What Has Martin McGuinness Ever Done For The Republic of Ireland?

cardwizzard

KELTICKNIGHTT wrote: »

maybe where you are theres no republic of Ireland

People in republic of Ireland at moment don't think about united Ireland till all terrorist are cleared and north still hostile environment in parts and outside of that
goes back to people from all sides having to vote in north to if there all want to be part of Ireland, nationalists are less than a third of the people there,don't see all side ready to want to vote on it yet

I think you might want to do a little research on your numbers pal, you are talking nonsense.

dulpit

Nationalist Party Seats in Assembly:
Sinn Féin: 29
SDLP: 14

Total Seats: 108

43/108 = 39.8%

KELTICKNIGHTT wrote: »

nationalists are less than a third of the people there,don't see all side ready to want to vote on it yet

Liam Byrne

Mayo Exile wrote: »

Is this a serious statement? Are you inferring the IRA is worse than Al-Qaeda?

In some ways, yes. Any coward can leave a bomb on a street and walk away to be home in time to watch Julian.

But don't take that single aspect out-of-context, and I'll overlook the curious and slightly unconfortable use of the word "is".

then Al-Qaeda killing 2000+ civilians on a single September afternoon must be worse?

I'd agree with that, because that wasn't the only atrocity.......if it had been then you could have argued that carrying it out had been a "mistake"; you know - the way that the IRA strangely claim that all their major atrocities were.

Happyman42

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Mayo Exile wrote: »

Is this a serious statement? Are you inferring the IRA is worse than Al-Qaeda?

In some ways, yes. Any coward can leave a bomb on a street and walk away to be home in time to watch Julian.

But don't take that single aspect out-of-context, and I'll overlook the curious and slightly unconfortable use of the word "is".



I'd agree with that, because that wasn't the only atrocity.......if it had been then you could have argued that carrying it out had been a "mistake"; you know - the way that the IRA strangely claim that all their major atrocities were.

The tail is starting to eat the dog.
What are you on about Liam?....that's a very incoherent post.

OMD

Happyman42 wrote: »

Significant minorities don't count in OMD's world, they don't deserve consideration that others get. 'Keep them down where they belong' kinda thinking. What situation does that remind you of?:rolleyes:

This is typical Sinn Fein bull. I point out how unpopular SF are due to their links to organised crime, bombings and murder. Somehow from that you think I am saying "minorities don't deserve the consideration that others get".

This is typical victim attitude Sinn Fein have. "Oh poor us, all we do is support murderers and people don't like us"

Mayo Exile

Liam Byrne wrote: »

In some ways, yes. Any coward can leave a bomb on a street and walk away to be home in time to watch Julian.

But don't take that single aspect out-of-context, and I'll overlook the curious and slightly unconfortable use of the word "is".

I wouldn't overlook it all if I were you. If you actually believe that Al-Qaeda (some 4400 killed by them between 1992 and 2008, not including victims in Afghanistan & Iraq, and the majority civilians too) is worse than the IRA, then I'd say you'd need to think again about this.

I'd agree with that, because that wasn't the only atrocity.......if it had been then you could have argued that carrying it out had been a "mistake";

I wouldn't argue that 9/11 was a "mistake" whether as a single action or as a series of related actions. A single act can be very deliberate.

you know - the way that the IRA strangely claim that all their major atrocities were.

What do you mean by "strangely"?

FreudianSlippers

Happyman42 wrote: »

No such place. Unless you are talking football.

McGuinness has never made a secret of the fact that he wants a United Ireland, and like others sees 'Ireland' as all those who see their birthrights as being Irish. In much the same way as Mary Robinson addressed the entire Irish diaspora, he would too. Quite a noble gesture for our Pres to make I think.

dulpit wrote: »

Are we back on this topic again? Change the capital r in republic to a small one and your issue is resolved. The republic of Ireland is a perfect description for this country...

KELTICKNIGHTT wrote: »

maybe where you are theres no republic of Ireland

People in republic of Ireland at moment don't think about united Ireland till all terrorist are cleared and north still hostile environment in parts and outside of that
goes back to people from all sides having to vote in north to if there all want to be part of Ireland, nationalists are less than a third of the people there,don't see all side ready to want to vote on it yet

There is only debate over the name in the UK. It strikes to the heart of the conversation at present (perhaps not what has MMcG done for Ireland, but MMcG in general) as Northern Republicans shy away from calling the country by its proper name as it connotes a lack of "desire" for a unified island.

