Some people on here make me want to vomit out of my eyes.

Zulu

You're living in the past dude.

Stercus Accidit

Just curious dlofnep,

What prompted your first post?

I mean what gave you the motivation,

regardless of whether anyone agrees/dissaggrees with you it was a passionate post.

Michael Collins does it for me...

marco murphy

this thread is ancient.....who bumped it??

Stop jumping on the bandwagon for once. If we had the same attitude to all threads we would'nt have much discussion.
There are unanswered questions on this thread, and it remains open, therefore I think I am well in right to post in it.

dlofnep

Motosam wrote:

Just curious dlofnep,

What prompted your first post?

I mean what gave you the motivation,

regardless of whether anyone agrees/dissaggrees with you it was a passionate post.

Michael Collins does it for me...

Ah, it was a few posts/posters that bothered me on here that tried to jump on every republican orientated post and poster on here. I got tired of their bullying and cliché ruses used against anyone who tried to discuss any related topic.

You're living in the past dude.

Actually I'm living in the present. Thanks for your concern.

Tzetze

We've been under oppression for a lot more than 800 years. There were indigenous people in Ireland before the Celts came stomping in ~350 B.C., enforcing new religions and rules onto our ancestors.

Celts out! Celts out!

dlofnep

Yes they were, but the current policies affect the people of today who are still culturally intact. You really don't have to look too far to see injustices in recent times either. It's not all "in the past", but some would rather sweep it under a rug.

Fratton Fred

dlofnep wrote:

Yes they were, but the current policies affect the people of today who are still culturally intact. You really don't have to look too far to see injustices in recent times either. It's not all "in the past", but some would rather sweep it under a rug.

then you need to deal with it in a modern way. Truth is, people don't care because people have different motivations now. Paying the mortgage is far more important to most people than people who live in the north somewhere, most of whom are happy with the way things are anyway.

If there is a tangible benefit to people, then they will be interestd in it, but a romantic notion of a united independant Ireland is just that, romantic. Convince people it will make their lives better and they may be interested.

dlofnep

Fratton Fred wrote:

then you need to deal with it in a modern way. Truth is, people don't care because people have different motivations now. Paying the mortgage is far more important to most people than people who live in the north somewhere, most of whom are happy with the way things are anyway.

A modern way? That's very ambiguous. People do care.. There is a very large nationalist movement which comes in many flavours. The idea that someone can't make a stand against Imperialism because they have a mortage to pay is asinine. A man can prioritize things in his life differently.. He might take his children's health into consideration before his own health, but that doesn't mean he doesn't care about his own health. It's called free will.

Fratton Fred wrote:

If there is a tangible benefit to people, then they will be interestd in it, but a romantic notion of a united independant Ireland is just that, romantic. Convince people it will make their lives better and they may be interested.

It has nothing to do with gain. It has to do with standing against imperialist nations. People make a stand because they look at something and say "Hey, that's not right".. And if they wish to take it further, that's their prerogative.. It's nothing to do with romantic ideas. For me, I dislike the idea that a foreign nation can control what happens in another country. If someone steals my bike, I'll object. Once again, it's free will.

marco murphy

If there is a tangible benefit to people, then they will be interestd in it, but a romantic notion of a united independant Ireland is just that, romantic. Convince people it will make their lives better and they may be interested.

Well I for one see an exception benefit, to rid the country of foreign rule. I really would'nt call it a romantic notion. I believe it's quite realistic based on the rise in popularity for Sinn Fein, who in my eyes are the only effective carrier to unification as it is.

stovelid

Poblachtach wrote:

I believe it's quite realistic based on the rise in popularity for Sinn Fein, who in my eyes are the only effective carrier to unification as it is.

Is this the rise in popularity we witnessed in the last general election?

dlofnep

Unfortunately, some people believe life revolves around personal gain and can't understand standing against a nation that's trying to bully the world into submission.

dlofnep

stovelid wrote:

Is this the rise in popularity we witnessed in the last general election?

Eh: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0f/Northern_Ireland_election_seats_1997-2005.svg

Support for Sinn Féin is on the increase. You crawl before you walk.

marco murphy

stovelid wrote:

Is this the rise in popularity we witnessed in the last general election?

In a way. Now I appreciate that Sinn Fein ran more candidates than ever before but technically there was a rise in support. However, the rise in support in unionist area's of the six counties is quite a satisfactory developement. There is support for unification, and rising.

stovelid

dlofnep wrote:

Eh: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0f/Northern_Ireland_election_seats_1997-2005.svg

Support for Sinn Féin is on the increase. You crawl before you walk.

