The IRA end its armed campaign.

[Skydancer]

"The two situations are so different they are beyond compare."

No Jackal to the victims they are the same. They both back the terrorists who killed em.

Sorry but thats the way it is.

You think I hate the US.  You are wrong. This happens to be a US board and so I happen to talk about the US. Ok I often pick up on the things I see are wrong. Trouble is many of the attitudes I see expressed here are ones I disagree with. Don't like my tone? Fraid I don't like yours either. So we'll have to lump it. Don't expect you to agree with me so how about you do likewise. What do you want in here a bunch of guys who pat each other on the back and agree about everything? Bit bloody boreing huh?

I started this thread because I was mad watching Norad supporters talking about the IRA as freedom fighters when I'd just watched news about terrorist attacks in London and seen US politicians going on about the war on terror and standing together as allies.

I'm glad its over and yeah its the past. But there are lessons here.

So far I've seen more than a few people come out as apologists for terrorists. Bit wierd when our two nations are supposed to be fighting a "war on terror" together.

Want me to say I love the USA. Fine there are many things great about the place. Trouble is all the things I don't like about it keep cropping up in here.

Right I'm off to discuss Online WW2 flight sims!

[Nashwan]

However, I am pointing out how everyone, everywhere uses the same excuses to justify stealing land. I don't leave the US out of that category. As someone pointed out earlier, it probably goes back to the time of the Cro-Magnon stealing land from the Neanderthals.

In short, I don't see any justification. Not for the Brits in Ireland, not for the Brits in pre-US North America, not for the French in Indo-China, not for anyone anywhere.

It's not like India asked you guys to come straighten out their society and impose British rule or anything.

So let's just all agree it was wrong, eh?

Of course it was wrong. Human history is one very long list of bad things being done to people.

Killing people now over what happened centuries ago is just one more of those bad things, though.

In a time when the west at least has tried to move away from the "kill people and take their land" way of doing business, groups like the IRA are trying to cling on to it.

The question is always "what do we do now"?

It should be, yes. And any "solution" that involves pain by people who have done nothing wrong, to compensate people who haven't actually lost anything themselves, isn't a solution.

The Irish question? Let the voters in the ENTIRE country vote on unificiation or division, both "North" and "South" and be done with it.

Why the entire country? Is it ever a good idea to ask the people of a large state if they want to absorb their neighbours?

Isn't that like holding a referendum in France and Germany over who gets Alsace and Lorraine? Or Ask the people of Mexico and New Mexico who gets New Mexico? Or even the people of the British Isles who gets the whole of Ireland?

Guam, Puerto Rico and the American Samoas?

All of 'em have had national referendums.

Ditto Northern Ireland.

All of 'em prefer to keep their current status.

Ditto Northern Ireland

All of 'em are 'home ruled'.

Ditto Northern Ireland, except when their passion for killing each other leads to suspensions of home rule.

None of them have armies of occupation camped out there.

There is a huge US military presence on Guam, at least.

If you argue it's not an "army of occupation", then how is the British Army in Northern Ireland?

For what it's worth, there's an army base in my town, and that's not a military occupation either.

The division of Ireland was artificial to begin with.

All borders are artificial. I travel between England and Wales quite frequently, I know from the map when I've crossed the border, that's about it.

To me, what you suggest merely perpetuates that artificial division.

To me, Irish independence merely perpetuates the artificial division of the British Isles, but I recognise I shouldn't have the right to dictate to my neighbours what country they live in.

How exactly is the division of Ireland any more artificial than the division between the US and Canada, between France and Belgium, between Israel and Egypt, between Haiti and the Dominican Republic?

Ask ALL the people and then abide by the decision.

All the people where? In the island of Ireland? What about all the people in the British Isles? Or what about asking all the people of Europe whether Switzerland should be part of the EU? Or if the Scots ever vote for independence, ask the people of Britain if they can have it?

Why is the Irish border so different from any other? Why is it only in Ireland that people from both sides of the border get to decide on the nationality of people on one side?