However, as I previously pointed out, the Irish Supreme Court has put this matter to bed once and for all in 1989 in the case of Ellis v O'Dea (No. 1):

'In the English language the name of this State is "Ireland" and is so prescribed by Article 4 of the Constitution. Of course if the courts of the United Kingdom or of other States choose to issue warrants in the Irish language then they are at liberty to use the Irish language name of the State ... However, they are not at liberty to attribute to this State a name which is not its correct name ... If there is any confusion in the United Kingdom courts possibly it is due to the terms of the United Kingdom statute named the Ireland Act, 1949 ... That enactment purported to provide that this State should be "referred to ... by the name attributed to it by the law thereof, that is to say, as the Republic of Ireland" (emphasis supplied). That of course is an erroneous statement of the law of Ireland. Historically it is even more difficult to explain. There is only one State in the world named Ireland since it was so provided by Article 4 of the Constitution in 1937 and that name was recognised by a communiqué from No. 10 Downing Street, London in 1937.'

Understandably there is confusion due to the Republic of Ireland Act 1948, which mistakenly described the nation as "Republic of Ireland", when in effect this was unconstitutional. In order to repair constitutionality of this Act, it was clarified in the Oireachtas that this was merely a description of the State as a constitutional republic and not a change to the name of the state.

The Supreme Court is the highest authority in this land and their ruling is manifestly clear in these circumstances.
Anyone arguing for the name Republic of Ireland or any variation thereon is doing so to suit their agenda - this is the case with McGuinness and the crux of what this argument has become. What has Martin McGuinness ever done for the Republic of Ireland? He has pushed its use to suit his own purposes.

Has McGuinness ever done anything good for the nation or island of Ireland? It would seem that anything he has done has been to suit his own agenda - whether you see it as a good thing or a bad thing, can we all agree that it was for HIM and not for the country?

Pat D. Almighty

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Has McGuinness ever done anything good for the nation or island of Ireland? It would seem that anything he has done has been to suit his own agenda - whether you see it as a good thing or a bad thing, we can all agree that it was for HIM and not for the country.

Wow, how did someone as bias and narrow-minded as you become a mod.

cardwizzard

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Has McGuinness ever done anything good for the nation or island of Ireland? It would seem that anything he has done has been to suit his own agenda - whether you see it as a good thing or a bad thing, we can all agree that it was for HIM and not for the country.

Thanks for telling us what we can all agree to. :eek::eek::eek:

Happyman42

Look what Eoghan Harris has done for us all. :eek:

FreudianSlippers

Pat D. Almighty wrote: »

Wow, how did someone as bias and narrow-minded as you become a mod.

I'm not a politics mod; besides, I don't see what that has to do with anything?

cardwizzard wrote: »

Thanks for telling us what we can all agree to. :eek::eek::eek:

Yeah, slightly poor choice of wording. What I mean by that is that I don't believe that McGuinness has ever done anything for Ireland that didn't suit his agenda. There has been nothing in this thread that has suggested that he has ever done anything outside of his clear agenda. So, perhaps we don't all agree but I think it is pretty clear to quite a few of us.

Liam Byrne

Mayo Exile wrote: »

I wouldn't overlook it all if I were you.

You missed my point. The question was if the IRA is worse than Al Quaida. That seems to imply that the IRA still exists.

I wouldn't argue that 9/11 was a "mistake" whether as a single action or as a series of related actions. A single act can be very deliberate.

Again, missing the point. I said IF it had been a one-off and was considered a mistake, THEN it could be argued that an ongoing campaign was worse, regardless of how many were murdered in either.

What do you mean by "strangely"?

You're joking, right ? You don't find the fact that anyone who objects to repeated acts of murder by the IRA is told that the deaths of innocents wasn't intentional and was a "mistake" ?

If I ever made that many mistakes that resulted in people dying, I think I'd stop doing what I was doing.

Mayo Exile

Liam Byrne wrote: »

You missed my point. The question was if the IRA is worse than Al Quaida. That seems to imply that the IRA still exists.

Was/is, the wordplay doesn't really matter on this. Saying the IRA was/is worse than Al-Qaeda is wrong in my opinion, when you consider the history of both.

Again, missing the point. I said IF it had been a one-off and was considered a mistake, THEN it could be argued that an ongoing campaign was worse, regardless of how many were murdered in either.

