So, what REAL reasons for the union or not?

Iwasfrozen

Happyman42 wrote: »

I was referring to your suggestion that it could be a 'british protectorate' :rolleyes:

Call it what you want it was only a suggestion to protect the fledgling state from potential foreign aggression.

Happyman42

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Call it what you want it was only a suggestion to protect the fledgling state from potential foreign aggression.

The 'fledglings' would do well to think hard on who 'protects' them considering that 'foreign aggression' is at the root of their problems!

Iwasfrozen

Happyman42 wrote: »

The 'fledglings' would do well to think hard on who 'protects' them considering that 'foreign aggression' is at the root of their problems!

Not quite sure what you're talking about. Anyway an independent Northern Ireland is one potential solution to the problem and one that shouldn't be over looked. Personally I think anything that takes the problem out of our hands should be looked at.

Happyman42

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Not quite sure what you're talking about. Anyway an independent Northern Ireland is one potential solution to the problem and one that shouldn't be over looked. Personally I think anything that takes the problem out of our hands should be looked at.

I think you know exactly what I'm talking about.
The 'problem' is, always was and always will be 'ours'.

Iwasfrozen

Happyman42 wrote: »

I think you know exactly what I'm talking about.
The 'problem' is, always was and always will be 'ours'.

Nope, I don't. And why exactly is it our problem? The troubles were an internal stability problem within the United Kingdom. It only involved us because the violence occasionally spilled over our borders and because one half of the trouble makers wanted to join us. But if we can solve both those problems then we move on from the troubles and towards a future where our two nations can peacefully share one little island without killing each other of stamping out each others culture. And I for one think that is a better future then one with an unhappy unionist minority planting bombs in Dublin the capital of a United Ireland. Why should anyone else die just so you can drive from Dundalk to Newry without crossing a border?

karma_

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Nope, I don't. And why exactly is it our problem? The troubles were an internal stability problem within the United Kingdom. It only involved us because the violence occasionally spilled over our borders and because one half of the trouble makers wanted to join us. But if we can solve both those problems then we move on from the troubles and towards a future where our two nations can peacefully share one little island without killing each other of stamping out each others culture. And I for one think that is a better future then one with an unhappy unionist minority planting bombs in Dublin the capital of a United Ireland. Why should anyone else die just so you can drive from Dundalk to Newry without crossing a border?

So nationalists should just give up and accept the union in perpetuity? I'm sorry but that is not going to happen and ultimately it's up to the people of the North to decide their own future, whether they want a UI or to stay in the UK. That's the terms of the GFA and the Irish government is signed up to that agreement.

Happyman42

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Nope, I don't. And why exactly is it our problem? The troubles were an internal stability problem within the United Kingdom. It only involved us because the violence occasionally spilled over our borders and because one half of the trouble makers wanted to join us. But if we can solve both those problems then we move on from the troubles and towards a future where our two nations can peacefully share one little island without killing each other of stamping out each others culture. And I for one think that is a better future then one with an unhappy unionist minority planting bombs in Dublin the capital of a United Ireland. Why should anyone else die just so you can drive from Dundalk to Newry without crossing a border?

The guilty dreams of the partitionist.
Why don't you just spit it out...'I wish they'd all just f**k off'.

gurramok

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

And I for one think that is a better future then one with an unhappy unionist minority planting bombs in Dublin the capital of a United Ireland. Why should anyone else die just so you can drive from Dundalk to Newry without crossing a border?

Hold on here, you've changed your tune. You've been anti-violence when it was in the name of a UI but yet you give in to the violent aggressors when democracy says we have a UI. That is anti-democratic.

oscarBravo

Happyman42 wrote: »

The guilty dreams of the partitionist.

Why is it partitionist to want to maintain the borders of the country of one's birth? If the UK were demanding to annex part of a neighbouring country, you'd call it imperialism. Why is a desire not to see Ireland annex part of the UK "partitionist"?

Why don't you just spit it out...'I wish they'd all just f**k off'.