I meant the elections in the Republic.

JC 2K3

dlofnep wrote:

Unfortunately, some people believe life revolves around personal gain and can't understand standing against a nation that's trying to bully the world into submission.

Remind me again how many countries Britain has invaded in the last 50 years?

dlofnep

JC 2K3 wrote:

Remind me again how many countries Britain has invaded in the last 50 years?

Iraq, Afghanistan, Falklands to name but a few! Not to mention the collusion between the official British forces and Loyalist paramilitaries in the North. Are you really that Naive?

The Iraq war alone has cost over half a million Iraqi lives.. If you think Britain is this just country with aims of peace and prosperity over personal gain, you're living in a different world.

Zulu

dlofnep wrote:

Unfortunately, some people believe life revolves around personal gain and can't understand standing against a nation that's trying to bully the world into submission.

bully the world into submission?!? :rolleyes: Who's your beef with, America?
We are moving towards a united Europe, get used to it.

stovelid

dlofnep wrote:

Falklands to name but a few!

You mean the Malvinas, comrade?

dlofnep

Zulu wrote:

bully the world into submission?!? :rolleyes: Who's your beef with, America?
We are moving towards a united Europe, get used to it.

I have seperate agendas against the US's foreign policies but that's irrelavant in this thread. Britain along with the said United States are CLEARLY bullying states like Iraq, Iran and other states that they do not see as allies to follow their law and conventions. They are pissing off the middle-east with their bully-like tactics. If they weren't so pushy, there wouldn't be a problem in the first place. The UK & US have a globalist agenda.

dlofnep

stovelid wrote:

You mean the Malvinas, comrade?

I do I was just being generic as many don't know the spanish name. Less of the sarcasm

Fratton Fred

dlofnep wrote:

Iraq, Afghanistan, Falklands to name but a few! Not to mention the collusion between the official British forces and Loyalist paramilitaries in the North. Are you really that Naive?

The Iraq war alone has cost over half a million Iraqi lives.. If you think Britain is this just country with aims of peace and prosperity over personal gain, you're living in a different world.

you see, that's where you go wrong. It's not about a united Ireland, it's about settling a score. Iraq was wrong, but done for the right reasons, Afghanistan is about creating stability in a country that hans't had any for 20 yeas and the Falklands were Britains in the first place - Bit cheeky of them to go and claim it back after the Argies invaded it.

Imperialism hasn't been around for years, it's in the past.

Have another go.

dlofnep

Fratton Fred wrote:

It's not about a united Ireland, it's about settling a score.

Says who, you? How do you know what my motives are? Or any Republican's motives? You don't so don't pretend you do.

Fratton Fred wrote:

Iraq was wrong, but done for the right reasons.

Lots of oil, the death of over half a million people.. Claims of WMD's which never existed. Done for the right reasons? :rolleyes: You'll need to try harder than that.

Fratton Fred wrote:

Afghanistan is about creating stability in a country that hans't had any for 20 yeas

Actually it was in retaliation for Al-q's attack on the US. Afghanistan is about as stable as the leaning tower of Piza.

Fratton Fred wrote:

and the Falklands were Britains in the first place - Bit cheeky of them to go and claim it back after the Argies invaded it.

Oh really? I think what you meant to say was - Britain was angry that someone challenged their right to Govern the Falklands due to Britain's illegal invasion of the Falklands in 1833. Islands that were 300 miles from Argentina, but somehow - Britain, a state thousands of miles away had a just claim to them? Right.. :rolleyes:

Fratton Fred wrote:

Have another go.

Eh, I think you had better have another go.

JC 2K3

dlofnep wrote:

Iraq, Afghanistan, Falklands to name but a few!

To name a few? I'd bet that's all you've got.

Iraq and Afghanastan had nothing to do with trying to bully the world into submission, it was to do with supporting an ally and fighting a common enemy. Sure, their motivations and ethics can be questioned, but sure Ireland unofficially supported those wars by allowing the US to use Shannon, amongst other things.

And the Falklands War wasn't started by the British, the Argentinians invaded British land rather than attempting to negotiate with them regarding its sovereignty. Once again, nothing to do with the Brits trying to bully the world into submisssion.

dlofnep

JC 2K3 wrote:

Iraq and Afghanastan had nothing to do with trying to bully the world into submission, it was to do with supporting an ally and fighting a common enemy.