"If you can hold the land long enough, with or without using force, you can claim what happened "before" doesn't matter "now". It's all about when."

Do you have an alternative Toad? Do you, who seems to disagree with this statement, support reparations for the descendants of slaves, or deporting all the Europeans from the US?

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by Skydancer

No Jackal to the victims they are the same. They both back the terrorists who killed em.

Sorry but thats the way it is.

 

 The forest is blocking your view of the trees. Toaly different in that one concerned a small percentage of people and a small area. The other pretty much concerns the world.

You think I hate the US.  You are wrong. This happens to be a US board and so I happen to talk about the US

  #1 Thanks for verifying my earlier statement.
  #2 You never 'talk" about the U.S. You use every discussion from dinosaurs to dish rags to work in your anti-U.S. sentiment. Most people here realize this and most have expressed the fact that you are not too slick about it. Like I said, you seem to be the only one not getting it".

 

 

Trouble is many of the attitudes I see expressed here are ones I disagree with.

  I can certainly understand that. Most foks here are pretty level headed and have common sense. I can see where this would step on your toes.

 

Want me to say I love the USA.

  Not really. That`s the point. You don`t have to love, like or worry about the U.S. Seems you have trouble enough in your homeland to keep your mind occupied without blaming everything from draught to hang nails on the U.S.

Trouble is all the things I don't like about it keep cropping up in here

   Simple solution to that if you get the smoke out of your eyes where you can see it. :}
  You denying the fact that you do not hate the U.S. would be like me saying I don`t love HDs. Your hatred and big time jealousy always shines through the thinly veiled denials.



 

 

Right I'm off to discuss Online WW2 flight sims!

  Well right on! That is the most refreshing thing you have ever posted on this board.

Don't expect you to agree with me so how about you do likewise

  Sorry, but to borrow a line from Merle....If you`re talking bout my country hoss, you`re walking on the fighting side of me. Us Americans are funny like that. It`s called pride.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Nashwan
In a time when the west at least has tried to move away from the "kill people and take their land" way of doing business, groups like the IRA are trying to cling on to it.

[/b]

And so are those nasty Palestinians. After all the Israelies have held some of that land quite a while. It now belongs to people who have done nothing wrong to compensate people that haven't actually lost anything themselves.

Originally posted by Nashwan
Is it ever a good idea to ask the people of a large state if they want to absorb their neighbours?

[/b]

Maybe someone should have asked the English that before they invaded Ireland.

Originally posted by Nashwan
Isn't that like holding a referendum in France and Germany over who gets Alsace and Lorraine? Or Ask the people of Mexico and New Mexico who gets New Mexico? Or even the people of the British Isles who gets the whole of Ireland?

[/b]

No, to me it's like asking the people of the whole of Ireland if Ireland should be whole. Who better to ask?

Originally posted by Nashwan
To me, Irish independence merely perpetuates the artificial division of the British Isles, but I recognise I shouldn't have the right to dictate to my neighbours what country they live in.

It was artificially united to begin with. IIRC, neither Scotland or Wales was all that eager to unite under the English throne either. Ireland has repeatedly shown their reluctance to be ruled by the English crown.

How do you artificially divide something that was artificially unified by force?

Originally posted by Nashwan
All the people where? In the island of Ireland?

[/b]

Yes; after all those are the "Irish".

Originally posted by Nashwan
What about all the people in the British Isles?

[/b]

What about them? Did they all vote when India sought independence?

Originally posted by Nashwan
Or what about asking all the people of Europe whether Switzerland should be part of the EU?

[/b]

Is any country being forced into the EU by invasion?

Originally posted by Nashwan
Or if the Scots ever vote for independence, ask the people of Britain if they can have it?

[/b]

That would probably have to be done. India had to do it that way, right? Singapore, Malaya, Sarawak, North Borneo, Burma, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Tanganyika, Uganda, Kenya, Zanzibar, Gambia, Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland all had to aks didn't they?


I posted my alternative. Vote.

[Swoop]

Originally posted by Toad


And so are those nasty Palestinians. After all the Israelies have held some of that land quite a while. It now belongs to people who have done nothing wrong to compensate people that haven't actually lost anything themselves.