Given their seemingly total inability to get on with their neighbours, that's not an unfair assessment.

karma_

oscarBravo wrote: »

Given their seemingly total inability to get on with their neighbours, that's not an unfair assessment.

You haven't spent much time in the North have you?

The thing is see, we can get on with one another and do. The problem is, that the only people an outsider will hear is those fools from either side who shout loudest.

Happyman42

oscarBravo wrote: »

Why is it partitionist to want to maintain the borders of the country of one's birth?

My country has an unnatural and forceably maintained border.

If the UK were demanding to annex part of a neighbouring country, you'd call it imperialism.[ Why is a desire not to see Ireland annex part of the UK "partitionist"?

I could have sworn that was the what caused the Irish problem.

Given their seemingly total inability to get on with their neighbours, that's not an unfair assessment.

And of course the southern partitionist continues to wash their hands of any responsibility for that situation.
Part of all 'terror' campaigns is the desire to get those who ignore their responsibilities to take notice, to take responsibility.
When will the entire islands of Ireland and the UK realise this? this problem will keep coming back to your doors until it is dealt with, properly.

junder

Happyman42 wrote: »

My country has an unnatural and forceably maintained border.
I could have sworn that was the what caused the Irish problem.



And of course the southern partitionist continues to wash their hands of any responsibility for that situation.
Part of all 'terror' campaigns is the desire to get those who ignore their responsibilities to take notice, to take responsibility.
When will the entire islands of Ireland and the UK realise this? this problem will keep coming back to your doors until it is dealt with, properly.

You mean until violent republicans get thier way

Happyman42

junder wrote: »

You mean until violent republicans get thier way

I am saying the 'problem' will not go away until the root causes are dealt with.You guys managed to destabilise the place several times (flags and marches) recently without any help from 'violent' republicans.
Is there anything happening in the real world (not the plastic pretend world of Peace and Reconciliation and government spin) that convinces you the problem is sorted junder?

oscarBravo

karma_ wrote: »

You haven't spent much time in the North have you?

You'd be surprised.

The thing is see, we can get on with one another and do. The problem is, that the only people an outsider will hear is those fools from either side who shout loudest.

Well, when those of you who are capable of getting on with each other finally figure out how to deal with the fools in your respective communities who give the rest of you a bad name, we can discuss whether or not you're all welcome in my country.

Happyman42 wrote: »

My country has an unnatural and forceably maintained border.

There's no such thing as a natural border, and the existence of the border was voted for by an overwhelming majority of the populations north and south.

I could have sworn that was the what caused the Irish problem.

Oh look, you didn't answer the question.

And of course the southern partitionist continues to wash their hands of any responsibility for that situation.
Part of all 'terror' campaigns is the desire to get those who ignore their responsibilities to take notice, to take responsibility.
When will the entire islands of Ireland and the UK realise this? this problem will keep coming back to your doors until it is dealt with, properly.

Who are you to tell me I have a responsibility for the situation in Northern Ireland? The border was in place for generations before my birth. My father was in nappies when the Republic of Ireland Act was enacted; his father was in nappies when the border was created.

I don't subscribe to your worldview. I don't see Ireland as a "natural" all-island nation; the very idea is completely divorced from reality. I have no desire to see Northern Ireland become part of the Republic of Ireland. I don't care whether or not it remains part of the United Kingdom.

It's only in your frame of reference that I have any responsibility for what happens in Northern Ireland, and it's a fairly horrible frame of reference in which it's acceptable for terrorists to murder and intimidate people to try to bully them into joining them in that frame of reference.

Happyman42 wrote: »

I am saying the 'problem' will not go away until the root causes are dealt with.

The problem with that argument is that it's predicated on a belief that the root causes as you see them are the only root causes, and you're not open to the possibility that any other root causes could conceivably exist.

For example, I've expressed the view that the real root cause of ongoing violence in Northern Ireland is that we, as a nation, have a bad habit of glorifying others in the past who decided to ignore democracy and instead use violence to attain political ends. Doubtless you'll reject this as a root cause, so why shouldn't I reject yours?

