago, and England's head out of America's bum years before that.
Sanjbanana
Yes he should go and fight for his country.
Karen Pickford
You have to admire Price Harry for "not sitting on his bum back home" which makes him a genuine career soldier. My only concern is for the men in his unit who are also going to be targets - how do they feel about having a target commanding them? They may prefer him to sit at home and make their lives just that little bit safer.
Kongking
I think Prince Harry will be the last one to have his own say / thought. opinion of his occupation that he have chosen and we should be proud of what hes trying to do for all those innocents lives that have been taken in Iraq. No doubt he will be a good soldier to be with the British troops. I salute you Prince Harry and all the best for your chosen career.
Roy
No, the Royals should not condone this terrible war. However, maybe they want Harry knocked off before he embarrasses them any more or before anyone DNA-types him to find out if he is really Charles' son.
Louise
No. He will get kidnapped and held for ransom or something. It's idiotic! Or what if he gets killed. What controversy that would cause!
Justin
Yes he should go and take his entire family and the Blair family and why not the Bushes and the Howards to ? Just hope we get to see the footage.But seriously he must either be incredibly selfish to put others at risk for his own desires or he is out of touch with reality.
Unbelievable
I can't believe the British Govt would endanger the lives of others for the sake of one young lad who will be targeted above all else.
Vie
First, it's great that Prince Harry is prepared to go on the frontline and do his duty. I would expect nothing less rather from a member of the royal family who draws on the public purse. But given the media publicity surrounding it, I think his presence in Iraq will only jeopardise and increase the risk to other soldiers serving there, not just for the British either. Because when the insurgents hunt out Prince Harry, they'll aim to kill people as a group rather than one individual. So any plan to kill Prince Harry in Iraq will involve the death of many others and not just the British or those in combative role. And chances are, as Iraq insurgents, they may make a few mistakes with identifying the right target. So, while it's only right that Prince Harry do his duty for his country, he poses an even greater risk to the rest of the troops and it will only heighten any anti-western feeling already present there. The Iraqi insurgents will seek his death as their victory and defiance over the western world.
Chris B
I see no reason why anyone who wishes to participate in the war in Iraq should be barred from doing so. Harry has completed all the training and he joined the military to serve his country. So just let him serve. As for him being a target in Iraq thats his choice and the choice of those around him to be with him. I don't believe he should be afforded any extra security than a standard soldier.
Tasssie folk
It is his choice to prove that he is a hero for himself, not for the nation.
Auckland
If they send any Joe Blogg to Iraq then why can't they send Prince Harry. Afterall he signed up to do the job. What's the point if he doesn't do what every other person is called to do in the same position?
Taxman68
Yes of course he should go. But to prove he will be no burden on the British Army, he should first be sent to NZ to take on Jake the Muss! If that won't sort him out, I'm sure the Yankee Doodle Dandy wild 'fire at random' will!
Camryn (Kiwi in US)
No Iraqi insurgent will now where Harry's unit is on a day to day basis or even what he looks like with a helmet one, so this whole "extra security" thing is rubbish. And, if they could kidnap British soldiers they would've been doing it already, Prince or not. So, the "PR issue if he's kidnapped" is rubbish too. He can go serve and there'll be basically no difference to the risks he faces or causes than for any other soldier in his unit.
Jo
It's a no win situation. Is Prince Harry's life more important than other soldiers? Short answer, outside his family, is no. Is sending him to Iraq foolish or heroic? On one hand, he is showing the same willingness to die for his country that his fellow soldiers are. On the other, he will pose an immense risk, not just to himself, but to every person in his unit, not to mention every soldier who resembles him because he will be such a huge target. However, by not sending him, it's a tacit admission that a) his life is more precious than others and b) that there is no real protection over there. And admitting that the British army can't protect Harry is an open invitation to the fanatics - can't protect him, therefore can't protect the others. The propaganda value of sending or not sending him will be huge. Maybe he's showing courage (or maybe the same sort of foolhardy "I'm immortal" attitude that his mother showed). Either way, the fanatics will win.
Rex Hapimana
If it's in the normal course of events that his unit was going to Iraq then of course he should go. He joined the armed forces to serve his country-like all other servicemen / women. How can he train with a unit day in and day out and then as soon as conflict comes he stays behind when they go? If it was never intended he see combat then he should never have joined or at least told the public what we all suspect it really was-a "claytons" recruitment and PR exercise to improve the image of the "royal" (and I use that term extremely loosely) family. Remember, Andrew fought in the Falklands war and he was second in line to the throne at the time.
Hayden
Oh please... he'll be holed up in Gibraltar!
