Author Topic: The IRA end its armed campaign. (Read 3640 times)

Nashwan · « **Reply #105 on:** July 31, 2005, 02:07:37 PM »

Quote

And The Republic of Ireland is not subject to the British crown, they hold the same status Canada does.....ie, they are part of the British Commonwealth (ie we'll fight for em should they get into some serious strife) but otherwise hold independant status.

Ireland isn't even part of the Commonwealth, they left in 1948 (iirc)

Quote

I'm a little mystified... why are you guys so opposed to having ALL of IRELAND.. the whole island... vote and settle this question once and for all?

Why are you so opposed to having the British Isles, ALL of the BRITISH ISLES, vote and settle the question once and for all?

Personally, I'm opposed to the principle of one country having a say in another's sovereignty.

It's just a general principle that I'd apply to ALL countries.

Toad · « **Reply #106 on:** July 31, 2005, 02:12:02 PM »

Sorry, Nashway, it doesn't seem like you have one principle applies to all people, everywhere.

I know you don't approve of the Israeli occupations by force.

However, it appears to me that you're OK with occupation by force as long as it is done at some variable time in the past that suits your argument.

As I stated earlier, I realize none of this stuff is going to change. However, I can also see validity in the claims of the folks that had their lands stolen from them, including the Native Americans.

Replicant · « **Reply #107 on:** July 31, 2005, 02:12:30 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
LOL! Been to Dublin, been to the pubs, talked US politics, Irish politics, drank beer, sang songs even talked about Irish reunification.

Lasted all night, no fisticuffs and no raised voices, really.

I'm a little mystified... why are you guys so opposed to having ALL of IRELAND.. the whole island... vote and settle this question once and for all?

But you haven't been to Northern Ireland?

Why are we opposed to have ALL of IRELAND vote? Because it isn't fair on the people living there. The people in Northern Ireland are British, the people in the ROI are Irish. If the Irish in NI wanted to move to the ROI then they can move if they wished to, nothing is stopping them. So, Northern Ireland is part of the UK and answerable to the British Government. The BRITISH Government can allow a referendum (which they did fairly recently if I remember correctly) to the people of Northern Ireland and allow them to decide if they want to be part of the ROI. The REPUBLIC OF IRELAND Government can also ask the ROI if they would like to vote in a referendum if they would like to accept Northern Ireland (hell, they could even ask if they wanted to be part of the UK, eh? Didn't think of that!). Neither country have rule over the other country so how can they enforce a referendum? I'm sure it wouldn't be legally binding since there is not an overall government.

Besides, if there was a united vote it would just cause more bloodshed and that dear Toad is what you don't understand. The religion and division is still strong in many and if you FORCE two sides together that are NOT READY to go together (see above) yet then you'll just cause more problems. That is what we DON'T want and that is what you don't understand. e.g. if the majority of Northern Ireland didn't want a united Ireland, yet the majority of ROI did want a united Ireland (and had more voters) then that isn't a recipe for peace is it?

Octavius · « **Reply #108 on:** July 31, 2005, 02:12:34 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Swoop
Ya know......once upon a time, a few years back now, I was driving through a suburb of Cleveland, Ohio, and I saw a bumper sticker on someone's truck. It said: British out of Ireland.

Now before I saw this I never realised how totally misinformed the Americans are over the whole Irish situation.

You're gonna let some random retard from Cleveland with a silly bumper sticker sway your judgement of all Amreekans?

Hangtime · « **Reply #109 on:** July 31, 2005, 02:14:28 PM »

Folks, once we get the 'semantics' (LOL!! I said it!!) on Ireland vs GB, the UK, et al; we'll have a look at China's claim on Taiwan.

Toad · « **Reply #110 on:** July 31, 2005, 02:15:21 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Swoop
Imagine you're one of those people who live in Northern Ireland and voted (majority) to stay part of Great Britain. Why should the population of another country get to vote how you should live?

It's up to the population of Northern Ireland isn't it?

[

Basically, in US terms, Northern Ireland was "gerrymandered". Ireland was divided into sections that gave the desired result after the division.

Gerrymandering is a term that describes the deliberate rearrangement of the boundaries of congressional districts to influence the outcome of elections.

The purpose of gerrymandering is to either concentrate opposition votes into a few districts to gain more seats for the majority in surrounding districts (called packing), or to diffuse minority strength across many districts (called dilution).