Former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter have already stated that Iraq was not a threat to the US or the UK. It wasn't a common enemy. They were pushing their weight. They wanted control of oil fields. They caused the deaths of half a million people. I find it hilarious that you're avoiding these real issues and arguing over semantics. The likes of North Korea was much MORE of a threat than Iraq ever was.. and even NK aren't a threat.

JC 2K3 wrote:

And the Falklands War wasn't started by the British, the Argentinians invaded British land rather than attempting to negotiate with them regarding its sovereignty. Once again, nothing to do with the Brits trying to bully the world into submisssion.

Britain invaded the Falklands, Argentina attempted to reclaim it in a just war. Seriously.. Do you honestly think it's OK to invade countries and then it's not OK when their claim is challenged at a later date? Britain has a history of colonialism and imperialism. It was built on it. But whatever, enjoy being a British apologist - because that's all you appear to be at the moment.

the_syco

Saruman wrote:

The republicans are a minority!

Not anymore.

indough

dlofnep wrote:

Oh really? I think what you meant to say was - Britain was angry that someone challenged their right to Govern the Falklands due to Britain's illegal invasion of the Falklands in 1833. Islands that were 300 miles from Argentina, but somehow - Britain, a state thousands of miles away had a just claim to them? Right.. :rolleyes:

What law did they break?

JC 2K3

dlofnep wrote:

Former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter have already stated that Iraq was not a threat to the US or the UK. It wasn't a common enemy. They were pushing their weight. They wanted control of oil fields. They caused the deaths of half a million people. I find it hilarious that you're avoiding these real issues and arguing over semantics. The likes of North Korea was much MORE of a threat than Iraq ever was.. and even NK aren't a threat.

And Ireland allowed US aircraft to refuel in Shannon, ergo, we're as bad as the Brits.

dlofnep wrote:

Do you honestly think it's OK to invade countries and then it's not OK when their claim is challenged at a later date?

Who decides who owns the country in the first place? Why should Argentina be home to Spanish descendants and not Patagonian or Incan ones?

Sure it's ok to challenge a country's claim to a piece of land, just not with violence. I think it's generally accepted that things were A LOT different 200-500 years ago when the wider world was only starting to be explored

dlofnep wrote:

Britain has a history of colonialism and imperialism.

You talk about "Britain" as if it's been the exact same place with the same people living in it forever.

It was only the monarchy and aristocracy of Britain, probably not making up more than 1% of the population, that created an empire and colonised other countries. These people are now all dead. You cannot categorise Britain as still being imperialistic simply due to its history.

Like I said, the world was very different hundreds of years ago, and due to bad long term planning, we're stuck with many situations today in which there are political conflicts. We have to deal with them peacefully and gradually. There's no logic in blaming the descendants and countrymen of the people who caused these political conflicts. What's done is done. Revenge and grudges just cause more problems.

Fratton Fred

I say have another go, because you are claiming there should be a united Ireland because Britain are the baddies. The responses you have received back this up.

Come up with reasons why young, european thinking Irish citizens would be better off and benefit from a united Ireland and you will start to gain support.

Zulu

dlofnep wrote:

Britain along with the said United States are CLEARLY bullying states like Iraq, Iran and other states that they do not see as allies to follow their law and conventions.

Don't be so childish, it's got nothing to do with following their "law and conventions", it's about resources, and the lack there of.

They are pissing off the middle-east with their bully-like tactics.

so what exactly is your point?

If they weren't so pushy, there wouldn't be a problem in the first place

Wrong. There would be plenty of problems. If they pulled out altogether what do you think would happen? Don't be so naive.

The UK & US have a globalist agenda.

Give me a break. You sound like a typical idealist student spouting catchphrases. Is there a book somewhere you can get these from? Have you considered ANY of your comments? England supported America, because it strengthened their relationships no end. Look at the Americian back lash on the French and "old Europe". England will reap the rewards of that decision for a long time. And before you slate them for that, we did the EXACT same thing letting them us Shannon. America has fat tits, great for sucking.

England and America are global economies therefore they have global interests. Our economy is heavily tied to both of theirs, so if they go tits up so do we. This country you are so proud of, is suckling from the tits of England and America - you might want to consider that.

Marksie

Zulu wrote:

England and America are global economies therefore they have global interests. Our economy is heavily tied to both of theirs, so if they go tits up so do we. This country you are so proud of, is suckling from the tits of England and America - you might want to consider that.