Alf from Auckland
Harry would better serving his country and fellow soldiers by staying, as his presence in Iraq would bring more danger to his soldiers. It is a honorable thing that he want to serve with his soldiers, but he should now look at what increase dangers he will put on his soldiers and the whole British army.
Pat (concerned mum from Maketu)
Why shouldnt Harry go? He joined the army, he wants to go to war zone,he has trained for the war zone, others who joined the army are sent & they are also very very special young men & women. There has been too much publicity about Harry going, When he really could have been, just slipped away with his army comrades,& the public not told & with security kept under wraps.
Manurewa
I see no reason why should not be sent to Iraq if his unit is sent. In fact, there may be a military advantage; he would be the perfect bait for any ambush, if they seek it. He is third in line to the throne, as such there is no special reason for him to be wrapped in cotton wool, he is unlikely to inherit the crown. Instruction to him should be not be taken alive and be an example to the other men. Perhaps, he would be of great propaganda value if he dies with honour.
SC
No, neither Harry nor any other British soldiers should be going to Iraq. Iraq is a tragic mess because of the arrogant intervention of the US and Britain and their other allies, based on blatant lies about weapons of mass destruction, and this has led to hundreds of thousands of deaths of innocent Iraqi people. It is not Harry's country and he has no business being there.
Graham
Yes, he should go to Iraq. If he is killed it will reinforce the mistake made by Britain and the US. The world is a more dangerous place for all of us so why not for Harry.
Jonnyboy
He will put a lot of peoples lives at risk by going over there and if any of them should die because he is over there on possible attempts to injure or kill him he will have the blood of the soldiers on his hands to deal with because of his selfish wishes to go and play Rambo and make himself look like a man. The royal family if they had any common sense should intervene and arrange for him to be sent somewhere else as part of his training and possibly make a difference in a more positive way then risk other peoples lives.
Zenlight69
No, being 3rd in line to the throne. He could be a sitting duck.
Vamsi
I think he should go. If he is not sent on grounds of security of the prince, then the impression the British army and govt send out would be that they are ready to risk lives of ordinary people but not the prince. I think that would be wrong message to new recruits into British army. Also if I were the prince, I would not like to be seen as a coward. If he had no courage to go to war, why did he join the army in the first place? Same for the British Govt. If they were not willing to send him on war, why did they recruit him into the armed forces. Many might not agree with this....but that is my take on Harry.
Angie (Brighton, England)
Of course he should go. He's taken the job and despite some comments on here, he is no more a boy than the rest of the squaddies out there, nor has he had it easy in his army training. His Uncle wasn't shielded from being in action and nor should he be. Yeah, he's third in line to the throne, and that's all he will ever be, third in line. He knows the risks, as do the rest of his family who have been a high priority target of the IRA for the last 30 years. This isn't so different and no-one is saying he will be serving in towns. There is plenty to do in the Iraqi desert without him having to set foot in Basra or anywhere else.
Richard
Harry is to be commended for showing a desire to join his buddies in Iraq. It is an attitude that is reminiscent of an earlier time when kings (and princes) had to set an example for their military forces. This was done by leading from the front and actually joining in the fight. One has to respect that. Alas times have changed and lets be honest he will be an attractive target for insurgents. His presence in Iraq will cause serious headaches (I mean that literally) for those entrusted with his safety. Will his desire for action mean others get hurt or killed while trying to protect him? Harry should stay home, he has proved his point. Him being in Iraq will not add to the mana he already has. Just a side note, I wonder if Harry has shown William up? Considering William is the eldest son and future king, should he have been the one to initiate a desire to serve in action? Just a thought.
Pete (US)
Well, the British screwed up that part of the world to begin with, why shouldn't they go in to try and fix it - all of them.
Mel
Who really cares. Its their business not ours.
Lany (Auckland)
I dont see why we're still sending troops to Iraq. Isnt it obvious that all we are doing is help destroy a country for its oil. Cant we see that that this war is for oil, not the so called 'Nuclear Weapons' that Saddam was hidding. why didnt we just pull out when we realised that, hey, there are no nuclear weapons. Would you like foreign troops to invade your country and not leave? How would you feel? Here are a few statistics you should see: Iraqi civilians dead so far - 600,000; Iraqis "strongly opposed to presence of coalition troops - 82 per cent. Iraqis who believe Coalition forces are responsible for any improvement in security - less than 1 per cent. Iraqis who feel less secure because of the occupation - 67 per cent. Iraqis who do not have confidence in multi-national forces 72.
Don Pointon
Like a lamb to the slaughter.