No. If you attempted to apply arithmetic to this line of argument, it would render it ridiculous at some stage. Give me a number to apply a threshold if you think you can.

You're joking, right ? You don't find the fact that anyone who objects to repeated acts of murder by the IRA is told that the deaths of innocents wasn't intentional and was a "mistake" ?

You can object alright, its just a different opinion to yours, nothing more, nothing less.

If I ever made that many mistakes that resulted in people dying, I think I'd stop doing what I was doing.

Nothing wrong with that.

Liam Byrne

Mayo Exile wrote: »

Was/is, the wordplay doesn't really matter on this. Saying the IRA was/is worse than Al-Qaeda is wrong in my opinion, when you consider the history of both.

It's far from wordplay; there's a HUGE difference between the IRA existing and being consigned to history!

No. If you attempted to apply arithmetic to this line of argument, it would render it ridiculous at some stage. Give me a number to apply a threshold if you think you can.

Personally speaking, one murder is one too many.

You can object alright, its just a different opinion to yours, nothing more, nothing less.

Yeah - the thing is that all criminals and thugs have different opinions to me and to the law.

Nothing wrong with that.

Bit of an understatement there - that's how it should be.

But of course since "everyone knows" that bombs kill innocents, the deaths of innocents weren't mistakes - they were murders.

Mayo Exile

Liam Byrne wrote: »

It's far from wordplay; there's a HUGE difference between the IRA existing and being consigned to history!

Sigh.. Just gonna disagree with you on this if you don't want to directly address my point.

Personally speaking, one murder is one too many.

Yes.

Yeah - the thing is that all criminals and thugs have different opinions to me and to the law.

Yes. But others will disagree with you as to whats the definition of a criminal and a thug on this island. And yes, its been debated ad infinitum in this forum.

But of course since "everyone knows" that bombs kill innocents, the deaths of innocents weren't mistakes - they were murders.

Gonna agree to disagree again. "Everyone doesn't know this". If you seemingly refuse to apply or acknowledge the concept of deliberate versus mistake in relation to the deaths of innocents in conflict situations, theres no point in continuing.

I honestly think you should examine the concepts of deontological pacifism as opposed to conditional pacifiism with regards to this concept - but not in this thread.

Liam Byrne

Mayo Exile wrote: »

Sigh.. Just gonna disagree with you on this if you don't want to directly address my point.

I now have no idea what you are getting at.

Yes. But others will disagree with you as to whats the definition of a criminal and a thug on this island. And yes, its been debated ad infinitum in this forum.

I know - some people have even indicated that I could some day murder an innocent person. Their standards are obviously warped.

Gonna agree to disagree again. "Everyone doesn't know this". If you seemingly refuse to apply or acknowledge the concept of deliberate versus mistake in relation to the deaths of innocents in conflict situations, theres no point in continuing.

It's not my phrase, it's the phrase of the apologists on here.

If you plant a bomb that kills innocents then you are responsible for the deaths......claiming otherwise is like claiming that Al Quaida didn't murder anyone on Sept 11 2001 - they just flew a plane into a building and the deaths were caused by fires and a falling building.

Just as the planes and pilots murdered people that day, the IRA bombs murdered people.

You plant a bomb then the deaths are on your (non) conscience.

I honestly think you should examine the concepts of deontological pacifism as opposed to conditional pacifiism with regards to this concept - but not in this thread.

I'm not the one excusing murder of innocents, so I don't feel the need to examine anything. But maybe the double-standards brigade might examine why they accept the murder of innocents and deaths of "combatants" when they're on "one side" while screaming re those in the reverse scenario.

hangon

IMHO MMG and Gerry Adams will be judged kindly by history(with Irish history it is always difficult to know where to begin due to cause and effect)both of them brought the IRA to a ceasefire and eventually decommissioning.
They both risked their own lives in the process,let's not forget that gerry Adams was shot,lets not forget that Mo Mowlem admitted that a bugging device found in a car bringing them to those delicate long running negotiations was planted by the UK secret service.