Yeah, it's a bugger ain't it.

Originally posted by Toad

Maybe someone should have asked the English that before they invaded Ireland.

How many more times?  

The 'English' didn't invade Ireland.  The Normans invaded Ireland about a 100 years after they invaded England.  Somewhere around 1169AD.  

Originally posted by Toad
No, to me it's like asking the people of the whole of Ireland if Ireland should be whole. Who better to ask?

Think about this for a sec.  Imagine you're living in Northern Ireland and someone suggests that all the Redneck Micks from south of the border should have a say in what country you should be a part of.  

The only people who should have a say in what country Northern Ireland belongs to is the people of Northern Ireland.......and they've had a say, and wanna stay British.

Originally posted by Toad
It was artificially united to begin with. IIRC, neither Scotland or Wales was all that eager to unite under the English throne either. Ireland has repeatedly shown their reluctance to be ruled by the English crown.

This is the difference between England and Great Britain.  This is what most foreigners fail to understand.

England is not Great Britain.  The Scots, Welsh and Irish certainly don't want to be English.......but there seems to be no objection to being British.  

In fact some of us are quite proud to be.

[Hangtime]

we objected.

Hell, we even voted.

still had ta kick yah out.

and the 'redneck mick from south of the border' line forced another nasal rechannel with coffe. That's a keeper.

[Replicant]

Originally posted by Hangtime
we objected.

Hell, we even voted.

still had ta kick yah out.

and the 'redneck mick from south of the border' line forced another nasal rechannel with coffe. That's a keeper.

Did the Indian's vote to let you stay too?

[Hangtime]

Yep. Had to buy the votes tho.. got manhattan fer a coupla boxes of beads. Learned that trick from you folks.... in fact I think you guys set the policy standards and did the original deals. Then we 'objected', 'voted', and when that didn't work we kicked yah out.

Yer just jealous because we didn't let yah hang around the tobacco stores, develop an alcohol dependancy and build casinos.

[Nashwan]

And so are those nasty Palestinians. After all the Israelies have held some of that land quite a while. It now belongs to people who have done nothing wrong to compensate people that haven't actually lost anything themselves.

Well, without sidetracking this even further, Palestinian claims to the whole of Israel are not recognised by many countries, Palestinian claims to the West Bank and Gaza are. The West Bank and Gaza have only been sparsely settled, against international law, mostly in the last 20 years.

Maybe someone should have asked the English that before they invaded Ireland.

Of course they should. But I thought we'd both agreed it was wrong? Difference is I don't want to "correct" an ancient wrong with a modern one.

And if it's "right" for the people of one part of Ireland to decide what happens to their neighbours on the island, it's just as "right" for the people of one part of the aerchipelago to decide what happens to their neighbours in the rest of the aerchipelago.

You can also expand that principle up to continents, even the whole world, if you like. What if the rest of the world decides on one world government, do they have the "right" to force the US to join?

No, to me it's like asking the people of the whole of Ireland if Ireland should be whole. Who better to ask?

The people of Britain if the British Isles should be whole? Ireland is one of the British Isles, after all.

What about the people of Europe if Europe should be whole? Why let those Norwegians, Swiss etc opt out if their neighbours don't want them to?

It was artificially united to begin with. IIRC, neither Scotland or Wales was all that eager to unite under the English throne either. Ireland has repeatedly shown their reluctance to be ruled by the English crown.

How do you artificially divide something that was artificially unified by force?

No-one asked the people of the various Irish kingdoms if they wanted to be united either, various kings and ivaders fought each other for centuries, and killed a lot of people, to do it.

See, if you're going back in history to a point before Ireland was united with Britain, why stop at any particular point? Why not go back to the various petty Irish kingdoms, and see if they want to unite? Then Ulster, as one of the kingdoms, gets a seperate vote from the rest.