Ms Auckland
No one should go to Iraq, prince Harry or whoever. All foreign troops should be pulled out of that mad quagmire. A nation that doesn't want to be helped, like Iraq, cannot be helped. It's even worse now than under the despotic Saddam Hussein. Get out now.
SB
I think the media has turned this into such an issue he is going to need all of the extra security. If they had kept quiet he could go along his way and it would not be an issue, he would be just like any other officer serving his duty. It is very likely he will be a terrorist target now, and it is completely the fault of the media hype. Like a previous poster said, he is just another person, so stop making such a big deal out of it.
Jonty (Hicks Bay)
Hell yes he should go. I bet he goes, anyway. If he gets captured or harmed while in service then that gives the Allies the excuse they need for a full on invasion of the oil lands. Not that they've needed an excuse so far. Harry will get held for ransom or just killed in the service of his gran; the Allies will respond with a full scale air, sea and land invasion; friends of the Middle East will rise to honour their allegiances to oil; China will send the largest land army the world has seen to assist Iraq; Korea will support China; all those stockpiled chemical weapons will come out of hiding; sweaty fingers hovering over red buttons will become too heavy to hold up and a nuclear holocaust will ensue.I should write a script for the next Hollywood blockbuster war movie and call it "The War to End All Wars... Again" *rolls eyes*
Isaac
The arguments I believe are most compelling for each side are: For: As a soldier, he is expected to do his duty.-Why should he be spared whilst others have not? Personal / Royal mana. Against: As part of the figurehead of a nation, he is sanctioning the war in Iraq. He is a particular threat to those around him. His capture or death would be a propaganda nightmare. Personally, I think he has a natural urge to fight as his country is fighting; but after due consideration of his position and the costs, his continued desire is rather vainglorious. Besides, the moral underpinning of this war is being rapidly exposed as a farce. Should the royals be personally involved in such humanitarian disaster?
Rosann Holt
If Prince Harry wishes to go and has a choice he should be commended for it. The other people fighting have no choice. Where security is concerned why do the media have to give so much coverage, in a situation like this could they not all pull together and have a "media black out" and not say anything. Its been done before, just say its his unit .no mention of prince Harry. Is it really concern for him or concern for a good story and selling papers? If the papers supported his privacy I am sure he would provide them with a few stories when he came back.
Alan
He should go. Why succumb to the fear? Is the point of this war not freedom (well, OK, after securing the oil...). Why should the thrid in line for the monarchy have to hide in fear? Harry going to Iraq is a sign that all elements of the British army are supportive of their comrades. If Harry doesn't go, then no British soldier should have gone.
Darryl
Who cares? It's a matter for the English. Why do we get so much English news? Most of the English would not know where New Zealand is. If I was interested in what happens to the royals, I would buy a womens magazine.
Thag Andersen
Nah! Don't send Harry to Iraq. In fact, don't send anybody anymore. Why continue with something, which is a no-brainer from the beginning. More and more people are waking up to the fact that this war was born of fictitious accusations, and false intelligence. Even the inner circles of the U.S admin are confessing to having always known these things.(e.g George Tenets memoires). Should a man such as prince Harry, a representative of an aristocracy priding itself on dignity be a part of a something which was undignified in its inception?
Maxymoo (Auckland)
No way should he go, other fine scholars have pointed out that apart from the Monarchy supporting the USA's mistake (its bad enough the British government have) there is also the point that good men will be wasted guarding his blue blooded behind. The tabloids in the UK will also herald him as a war hero and by all accounts forget the other men and women who served and died fighting someone else's war, sad but true I'm afraid. Yes he is in the army but can never be a true Army operative, fact of life, lineage and circumstance.
Bill
I dont think Harry should be sent it will just be a hassle and a danger to the soldiers who will have the job of baby sitting this PR exercise.
Concerned citizen
I definitely don't think he should go to Iraq no matter how he is deployed. His capture would ignite further world tension & could escalate the war even more. It is hard to understand why those in his position even consider joining the armed forces knowing that there is always the possibility, no matter how remote it may seem at the time, that situations of war could occur & where capture could dramatically put national security at risk. He is 22 yrs. old, young enough to find a career elsewhere!
Paul
I can tell you that if I was fighting over there I would want Harry as far away from me as possible.
Seta
Harry should go to war if he wants to. He has obviously given it a lot of thought. The media should behave a bit more responsibly and not broadcast to the terrorists Harry's plans. Since you have done that already, then no, maybe he should stay put. Find something else to report on please and leave poor Harry alone.
Strifemit
Who cares? Why are you even bothering to ask the question? It should be left up to him and he should also be responsible for any outcome.