Furball · « **Reply #111 on:** July 31, 2005, 02:16:19 PM »

we should allow america to vote on whether it should be unified or not.

Toad · « **Reply #112 on:** July 31, 2005, 02:20:00 PM »

Just Shannon and Dublin; those were our two layover cities.

Toad · « **Reply #113 on:** July 31, 2005, 02:20:49 PM »

Fuball, I wouldn't be suprised if the issue of secession comes up again in the US in the next 100 years.

Swoop · « **Reply #114 on:** July 31, 2005, 02:22:07 PM »

Ok, Top Gear is on about snowmobiles in Iceland so I'm back for a minute or two.

Toad,

you're sidestepping the question again. Ignore the previous vote. Answer the question:

Why should the people of a different country get to vote on how the population of Northern Ireland get to live? Why shouldn't it soley be up to the population of the country in question?

Replicant · « **Reply #115 on:** July 31, 2005, 02:23:59 PM »

Aye, snowmobile owned that Jeep!

Toad, any comments to my post above?

Nashwan · « **Reply #116 on:** July 31, 2005, 02:27:13 PM »

Quote

Sorry, Nashway, it doesn't seem like you have one principle applies to all people, everywhere.

I know you don't approve of the Israeli occupations by force.

That's the thing, Toad. I don't support the settlements, but on the other hand I do support Israel's 1967 borders.

I don't think the people of Egypt and Jordan should have a say in the fate of Israel, I think that's up to the Israeli citizens.

And likewise, I don't support Israeli's having a say over the West Bank and Gaza, because that's up to the Palestinians. (I'd even be open to allowing the Israeli settlers having a say, just so long as it's a democratic vote with the Palestinians also voting)

So I DO apply the same principle everywhere. Then again, if I was an Arab or Jew, perhaps I too would have a biased view of the situation.

Quote

However, it appears to me that you're OK with occupation by force as long as it is done at some variable time in the past that suits your argument.

No, I still think they were wrong. I just don't want to "correct" them by doing something wrong now.

I recognise that colonistation of Australia was wrong, for example, but I don't think 20 million Australians should be stripped of their rights now because of it. They didn't do anything wrong, their ancestors did.

And in many cases, not even their ancestors. How do you tell a 20 year old Australian whose grandparents immigrated from Poland in 1945 that he has to lose his rights because of what white settlers did in Australia in the 19th century?

How is dispossing him now in any way right?

My principle is if you steal something, you've done something wrong, and you should be punished, and the person who had his goods stolen should be compensated.

But the people in Northern Ireland didn't steal anything, their ancestors did, and the people in the Irish repbulic didn't have anything stolen, their ancestors did.

So why should people who did nothing wrong get punished, and why should people who didn't have anything stolen get compensated?

And that's a principle I'm willing to apply everywhere. You seem to want to compensate the Irish, but not anyone else.

Quote

As I stated earlier, I realize none of this stuff is going to change. However, I can also see validity in the claims of the folks that had their lands stolen from them, including the Native Americans.

I can see the validity in all the ancient claims, I just don't support trying to do anything about it now.

You seem to want to apply a special rule to the Irish though, or are you willing to apply it everywhere? Eg compensation to descendants of former slaves, Egyptians getting to decide Israel's status, etc?

Toad · « **Reply #117 on:** July 31, 2005, 02:28:14 PM »

Tell me this.

Why was there NEVER a popular vote on the division of Ireland?

No vote on the Act of Union.

No vote on the Government of Ireland Act.

The division was basically the result of the Anglo-Irish treaty after the "war for Independence".

Replicant · « **Reply #118 on:** July 31, 2005, 02:32:33 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
Tell me this.

Why was there NEVER a popular vote on the division of Ireland?

No vote on the Act of Union.

No vote on the Government of Ireland Act.

The division was basically the result of the Anglo-Irish treaty after the "war for Independence".

If you give them chance there will be. They've come along way and they've got further to go, but if the process I described earlier goes ahead and they decide on a united Ireland then it'll happen.

Toad · « **Reply #119 on:** July 31, 2005, 02:33:06 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Swoop

Why should the people of a different country get to vote on how the population of Northern Ireland get to live? Why shouldn't it soley be up to the population of the country in question?

It's no sidestep.

I, and many others, just don't see "Northern Ireland" as a "separate country". Can't be any plainer than that.

It's one "country" that exists because six counties of Ireland gerrymandered into one political entity. The other 26 counties were separated to ensure the desired result.

Clear enough?