Happyman42

oscarBravo wrote: »

There's no such thing as a natural border, and the existence of the border was voted for by an overwhelming majority of the populations north and south. Oh look, you didn't answer the question. Who are you to tell me I have a responsibility for the situation in Northern Ireland? The border was in place for generations before my birth. My father was in nappies when the Republic of Ireland Act was enacted; his father was in nappies when the border was created.

Don't let me hear you complain then when those that do have a problem react then, because that ^^ is just 'washing your hands'.
It's another trait of the partitionist to take all the benefits accrued by his forebears while not taking responsibility for those things that they welched on.

I don't subscribe to your worldview. I don't see Ireland as a "natural" all-island nation; the very idea is completely divorced from reality. I have no desire to see Northern Ireland become part of the Republic of Ireland. I don't care whether or not it remains part of the United Kingdom.

It's only in your frame of reference that I have any responsibility for what happens in Northern Ireland, and it's a fairly horrible frame of reference in which it's acceptable for terrorists to murder and intimidate people to try to bully them into joining them in that frame of reference.

And the 'person' who refuses to see that there is a cyclical problem is living in 'reality'?????

The problem with that argument is that it's predicated on a belief that the root causes as you see them are the only root causes, and you're not open to the possibility that any other root causes could conceivably exist.

For example, I've expressed the view that the real root cause of ongoing violence in Northern Ireland is that we, as a nation, have a bad habit of glorifying others in the past who decided to ignore democracy and instead use violence to attain political ends. Doubtless you'll reject this as a root cause, so why shouldn't I reject yours?

Facepalm big enough has not been invented yet.:rolleyes:

oscarBravo

Happyman42 wrote: »

Don't let me hear you complain then when those that do have a problem react then, because that ^^ is just 'washing your hands'.

You ignore my salient point about all borders being unnatural; you ignore my point about the border being affirmed by a democratic vote; you ignore the fact that the border pre-dates both of us by generations; instead you focus on the point that because other people want to make their problem with a line on a map my problem, I have a choice between giving them what they want or dealing with the consequences.

And you wonder why I want nothing to do with this worldview?

It's another trait of the partitionist to take all the benefits accrued by his forebears while not taking responsibility for those things that they welched on.

What benefits am I taking?

And the 'person' who refuses to see that there is a cyclical problem is living in 'reality'?????

I'm assuming the big cheesy grin is there to indicate that you made a quip that sounded really clever in your head, but I have no idea what relevance it has to what I posted.

Facepalm big enough has not been invented yet.:rolleyes:

By a staggering coincidence, that's precisely my reaction to the rather idiotic concept of a "natural" border.

Happyman42

oscarBravo wrote: »

You ignore my salient point about all borders being unnatural; you ignore my point about the border being affirmed by a democratic vote; you ignore the fact that the border pre-dates both of us by generations; instead you focus on the point that because other people want to make their problem with a line on a map my problem, I have a choice between giving them what they want or dealing with the consequences.

That is fine, you make your choice and you live with the consequences, but remember, your choice, just like the choices made by partitionists before you, means nothing will change. You may get brief interludes of peace but as I have said, the problem is cyclical. Some have made the 'choice' to make the changes that will lead to permanent peace.
As I asked junder, what is it about the current situation that convinces you we can live in peace?

And you wonder why I want nothing to do with this worldview?

I don't wonder at all, I know exactly why you and others want nothing to do with it.

I'm assuming the big cheesy grin is there to indicate that you made a quip that sounded really clever in your head, but I have no idea what relevance it has to what I posted.

Because partitionism is part of the cyclical reoccurance of the problem. It beggars belief that there are still those who believe this problem can be solved by ignoring the root cause.
SF yesterday are calling for a vote on it
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2013/0119/breaking16.html?via=mr
It will not go away just because Enda and all the other partitionists wish it so. Just as Unionism is being made to normalise life and confront their part in the problem, so also will the South. We are responsible for our role historically if the problem still exists.