There is nothing particulary "special" about Ireland, it's got the same sort of history as the rest of Europe, it's been invaded and used as a battleground for a long time, just like every other part of Europe. There's no particular "natural" rason for Ireland to be one country anymore than there is for Britain, or any other part of Europe.

Should the Serbs be asked whether Croatia is entitled to independence? Or Slovenia, Bosnia, etc? What about the Russians if they want to absorb Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia?

Yes; after all those are the "Irish".

Well, no. The majority of the population of Northern ireland consider themselves British, after all. They are descended more from the Scots (who are of course mainly descended from the Irish who ivaded Scotland long before that).

Who are you to tell them whether they are Irish or British. Can't they decide that for themselves?

What about them? Did they all vote when India sought independence?

No, but India is one of the British Isles, Ireland is.

Is any country being forced into the EU by invasion?

No. Should it be? I'd say no, but you are claiming the people of a larger entity should have the right to absorb people from smaller entities, eg the island of Ireland gets to decide the status of one of it's constituent countries. If so, why doesn't the contitent of Europe get to decide the status of it's constituent countries?

That would probably have to be done.

It certainly wouldn't. It's up to the Scots if they want independence, they don't have to ask permission from England.

And if you are claiming they do, then don't the people of England get a say about Ireland too?

India had to do it that way, right? Singapore, Malaya, Sarawak, North Borneo, Burma, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Tanganyika, Uganda, Kenya, Zanzibar, Gambia, Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland all had to aks didn't they

Ask who? their neighbours?

My principle is the fate of Botswana is up to the people of Botswana, the fate of Ireland up to the Irish, the fate of Northern Ireland up to the Northern Irish.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Swoop
Yeah, it's a bugger ain't it.

[/b]

Yes it is a bugger. I guess the Israelis have a right to that land now according to the Northern Ireland precedent.  



 

Originally posted by Swoop

How many more times

The 'English' didn't invade Ireland.  The Normans invaded Ireland about a 100 years after they invaded England.  Somewhere around 1169AD.  

BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/state/nations/ireland_invasion_03.shtml


At which point Henry II suddenly sat up and took notice of what was going on in the west. He had meant to use Diarmait's appeal to get a foothold in Ireland.

What he had inadvertently created was a monster: a colony of Anglo-Normans, who answered to exactly the kind of jumped-up superbaron Henry was busy sitting on in every other part of his enormous empire.

So in the winter of 1171, Henry crossed the Irish Sea himself, coming with an army big enough to give the likes of Strongbow serious second thoughts. It was then, in the wattle palace of Dublin, that he took the homage of all the six Irish kings, including Ruadrai Ua Conchobair.

[/u]And though everything that happened afterwards in the sad history of England and Ireland wants to say this was the moment when Ireland lost her freedom, [/u]no one at the time saw it that way at all.

Looks like Henry II put (allowed) the Normans in power in Ireland. Looks like Henry then landed an army in Ireland and this the moment, as BBC points out, that Ireland lost her freedom.




 

Originally posted by Swoop
The only people who should have a say in what country Northern Ireland belongs to is the people of Northern Ireland.......and they've had a say, and wanna stay British.

Originally posted by Swoop


Yeah, Northern Ireland was stolen fair and square and no one else gets a vote. Same logic the extremist Israelis use on their right to stolen land.

How come the British citizens in India didn't get their own little enclave when India gained independence? Why isn't there an independent Bengal where the population is primarily British citizens?


 

Originally posted by Swoop
The Scots, Welsh and Irish certainly don't want to be English.......but there seems to be no objection to being British.  

In fact some of us are quite proud to be.

So when are the citizens of the Irish Republic going to get their British citizenship? I mean, they have been asking for it, haven't they?

[Replicant]

Originally posted by Toad

Looks like Henry II put (allowed) the Normans in power in Ireland. Looks like Henry then landed an army in Ireland and this the moment, as BBC points out, that Ireland lost her freedom.