About irelands trade to support your statement (but when did facts stop someone on a holy tirade)


The share of foreign trade in country’s GDP is nearly 150%. Its top three export partners are: the U.S.A., United Kingdom and Belgium. Ireland mainly exports organic chemicals, electronic & telecommunication equipment and pharmaceutical products. Its three main import partners are: the United-Kingdom, the U.S.A. and Germany. Products mainly imported into the country are machinery, electronic components, vehicles, and mineral fuels & oils.

Taken from below:

http://www.fita.org/countries/ireland.html

dlofnep

*yawn*

JC 2K3 wrote:

And Ireland allowed US aircraft to refuel in Shannon, ergo, we're as bad as the Brits.

There is a vast contrast between refueling planes, and occupying foreign territory, causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands. We're nothing like the Brits.

JC 2K3 wrote:

Who decides who owns the country in the first place? Why should Argentina be home to Spanish descendants and not Patagonian or Incan ones?

You can be sure it's not some country that's thousands of miles away.

JC 2K3 wrote:

Sure it's ok to challenge a country's claim to a piece of land, just not with violence. I think it's generally accepted that things were A LOT different 200-500 years ago when the wider world was only starting to be explored

But it's ok to use violence for oil resources? Double standards here are amazing. I like how you all pick and choose where to apply your logic.

JC 2K3 wrote:

Like I said, the world was very different hundreds of years ago, and due to bad long term planning, we're stuck with many situations today in which there are political conflicts..

The world is still the same. One or two major powers trying to call all the shots.. Trying to swing what happens in foreign territory. Nothing has changed, just tolerance or lack of.

Fratton Fred wrote:

I say have another go, because you are claiming there should be a united Ireland because Britain are the baddies. The responses you have received back this up.

I called Britain "baddies"? I think you're reading an entirely different thread to this. It had nothing to do with "baddies" - It has to do with morals and standing against foreign countries who try to occupy foreign territory.. Whether it be in Ireland or elsewhere.

Fratton Fred wrote:

Come up with reasons why young, european thinking Irish citizens would be better off and benefit from a united Ireland and you will start to gain support.

European thinking Irish citizens? Are we all sheep and supposed to fit this mold you have opted to create? I already previously stated that it's not about personal gain - it's about morals. Please read my posts before responding.

Zulu wrote:

Don't be so childish, it's got nothing to do with following their "law and conventions", it's about resources, and the lack there of.

Oil. Thank you. And yes, it is about their conventions. They want the middle east to adopt Western policies. Is that not apparent?

Zulu wrote:

so what exactly is your point?

:rolleyes:

My point is that if the US & Britain were not trying to control the world - killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people, these states would have no reason to retaliate or attack in the first place. Still, I'm sure so long as it doesn't affect your lunch, you've nothing to worry about, right?

Zulu wrote:

England supported America, because it strengthened their relationships no end. Look at the Americian back lash on the French and "old Europe". England will reap the rewards of that decision for a long time.

We know they supported America. My pet cat knows this. Britain are really reaping the rewards with tube bombings and constant fear of attacks. Good for them!

Zulu wrote:

England and America are global economies therefore they have global interests. Our economy is heavily tied to both of theirs, so if they go tits up so do we. This country you are so proud of, is suckling from the tits of England and America - you might want to consider that.

Trade goes both ways. Theres no reason countries can maintain economic ties with each other while distancing from each other's global policies. Besides, it's irrelavant and has nothing to do with the said topic. I think I'll just write a bot to respond to you apologists because I know what you're going to say before you say it.

Fratton Fred

dlofnep wrote:

I called Britain "baddies"? I think you're reading an entirely different thread to this. It had nothing to do with "baddies" - It has to do with morals and standing against foreign countries who try to occupy foreign territory.. Whether it be in Ireland or elsewhere.

Then why are you ranting on about imperialism and Iraq and the Falklands?

You still haven't given me a reason why people in Dublin should want a united Ireland, other than the fact Britain invaded the Falklands in 1833:rolleyes:

Hydroquinone

dlofnep wrote:

European thinking Irish citizens? Are we all sheep and supposed to fit this mold you have opted to create?

Why is OK for you to create a mould you want everyone else to fit in - else they risk making you vomit out of your eyes - yet you object when other people have a different mould?

What's so hot about your mould?