Iwasfrozen

karma_ wrote: »

So nationalists should just give up and accept the union in perpetuity? I'm sorry but that is not going to happen and ultimately it's up to the people of the North to decide their own future, whether they want a UI or to stay in the UK. That's the terms of the GFA and the Irish government is signed up to that agreement.

Nationalists don't have to do anything. It is within the rights of the individual to hold whatever legitimate political opinions they want. On the other hand we don't have to accept them. All I'm saying is that independence is one solution but if it was to work both London and Dublin would have to make it 100% clear that rejoining either Ireland or the UK is simply not an option, they could sign an international treaty and give it over to the UN or EU to enforce. That's the only way you are ever going to see a right-left political system emerge instead of the current nationalist/unionist political caste we have at the moment.

I agree it may not be entirely democratic but democracy is not always automatically the best system, especially when you have a large minority willing to use violence if it doesn't get it's way. In these cases a compromise is best.

Happyman42 wrote: »

The guilty dreams of the partitionist.
Why don't you just spit it out...'I wish they'd all just f**k off'.

Because I don't. I wish we could live peacefully side by side without violence on either side of the border. Unfortunately that's a pipe dream.

gurramok wrote: »

Hold on here, you've changed your tune. You've been anti-violence when it was in the name of a UI but yet you give in to the violent aggressors when democracy says we have a UI. That is anti-democratic.

Emm no I haven't? I condemn violence from both parties. But surely you understand why retaining the status quo is less damaging then a radical shift in borders. Look how much damage removing the flag from Belfast city hall was for feck sake, I for one don't want to share a country with those eejits.

oscarBravo

Happyman42 wrote: »

That is fine, you make your choice and you live with the consequences, but remember, your choice, just like the choices made by partitionists before you, means nothing will change. You may get brief interludes of peace but as I have said, the problem is cyclical. Some have made the 'choice' to make the changes that will lead to permanent peace.

Read your own words, and try to be objective enough to see them from the perspective of someone who doesn't share your worldview.

You're saying that there are only two choices: do things your way, or live with a permanent threat of violence. You are rejecting out of hand any possibility that there are any other options than these. There will be a United Ireland, or there will be violence.

Imagine for a second that I have a dispute with my neighbour, and that that dispute has occasionally turned ugly and led to fisticuffs. Imagine further that he tells me that there are only two choices: I can either give him what he wants, or I can live with the threat of future violence. What I want isn't a factor in this; I can either accept an outcome I don't want, or accept that I am in permanent danger of violence. The outcome that I want isn't on the table.

There are words for people like that, and none of them are flattering.

As I asked junder, what is it about the current situation that convinces you we can live in peace?

I'm under no illusions that you're capable of living in peace. I'm far from convinced that that's a good reason to give you what you want.

Because partitionism is part of the cyclical reoccurance of the problem. It beggars belief that there are still those who believe this problem can be solved by ignoring the root cause.

It beggars belief that there are those who have such a simplistic view of the world that they believe that the root problem is a line on a bloody map, especially when the same people can't actually adduce any logical or rational argument as to why it's so life-or-death important that that line shouldn't exist.

Happyman42

oscarBravo wrote: »

Read your own words, and try to be objective enough to see them from the perspective of someone who doesn't share your worldview.

You're saying that there are only two choices: do things your way, or live with a permanent threat of violence. You are rejecting out of hand any possibility that there are any other options than these. There will be a United Ireland, or there will be violence.

Imagine for a second that I have a dispute with my neighbour, and that that dispute has occasionally turned ugly and led to fisticuffs. Imagine further that he tells me that there are only two choices: I can either give him what he wants, or I can live with the threat of future violence. What I want isn't a factor in this; I can either accept an outcome I don't want, or accept that I am in permanent danger of violence. The outcome that I want isn't on the table.