Of course he allowed the Normans, he was a Norman - the whole monachy was of Norman descent since the Norman invasion of 1066; Henry II was raised in the French province of Anjou and first visited England in 1142.  He acquired Normandy and Anjou upon the death of his father in September 1151, and his French holdings more than doubled with his marriage to Eleanor of Aquitane (ex-wife of King Louis VII of France).  The continental empire ruled by Henry and his sons included the French counties of Brittany, Maine, Poitou, Touraine, Gascony, Anjou, Aquitane, and Normandy.  

So when are the citizens of the Irish Republic going to get their British citizenship? I mean, they have been asking for it, haven't they?

[/b]

WTF you on about Toad?

I'm tired of this thread, but I see no one replied to the post I made earlier about the international terrorist organisations list.  I have no sympathy with terrorists friend.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Nashwan
The West Bank and Gaza have only been sparsely settled, against international law, mostly in the last 20 years.

[/b]

Yep, it's all about when. If you can hold the land long enough, with or without using force, you can claim what happened "before" doesn't matter "now". The last 20 years isn't long enough... now.  

And if it's "right" for the people of one part of Ireland to decide what happens to their neighbours on the island,

[/b]

So have we settled on the "20 years rule" then? The the "5 second rule" for food that hits the floor?

"No land stealing allowed during the last 20 years. All stealing 21+ years ago is fine."

The people of Britain if the British Isles should be whole? Ireland is one of the British Isles, after all.

[/b]

Ireland is an island about the size of South Carolina. It got along nicely before Henry II allowed the Normans to set up shop. The division into two states is apparently OK though because the theft of Irish land was more than 20 years ago. Despite, of course, centuries of unrest and rebellion that continued through the Easter Rising and into the IRA era.

What about the people of Europe if Europe should be whole? Why let those Norwegians, Swiss etc opt out if their neighbours don't want them to?

[/b]

What government existed that ruled Europe as a whole prior to individual areas of Europe ruling themselves?

There is nothing particulary "special" about Ireland, it's got the same sort of history as the rest of Europe, it's been invaded and used as a battleground for a long time, just like every other part of Europe.

[/b]

Again we're back to "when". You're OK with conquest by force of arms as long as it was ancient enough not to affect what you desire or feel is right.

Had the Nazi's conquered Europe, it'd all be OK in another 20-50 years or so after all the WW2 actual participants had died out. Is this the line of thinking?

In Ireland's case, the Irish fought (weakly) off and on for centuries.

Well, no. The majority of the population of Northern ireland consider themselves British, after all.

[/b]

Pretty much by design, this area was settled by non-Irish under the aegis of the English throne. Is it then suprising they consider themselves "British"?

Who are you to tell them whether they are Irish or British. Can't they decide that for themselves?

[/b]

Certainly. That's why I think all Ireland should vote on it.

b[]No, but India is one of the British Isles, Ireland is.

[/b]

Who decided the "British Isles" are a political/govenmental entity?

No. Should it be? I'd say no, but you are claiming the people of a larger entity should have the right to absorb people from smaller entities,

[/b]

Funny, I thought YOU were the one saying a larger country, England, has the right to absorb people from smaller entities like Ireland. As long as it's more than 20 years ago, of course.  


 

eg the island of Ireland gets to decide the status of one of it's constituent countries. If so, why doesn't the contitent of Europe get to decide the status of it's constituent countries?

[/b]

I think Europe does that every once in a while. 1914 and 1939 spring to mind and now the EU seems to be trying a bit of a more voluntary approach.

My principle is the fate of Botswana is up to the people of Botswana, the fate of Ireland up to the Irish, the fate of Northern Ireland up to the Northern Irish.

As the Church Lady says, "how conveeeeenient". But you do have that "20 year rule" thing going for you on the theft of Ireland from the Irish.

[Replicant]

[Hangtime]

A significant number of people in the Irish Republic regard themselves as British. They have a British heritage and background, yet they do not qualify for a British passport under the provisions of the British Nationality Act of 1948 as amended by the 1981 Act.

Now where else on the planet can one be a subject, yet not a citizen?

Apparently, only in Great Britain and the United Kingdom.

[Hangtime]

Originally posted by Replicant

C'mon Nexx, you know better than that!

edit.. nevermind!