Uncle Fester
Yes, I believe if Prince Harry wants to serve his country and be deployed to Iraq, He should be allowed to. Do we stop President Bush or the scores of other politicians from coming here? Then why should we stop Harry? I respect him for wanting to serve his country and for not being a coward and staying at home like so many other people in this world do.
Tony Leigh
He is paid the wages so should do the job.
Paula
If Harry wants to serve in Iraq along with his peers then he should, but like his peers he should be treated the same. Who's paying for the extra security anyway?
Dean
He should go,absolutely. Reality is, would be smothered in love no matter what.....PR personified!
Vic
No, he shouldn't go. You can't pretend Harry is anything other than what he is -third in line to the throne of England. And whether than means anything to the average person in the western world doesn't matter at all because it means something to all the extremists in Iraq. Anyone near Harry is a target and if it was my father/brother/husband/son going with him I would be very worried.
Paul Campbell
Comparing Prince Andrews' service in the Falklands with Harry in Iraq is a non starter. The Falklands war followed an attack on British territory, calling for a 'defence of the realm.' i.e. all hands to the pump.Harry in Iraq represents Royal endorsement of invading a sovereign territory.
Ben
If he wants to go and serve his country, send him anywhere but Iraq, to a war with no basis of truth or hope for a 'victor'. If America hasn't already realised they have lost, at least let the royals work it out. He's only going to create more trouble for a force that's getting weaker by the day and doesn't need any more violence from a strengthening insurgence.
Dazzqa
He should go. Lets be honest do you really think they will have the foggiest where he is. If anyone really thinks anything will happen to him they would have to vote labour.
Phil (Nelson)
There are two compelling reasons for 'Harry" to go to Iraq. Firstly his presence will embarrass the war-mongering US politicians whose sons and daughters have been conspicuous by their absence. This caused the creation of Operation Yellow Elephant http://operationyellowelephant.blogspot.com/ by that great American; General JC Christian, Patriot. http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/ The second reason why 'young Harry' need go to Iraq is that a good many troops will be caught up in ensuring that none of his precious blue blood is spilled. The more soldiers do that, the less will be available to harass the long suffering Iraqi population.
Bruce
Yes Harry would be a walking prime target; what with being a ginger and all. Seriously though , didn't kings and princes in the old days lead the troops into battle as a morale booster and to prove their mettle. There was no room for hiding behind mothers skirts in those times.
Murray Whittington (Hastings)
Yes I think Prince Harry should go to Iraq, regardless. He did sign up to be in the military and he has had training. What about the ones who did sign up and still have to go and after all they would love to be protected with body guards etc but no they have to fight like real men, Harry should be treated as equal. If he had body guards etc it will not look good for the soldiers fighting in real life, after all they are doing it for their own country's.
Luke Mason
All the poor soldiers who will be called upon to protect the precious little royal. Stay at home Harry because you will be targetting other poor boys who actually have to work for a living and instead of fighting the insurgence, will have to protect his majesty with their own lives. Do us all a favour and stay home and wave to the crowds while you kiss babies and avoid paparazzi!
David Williams
Of course Harry should serve in Iraq - why should those in privileged positions avoid what others have to endure. The icing on the cake would be if he died there too. What better way to go out than to sacrifice oneself for one's country? At least, this is what our leaders like to tell us.
Tony
He has join the army to do all the things the army does. Why then should he not be given this opportunity to do this? After all a true leader should always lead by example is it not? Yes there will be propaganda on both sides for and against going .A rock and a hard place-don't think so. Is the Prince life more valuable than a commoner's son/daughter? I don't think so maybe more expandable-yes for the commoner. The best solution is no war sit and talk. Be happy,Ha ha.
Justus Tonks
Get real, boy; Iraq is no playland. You're destined to be a prince, you're no commoner, so don't expect people to treat you indifferently. You have luxuries which others cannot enjoy, so it's fair enough that you cannot lead a "normal" life. I wouldn't give a damn if you got killed in Iraq, but please don't be selfish by going there and putting the lives of your comrades in more dangers. And of course the royal family would do their damnedest to keep you safe if you really made it there. Why should the Army be more burdened just to "escort" you? Strewth, stay home, boy!
Traci Houpapa
Iraq has always been a futile war, best over as expediently as politicians will allow. The last thing needed now is a Royal Shambles.
John Robb
Of course Prince Harry shouldn't go to Iraq. The only reason being how many British soldiers will have to die to keep this 'Boy's Own' adventurer alive? I'm sure he's been raised on stories of ancestral glory, but I suspect it's been at least 450 years since an English royal last stuck a sword in someone in the heat of battle. Iraq is not the place to rekindle ancient glories.
Debbie
If so much extra effort is needed for him to go to Ira