There are words for people like that, and none of them are flattering. I'm under no illusions that you're capable of living in peace. I'm far from convinced that that's a good reason to give you what you want. It beggars belief that there are those who have such a simplistic view of the world that they believe that the root problem is a line on a bloody map, especially when the same people can't actually adduce any logical or rational argument as to why it's so life-or-death important that that line shouldn't exist.

I am kinda fed up debating this with people who insist in living in a utopian world.
Deal with reality and then we may be able to have a debate.
Real violence is happening and will continue to happen, regardless of your wish that people will behave to a certain code.
The question is, have you any constructive, real solutions.

karma_

So all that loyalists and unionists have to do to secure the union is to threaten violence should the prospect of a UI ever become close to reality?

oscarBravo

Happyman42 wrote: »

The question is, have you any constructive, real solutions.

Yes: stop glorifying past violence. Put an end to 1916 commemorations. Tell our children that the violence in our country's history is something we should look back on and learn from as a negative lesson, much the way the native American genocide and slavery are in the US. Emphasise the fact that the Irish Free State became Ireland, and in turn became the Republic of Ireland, all without so much as a raised voice, never mind any bloodshed. Point out that after an undemocratic rebellion, a vicious war of independence and a bloody civil war, we ended up with a Free State that was barely distinguishable from the Home Rule that could very well have been achieved in the same timeframe but without the bloodshed.

Now, you'll doubtless reject all of this out of hand, because it doesn't square with your premises. You'll describe it as "utopian", because those who believe in violence (and those who glorify past violence while hypocritically decrying present violence, all the while threatening future violence if their terms are not met) refuse to countenance any outcome but the one they want.

Iwasfrozen

karma_ wrote: »

So all that loyalists and unionists have to do to secure the union is to threaten violence should the prospect of a UI ever become close to reality?

Pretty much, shifting the border isn't worth the cost of one single solitary human life.

oscarBravo

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Pretty much, shifting the border isn't worth the cost of one single solitary human life.

I wouldn't necessarily agree. If the democratic decision of the people north and south of the border is to unite, then it should happen - but only on those terms, and not because a bunch of psychos are threatening to continue a campaign of terrorism until it happens.

In fact, I will oppose the idea of a united Ireland as long as there are terrorists trying to bring it about through violence. When there has been a real and meaningful peace for long enough that it's clear that violence has failed to achieve its aims, then I'll rescind my opposition to the idea.

karma_

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yes: stop glorifying past violence. Put an end to 1916 commemorations. Tell our children that the violence in our country's history is something we should look back on and learn from as a negative lesson, much the way the native American genocide and slavery are in the US. Emphasise the fact that the Irish Free State became Ireland, and in turn became the Republic of Ireland, all without so much as a raised voice, never mind any bloodshed. Point out that after an undemocratic rebellion, a vicious war of independence and a bloody civil war, we ended up with a Free State that was barely distinguishable from the Home Rule that could very well have been achieved in the same timeframe but without the bloodshed.

Now, you'll doubtless reject all of this out of hand, because it doesn't square with your premises. You'll describe it as "utopian", because those who believe in violence (and those who glorify past violence while hypocritically decrying present violence, all the while threatening future violence if their terms are not met) refuse to countenance any outcome but the one they want.

All very noble, but only addresses one side of teh equation.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Pretty much, shifting the border isn't worth the cost of one single solitary human life.

And what of those of us on this side of the border? We have to accept being denied our democratic will* and to live under the threat of violence. Pardon me but that does not come within a hundred miles of a solution.

*Hypothetically of course. The people of the North may never want to be unified with the rest of Ireland, but should we then I would expect that it be implemented at that point.

oscarBravo

karma_ wrote: »

All very noble, but only addresses one side of teh equation.

The other side being...?

*Hypothetically of course. The people of the North may never want to be unified with the rest of Ireland, but should we then I would expect that it be implemented at that point.

...if and only if those of us south of the border also want it.

Iwasfrozen

oscarBravo wrote: »

I wouldn't necessarily agree. If the democratic decision of the people north and south of the border is to unite, then it should happen - but only on those terms, and not because a bunch of psychos are threatening to continue a campaign of terrorism until it happens.