Dyr

Do people actually think its just an accident that Afghanistan has been a warzone for most of this century? It has enormous strategic value to whoever can hold it.

Dyr

Fratton Fred wrote:

You still haven't given me a reason why people in Dublin should want a united Ireland, other than the fact Britain invaded the Falklands in 1833:rolleyes:

Y'know the usual reasons, patriotism, pride etc. The stuff that some brits think is okay for them to bang on about but then get all uppity when de micks do the same

Zulu

dlofnep wrote:

There is a vast contrast between refueling planes, and occupying foreign territory, causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands. We're nothing like the Brits.

How can they occupy and kill if they can't get there? I'm sure the hundreds and thousands you are so worried about would appricate the difference.

But it's ok to use violence for oil resources? Double standards here are amazing. I like how you all pick and choose where to apply your logic.

No one has said it's ok or that they agree, they are just trying to show you the bigger picture.

I called Britain "baddies"? ... It had nothing to do with "baddies" - It has to do with morals

Yea, so baddies then :rolleyes:

it's about morals

No it's not, it's about money. It's about affording a high standard of living regardless of what happens in the third world. Morals, pfffttt.

Oil. Thank you.

Of course.

And yes, it is about their conventions.

No it's not

They want the middle east to adopt Western policies.

No they don't, they support Saudi Arabia ffs. They couldn't care less what "policies" are involved so long as it's good for business. Are you really that naieve? For crying out loud, if they were actually trying to spread westren policies, the world might actually benefit!

Is that not apparent?

I taught it was painfully clear, but clearly you are having difficulties...

My point is that if the US & Britain were not trying to control the world -

someone else would. How's your Chinese? Russian? German?

killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people,

you really need to get that in as many times as possible, don't you. It's ok though - they're baddies, we get the picture.

these states would have no reason to retaliate or attack in the first place.

retaliate? the London bombing or 9/11 were hardly enough to change big business. There's BILLIONS invested.

Still, I'm sure so long as it doesn't affect your lunch, you've nothing to worry about, right?

I don't bother wasting my time worrying about the "boogie-man" over the water, who also happens to be a great trading partner of ours, and would probably defend us were any other nation to attack us (I might add).

We know they supported America. My pet cat knows this. Britain are really reaping the rewards with tube bombings and constant fear of attacks. Good for them!

:rolleyes: Yes the civilian population are living in fear, barly coming out of there houses; the economy has ground to a halt; noone uses public transport for fear of bombing... don't make me laugh. Billions earned. Strengthened relations. The only hyper power as an allie. There at the table for key decisions... Yea, it was great for them.

Trade goes both ways. Theres no reason countries can maintain economic ties with each other while distancing from each other's global policies.

Now you are fu(kin taking the p1ss right? Examples? Just like Cuba I suppose???

Besides, it's irrelavant and has nothing to do with the said topic.

It has everything to do with the topic - MOTIVATIONS. It helps to explain why countries act the way they do. Take a moment to review your motivations.

I think I'll just write a bot to respond to you apologists because I know what you're going to say before you say it.

....and then finally, in a last gasp, the insults. Great debating skills...


...for an eight year old. How old are you anyway?

togster

OP your thinly veiled argument is flawed in many ways. Firstly i think you posted to provoke an argument rather than a debate. Like many of your "kind" you then try to gloss over your original "argument" with bad mis-informed knowledge of past and present events. Get a grip and take a glipse outside the tiny little box you inhabit. There is a big bad world out there who doesn't really give a fcuk about what happened in 1922 or whenever. Stop trying to force your biggotory on the rest of us.

dlofnep

Zulu wrote:

No one has said it's ok or that they agree, they are just trying to show you the bigger picture.

What bigger picture? What's greater than the deaths of all those people? Oh, we should support it though right? For economic gain. :rolleyes:

Zulu wrote:

No it's not, it's about money. It's about affording a high standard of living regardless of what happens in the third world. Morals, pfffttt.

Oh, it's obvious you have no morals when you brush past the deaths of innocent people like that.. When you disregard the fact that some people make a stand against such policies and wish to distance themselves from them.

Zulu wrote:

retaliate? the London bombing or 9/11 were hardly enough to change big business. There's BILLIONS invested.

9/11 nearly killed airlines and affected tourism. The tube bombings also affected.. The extent of which is not going to "cripple" a country - that doesn't matter.. but it will affect them.