I am not going to be an apoligist for the provo's or their counterparts on the other side even though the facts are that the Provo's were born out of hugh injustice but both played a really high risk personal stratedgy to bring the rest of the IRA along with them.
MMG was waiting for a bullet from every angle and i am sure he probably came closer at times than he/we will ever know(most of all from the IRA)

I very much doubt that it all could have happened without MMG and of course John Hume who at great personal risk to his Life threw a lifeline to SF when his Political shrewdness detected that many in the Republican Community had become war weary and wanted a way out.
MMG has evolved a long way and it helps to consolidate the peace process that he is fully involved in the Democratic process.
I do not believe SF should get power or high office yet but they have earned some votes.
Don't forget the RIRA !without votes SF will be a demonstration to their likes that that there is no alternative to the bullet or the bomb to fullfill your asperations (who do you think was passing on the info that led to most RIRA operations being nipped in the bud be either the Garda or PSNI?;))

Peace comes dropping slowly.

cardwizzard

Nice post hangon, I agree with a lot of it.

KeithAFC

hangon wrote: »

IMHO MMG and Gerry Adams will be judged kindly by history(with Irish history it is always difficult to know where to begin due to cause and effect)both of them brought the IRA to a ceasefire and eventually decommissioning.
They both risked their own lives in the process,let's not forget that gerry Adams was shot,lets not forget that Mo Mowlem admitted that a bugging device found in a car bringing them to those delicate long running negotiations was planted by the UK secret service.

I am not going to be an apoligist for the provo's or their counterparts on the other side even though the facts are that the Provo's were born out of hugh injustice but both played a really high risk personal stratedgy to bring the rest of the IRA along with them.
MMG was waiting for a bullet from every angle and i am sure he probably came closer at times than he/we will ever know(most of all from the IRA)

I very much doubt that it all could have happened without MMG and of course John Hume who at great personal risk to his Life threw a lifeline to SF when his Political shrewdness detected that many in the Republican Community had become war weary and wanted a way out.
MMG has evolved a long way and it helps to consolidate the peace process that he is fully involved in the Democratic process.
I do not believe SF should get power or high office yet but they have earned some votes.
Don't forget the RIRA !without votes SF will be a demonstration to their likes that that there is no alternative to the bullet or the bomb to fullfill your asperations (who do you think was passing on the info that led to most RIRA operations being nipped in the bud be either the Garda or PSNI?;))

Peace comes dropping slowly.

Not by the Loyalist people of Ulster they won't. There will always be a side who will never like them. I think history is judging Martin Mcguinness at this very moment. He can't seem to get past an interview without being asked about the PIRA. That is damning in its own right.

hangon

KeithAFC wrote: »

Not by the Loyalist people of Ulster they won't.

The Loyalist people of Ulster would have been in the minority if Ulster had not had some Countie's chopped off to keep the Scottish planted protestant people in the majority.(i have empathy for them too as they were used by the 'Empire'!)

There will always be a side who will never like them. I think history is judging Martin Mcguinness at this very moment.

History is skewed at the moment due to the the economic collapse.People honestly do not know who to trust.

He can't seem to get past an interview without being asked about the PIRA. That is damning in its own right.

Or Dana about her family or Norris about his letters........... etc etc

Liam Byrne

hangon wrote: »

History is skewed at the moment due to the the economic collapse.People honestly do not know who to trust

That might explain McG's unwarranted popularity alright.

KeithAFC

hangon wrote: »

The Loyalist people of Ulster would have been in the minority if Ulster had not had some Countie's chopped off to keep the Scottish planted protestant people in the majority.(i have empathy for them too as they were used by the 'Empire'!)



History is skewed at the moment due to the the economic collapse.People honestly do not know who to trust.



Or Dana about her family or Norris about his letters........... etc etc

It is completely irrelevant about the creation of the state. There is a large amount of people who don't trust Martin Mcguinness in Ulster. But then you have a lot of people who don't trust him in the Republic Of Ireland. Martin Mcguinness didn't recognise that state and now says he does.

Will this man say and do anything to get a bit of power? He is probably the least Republican minded person you could think of with his latest comments. Or is it just a lot of sugar coated nonsense with Mcguinness? Perhaps it is.

marienbad

hangon wrote: »

The Loyalist people of Ulster would have been in the minority if Ulster had not had some Countie's chopped off to keep the Scottish planted protestant people in the majority.(i have empathy for them too as they were used by the 'Empire'!)



History is skewed at the moment due to the the economic collapse.People honestly do not know who to trust.



Or Dana about her family or Norris about his letters........... etc etc

And all such questions are proper and correct. It was the inability or the unwillingness to ask such questions of our politicians and others in the past that played a huge part in creating the mess we now find ourselves in.

Barn door and all that, but better late than never.

