Author Topic: The Name Is Appeasement ... (German Paper Article) (Read 4589 times)

FalconSix · « **Reply #90 on:** August 15, 2005, 12:36:16 PM »

The Irish couldn't vote?

Toad · « **Reply #91 on:** August 15, 2005, 12:41:11 PM »

Oh, that was your point when you posted:

Quote

Originally posted by AKH
I bet we'll be out of Ireland before you are out of Iraq

Thanks for clearing that up.

My point was that your reason for being in Ireland was quite a bit different than our reason for being in Iraq.

Come to think of it, your reason for being in India, Pakistan, Palestine, Somalia, Uganda and some other places that are currently problematic on the world stage was quite a bit different than our reason for being in Iraq.

straffo · « **Reply #92 on:** August 15, 2005, 01:10:05 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKH
Consider it as Angevin manifest destiny.

what mean Angevin in this context ?
I guess it's not someone living in Anjou ?

Toad · « **Reply #93 on:** August 15, 2005, 01:18:59 PM »

I believe he means Angevin as in Henry II.

storch · « **Reply #94 on:** August 15, 2005, 01:24:07 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKH
My point is that we viewed the Irish as you viewed the Native American.

yes i got that immediately. quite a good answer. so are you saying the irish then?

straffo · « **Reply #95 on:** August 15, 2005, 01:26:24 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
I believe he means Angevin as in Henry II.

sorry ? it would be a "Plantagenêt" not a "Angevin"

Toad · « **Reply #96 on:** August 15, 2005, 01:28:01 PM »

I'm afraid you'd do better arguing with these kind folks:

Henry II, first of the Angevin kings

beet1e · « **Reply #97 on:** August 15, 2005, 01:41:58 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
when you finally get out of Ireland it will be after centuries of fighting to deny the voting rights of the Irish.

I don't think *we* are trying to deny voting rights to the Irish. I'm going to have to read up on Irish history! But - IIRC from school days, Ireland in the 19th century was 5% Protestant and 95% Catholic. The Protestants had the vast majority of wealth while the Catholics lived in penury - especially in 1845 when blighted by the potato famine. At some point, Ireland split in two - Northern Ireland (Ulster) and the Irish Republic (Eire). The Irish Republic is self governing, and is a separate EU member state. As such *we* are "not in Ireland", but have maintained a military presence in Ulster.

As for voting rights - In 1979, I was sharing a house with a few Irish nationals. One of them was a guy called Finbar! We had a general election that year and, IIRC, Finbar was eligible to vote not only in his home country, but also in the British general election.

If you get a chance, look out for the movie "Michael Collins" - Julia Roberts and Liam Neeson - all about the 1916 Irish Uprising. A good movie, worth a look.

Toad · « **Reply #98 on:** August 15, 2005, 01:55:55 PM »

Check out the Penal Laws, about 1690 and in effect until the Catholic Emancipation in 1829.

Basically the Penal Laws:

Forbid a Catholic from exercising his religion

Forbid the Catholic from receiving a Catholic education

Forbid the Catholic from entering a profession

Forbid the Catholic from holding Public Office

Forbid the Catholic from engaging in trade or commerce

Forbid the Catholic from living in a corporate town or within five miles of one

Forbid the Catholic from owning a horse worth more than 5 pounds

Forbid the Catholic from buying or leasing land

Forbid the Catholic from voting

Forbid the Catholic from receiving a gift or inheritance of land from a Protestant

Forbid the Catholic from renting any land that was worth more than thirty shillings

Forbid the Catholic from gaining any profit from his land over a third of the land's value

Forbid the Catholic from being the guardian of a child

Fined the Catholic for not attending Protestant services

Forbid the Catholic from sending their children abroad for an education

************

Just like what the US is doing to Muslims in Iraq, right?

straffo · « **Reply #99 on:** August 15, 2005, 02:04:44 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
I'm afraid you'd do better arguing with these kind folks:

Henry II, first of the Angevin kings

A brittish Angevin king is a Plantagenêt by definition

It's just I think Angevin is too generic and can lead to confusion with the Capet-Anjou or René d'Anjou etc ...
But you need to know a bit more than Angland history to notice that

beet1e · « **Reply #100 on:** August 15, 2005, 02:06:44 PM »

Well rgr that, but that has got bugger all to do with the British military presence in Ulster from 1969.

Toad · « **Reply #101 on:** August 15, 2005, 02:10:14 PM »

Well we are talking about military presence in Ireland in comparison with US military presence in Iraq. No starting or ending dates are specified for the comparison. I think you'll agree Britain has had troops in Ireland before 1969? Centuries before?

Seeker · « **Reply #102 on:** August 15, 2005, 02:36:30 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by straffo
A brittish Angevin king is a Plantagenêt by definition

It's just I think Angevin is too generic and can lead to confusion with the Capet-Anjou or René d'Anjou etc ...
But you need to know a bit more than Angland history to notice that

You're just jealous because the King of England owned more French land than the Dauphin (the future King of Paris).

Now be good; or we'll throw another peasant girl on the fire......

straffo · « **Reply #103 on:** August 15, 2005, 03:52:57 PM »

Well it still true ,I think the queen of England still own more French land the "king" of France

()

storch · « **Reply #104 on:** August 15, 2005, 04:27:28 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by straffo
Well it still true ,I think the queen of England still own more French land the "king" of France
()

heh

Author Topic: The Name Is Appeasement ... (German Paper Article) (Read 4589 times)

storch

storch