Zulu wrote:

I Now you are fu(kin taking the p1ss right? Examples? Just like Cuba I suppose???

Putin has made many vocal criticisms on Western policy and is distanced on some of them - this doesn't affect his trade. Singling out Cuba is very dramatic.. France distanced themselves from the US & UK on the Iraqi war, but their trade is also fine. Unlucky.

Zulu wrote:

...for an eight year old. How old are you anyway?

Ohhh!!! Someone is mad! They brought out the ol' "How old are you?" question.

Fratton Fred

Bambi wrote:

Y'know the usual reasons, patriotism, pride etc.

That's great, but national pride should be "Look at us, we're great" not "Look at us, that lot over there are ****".

Bambi wrote:

The stuff that some brits think is okay for them to bang on about but then get all uppity when de micks do the same

Classic problem, Ireland is always comparing itself to Britain and concerning itself with what the British are doing or what they think about them. When Ireland stops trying to compete with Britain and stands on it's own two feet, then you will create a sense of national pride that people in the north may be interested in.

Some people need to loose the "Poor Paddy, 800 years of oppression blah blah blah" attitude and stand up and say "We're Irish and we're proud and we don't give a rats fanny what that lot over the water are up to".

Zulu

dlofnep wrote:

What bigger picture? What's greater than the deaths of all those people? Oh, we should support it though right? For economic gain. :rolleyes:

No, I didn't support it. And I think we shouldn't. You've gone off chasing your tail.

Oh, it's obvious you have no morals when you brush past the deaths of innocent people like that..

You couldn't possibly recognise if I had or hadn't - you're too busy attacking assumptions you are making.

When you disregard the fact that some people make a stand against such policies and wish to distance themselves from them.

I did no such thing. You are so far gone down that tangent, do you even remember the point you were arguing?

9/11 nearly killed airlines and affected tourism.

...and paved the way to invade Iraq, polarising the global community and allowing the hawks to take the whole "you're with us or you're against us". They would never have been able to invade Iraq without 9/11. So if the Iraq war is all about oil (which you agree), then surely it was worth it?

The tube bombings also affected..

No, not really.

but it will affect them

for most of the public of there, it's a distant memory. Life goes on.

Putin has made many vocal criticisms on Western policy and is distanced on some of them - this doesn't affect his trade.

Oh yea? Really?? Putin fell in line like everyone else. Research your fact better.

Singling out Cuba is very dramatic..

IT's a good example of what trade embargos can do.

France distanced themselves from the US & UK on the Iraqi war, but their trade is also fine.

Funnily France is one of the worlds greatest exporters of arms along with the US and Britain. Strong economy to boot, and isn't heavily reliant to britain and the US. We, however, are very heavily reliant on both the US and Britain. But you can choose to ignore that fact as well, sure might as well get hung for a sheep as a lamb.

Unlucky.

Well, we're just unlucky that we are so reliant on the US and the UK

Ohhh!!! Someone is mad! They brought out the ol' "How old are you?" question.

No I'm not mad, just interested to know what age I'm dealing with. Seriously, how old are you?

Fighting Irish

dlofnep wrote:

Theres a collection of people on here. They have no principals and only live for today. Anything that has happened in the past, stays in the past - despite of the outcome. What I'm referring to is the North.

I'll spare you the for Y amount of years X happened to us, but at one point there were thousands of young and old ready to give up everything they had to rid the ruthless imperialism of Britain from their country.

Nowadays, it's a bunch of yabs who couldn't care less about anyone or anything but themselves. They turn a blind eye at our friends up North who are and have been constantly oppressed by bigot politicians like Ian Paisley who is known for his criticisms of catholics and biased police forces up North.

These are the same people who sing, march and keep our history and culture vibrant through their unmatched passion for their country. The long for a day for Unity in what should never have been divided in the first place. They are second class citizens and have been for a long time in their own native land. And what do we do about it? Some of us actively do our part on elections or through marches, or through debate. The others? Too busy, Eastenders in on the box - No time for those what-ya-macall-its up North.

This is a just cause, our history, doing something right and yet many pass up the chance to help out for their own selfish reasons. They would rather see our culture and history fade away. Our very own language to be scratched off.. and for what? Because a stand needs to be made for simple changes to happen in order for us to revive?

Face the facts. Our country was ripped in half right in front of our eyes, our very own countryment and women brutalised, murdered, raped, mistreated, had their rights and voting ability removed for time. We were colonised by a brutal and vicious sect who are known the world over for mistreatment of the native people. it is our downright duty to maintain our history. We are Irish, not British. I think it's time some of us acted like it.