Happyman42

hangon wrote: »

The Loyalist people of Ulster would have been in the minority if Ulster had not had some Countie's chopped off to keep the Scottish planted protestant people in the majority.(i have empathy for them too as they were used by the 'Empire'!)

You know when a cheque for a 1000 yo yos bounces because somebody only has 950 yo yos in their account. And they say you should lodge 50 yo yos to release the 950?
Well...I volunteer Cavan to go into NI...all we need now is somebody to volunteer Monaghan and Donegal......eh?......we have them, we have them!!!


ssssshhhhhhhhhhh, don't tell Keith! :eek:

hangon

Liam Byrne wrote: »

That might explain McG's unwarranted popularity alright.

Hi Liam having read many of your posts i expect more from you than sarcasm,you know your stuff but still refuse to deal with it in a forensic way.

KeithAFC wrote: »

It is completely irrelevant about the creation of the state. There is a large amount of people who don't trust Martin Mcguinness in Ulster.

Ulster is a messed up place,some of it belongs on paper to the UK,the rest to the 26 Countie's.
it was gerrymandered to be this way in the Treaty.

But then you have a lot of people who don't trust him in the Republic Of Ireland. Martin Mcguinness didn't recognise that state and now says he does.

True but mistrust should be based on all the facts.
The office is so limited in power it is not a good place to go for people who wish power to overthrow the state.
Why run for it other than to increase trust for the party, what else is in it for someone who never hid the fact that he wanted a 32 County Republic?

Will this man say and do anything to get a bit of power?

That sounds like all candidates! at least he has a background in Politics unlike some of them

He is probably the least Republican minded person you could think of with his latest comments.

That is a very unfair comment about him IMHO

Liam Byrne

hangon wrote: »

Hi Liam having read many of your posts i expect more from you than sarcasm,you know your stuff but still refuse to deal with it in a forensic way.

It's not sarcasm. Aside from this place (which is awash with apologists) any comment that I've heard in favour of McG has been down to a protest vote at the current shower, rather than a forensic examination of McG.

KeithAFC

hangon wrote: »

Hi Liam having read many of your posts i expect more from you than sarcasm,you know your stuff but still refuse to deal with it in a forensic way.



Ulster is a messed up place,some of it belongs on paper to the UK,the rest to the 26 Countie's.
it was gerrymandered to be this way in the Treaty.


True but mistrust should be based on all the facts.
The office is so limited in power it is not a good place to go for people who wish power to overthrow the state.
Why run for it other than to increase trust for the party, what else is in it for someone who never hid the fact that he wanted a 32 County Republic?



That sounds like all candidates! at least he has a background in Politics unlike some of them



That is a very unfair comment about him IMHO

Why is it unfair? First he didn't care about the deaths of RUC officers or Army soldiers, the next he is saying he feels sorry for the families who lost loved ones. He doesn't recognise the Republic as a state and now he does. He wants to be president but won't admit it is the president of 26 counties and not 32.

I don't know why anyone would vote for a person who is coming out with something one minute and then going in the opposite direction the next.

hangon

KeithAFC wrote: »

Why is it unfair? First he didn't care about the deaths of RUC officers or Army soldiers,

I personally have never heard an RUC/PSNI or British army member say apologie's either,although i am sure many many feel that way on all sides.
must add many on all sides either were or became 'Animals' during the 'troubles'

the next he is saying he feels sorry for the families who lost loved ones.

Well all we have for what people feel is what they say they feel.
to believe it i admit takes a hugh leap of faith.

He doesn't recognise the Republic as a state and now he does. He wants to be president but won't admit it is the president of 26 counties and not 32.

He still says he prefers a 32 County Republic but will live by the Oath he would have to take.
I would say every President has had to sign bills that went against their own beliefs,it goes with the job.

I don't know why anyone would vote for a person who is coming out with something one minute and then going in the opposite direction the next.

Everybody who votes for any Candidate will be doing that!:)

Liam Byrne

hangon wrote: »

Everybody who votes for any Candidate will be doing that!:)

Agreed - which is why Higgins is the best of a very bad lot.

The difference is that most of them won't be lying about or excusing murder, which is a step too far for most people in this country.

hangon

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Agreed - which is why Higgins is the best of a very bad lot.

Higgins will be getting my number 1,but he is far from being part of a bad far lot.he was always a defender of the Constitution.

The difference is that most of them won't be lying about or excusing murder, which is a step too far for most people in this country.

I have not heard MMG doing either in over ten years, when does the past become the past?