For those who shed a tear everytime they read our history and feel like they can not do enough, I salute you. For the others, other than tax - you've nothing to offer this country.

My life is good in general like most other people in this country, thats all that really matters at the end of the day

This is your life and it's ending one minute at a time

Dyr

Fratton Fred wrote:

That's great, but national pride should be "Look at us, we're great" not "Look at us, that lot over there are ****".

when dem-across-the-water actually stick to staying on their side of the water we can do that.

Actually i didnt compare ireland to britain, i pointed out that a lot of brits have a bit of an oul' double standard going when it comes to the patriotism malarkey. No comparison at all there

Zulu

Bambi wrote:

when dem-across-the-water actually stick to staying on their side of the water we can do that.

Get over it, when was the last time they invaded us?? In fact, I'd suggest WE invaded them last. How many Irish people when to england to find jobs in the 80s? Their jobs and their money have always been good enough for us...

Actually i didnt compare ireland to britain, i pointed out that a lot of brits have a bit of an oul' double standard going when it comes to the patriotism malarkey. No comparison at all there

Who cares? Really though, who cares? I prefer to try and set standards, and live by me own, as opposed to worrying about what anyone else is doing.

ejmaztec

Zulu wrote:

Get over it, when was the last time they invaded us?? In fact, I'd suggest WE invaded them last. How many Irish people when to england to find jobs in the 80s? Their jobs and their money have always been good enough for us...

I agree - and the 70s, 60s, 50s, 40s, not to mention pretty much all of the preceding decades for past few hundred years. They must have sent £billions back here.

Terry

Zulu wrote:

Get over it, when was the last time they invaded us?? In fact, I'd suggest WE invaded them last. How many Irish people when to england to find jobs in the 80s? Their jobs and their money have always been good enough for us...

Well if you want to go down that road, then the answer would be 'sometime over the past few years', seeing as our economy has been doing so well.

Zulu

I don't think it compares. The english economy has been doing alright, and I'd suspect that as many english as irish have crossed the water in the past few years.
...Actually, thinking about it, I konw 3 English people would have come over here contracting, and at least 10 of my friends are working in London, so I'd tend to disagree (judging on personal experience).

Hrududu

Oh, it's obvious you have no morals when you brush past the deaths of innocent people like that

You talk a lot about morals and then completely brush past any talk of terrorism in the north. For me that is the main reason that I no longer care as much about the place as I might have done. Currently it is in a good place. But the bigotry and hatred (from both sides) is like poison. Hopefully that will dissipate with time. Its like having a relative that you love, because he is family. But the guy is a violent mess. He has had lives destroyed, lives that were completely innocent. So after a while you start thinking "Jesus would he ever cop on, i'm sick of all his sh1t". So you walk away, you hope he sorts himself out but you've just had enough and you dont want to be associated with him until he does.

Dyr

Zulu wrote:

Get over it, when was the last time they invaded us?? In fact, I'd suggest WE invaded them last. How many Irish people when to england to find jobs in the 80s? Their jobs and their money have always been good enough for us...

oh right so WE invaded them now lol.. and there was me paying attention to history

Zulu wrote:

Who cares? Really though, who cares?

And someone was complaining about other people making assumptions? oh lordy me.

Fratton Fred

Bambi wrote:

oh right so WE invaded them now lol.. and there was me paying attention to history

well, technically the Irish started it :rolleyes:

they used to say there were Irish living in London than in Dublin, not sure if that is still the case, but if you go to Kilburn you would be forgiven for thinking that.

Gatster

Originally Posted by dlofnep
Seriously.. Do you honestly think it's OK to invade countries and then it's not OK when their claim is challenged at a later date? Britain has a history of colonialism and imperialism. It was built on it. But whatever, enjoy being a British apologist - because that's all you appear to be at the moment.

You really need to check this Falklands thing (sorry to make this point a bit late, been away). England responded as the Governor of the Falklands asked for assistance when he realised what was happening. You know why he did this? Because the Falkland Islanders wanted to remain under British rule. He knew it, and Thatcher responded. It would be foolish to believe that Thatcher did not have other politically motivated reasons to respond, but Britain categorically did not 'invade' in 1982.

Britain became powerful for a number of reasons, not just colonialism and imperialism. If you don't want to believe that, you're deluding yourself.