In fact, I will oppose the idea of a united Ireland as long as there are terrorists trying to bring it about through violence. When there has been a real and meaningful peace for long enough that it's clear that violence has failed to achieve its aims, then I'll rescind my opposition to the idea.

But then you would have to live with the deaths of people on your hands. And for what? So that the whole island can enter into one union? No in my opinion the unionist group of **** stirrers would need to be pacified before any potential union can take place.

oscarBravo

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

But then you would have to live with the deaths of people on your hands.

Not any more than I have the deaths of those who are dying because of the current crop of psychos who want what I don't.

And for what? So that the whole island can enter into one union? No in my opinion the unionist group of **** stirrers would need to be pacified before any potential union can take place.

I'm not a believer in giving the current crop of terrorist psychos what they want in order to appease them; it would be hypocritical of me to take a different stance towards a different set of psychos.

karma_

oscarBravo wrote: »

The other side being...?

Well, on this island, Republicans are not the only ones who glorify past acts of violence.

...if and only if those of us south of the border also want it.

Of course, that is the terms of teh agreement.

Iwasfrozen

karma_ wrote: »

And what of those of us on this side of the border? We have to accept being denied our democratic will* and to live under the threat of violence. Pardon me but that does not come within a hundred miles of a solution.

Yes, democracy isn't always the no 1 automatic solution to any problem. Especially when you're dealing with a very large minority and a yes or no question. Perhaps if the hard core unionists were pacified in the future then maybe it could work but until then you're better off looking for a compromise solution. I have suggested independence as one potential solution that shouldn't be over looked.

karma_ wrote: »

*Hypothetically of course. The people of the North may never want to be unified with the rest of Ireland, but should we then I would expect that it be implemented at that point.

But then you're just shifting the problem out of Britain's hands and into Ireland's. We don't have the resources to deal with an insurgency like the British did and to be frank it's kind of selfish to expect us to sort out your problems.

Iwasfrozen

oscarBravo wrote: »

Not any more than I have the deaths of those who are dying because of the current crop of psychos who want what I don't.

but the difference that's not our doing.

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm not a believer in giving the current crop of terrorist psychos what they want in order to appease them; it would be hypocritical of me to take a different stance towards a different set of psychos.

The terrorist psychos want a return to direct rule. Maintaining the status quo is denying them.

karma_

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Yes, democracy isn't always the no 1 automatic solution to any problem. Especially when you're dealing with a very large minority and a yes or no question. Perhaps if the hard core unionists were pacified in the future then maybe it could work but until then you're better off looking for a compromise solution. I have suggested independence as one potential solution that shouldn't be over looked.


But then you're just shifting the problem out of Britain's hands and into Ireland's. We don't have the resources to deal with an insurgency like the British did and to be frank it's kind of selfish to expect us to sort out your problems.

I wouldn't be overly opposed to some for of independence but that ship has sailed. We have the GFA signed and agreed which I am more than happy with.

oscarBravo

karma_ wrote: »

Well, on this island, Republicans are not the only ones who glorify past acts of violence.

I'm not a fan of anyone glorifying past violence. I'd be only too happy to see an end to all the triumphalism around the battle of the Boyne and the various other displays of "my grandda beat up your grandda" pageantry.

Happyman42

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yes: stop glorifying past violence. Put an end to 1916 commemorations. Tell our children that the violence in our country's history is something we should look back on and learn from as a negative lesson, much the way the native American genocide and slavery are in the US. Emphasise the fact that the Irish Free State became Ireland, and in turn became the Republic of Ireland, all without so much as a raised voice, never mind any bloodshed. Point out that after an undemocratic rebellion, a vicious war of independence and a bloody civil war, we ended up with a Free State that was barely distinguishable from the Home Rule that could very well have been achieved in the same timeframe but without the bloodshed.

Now, you'll doubtless reject all of this out of hand, because it doesn't square with your premises. You'll describe it as "utopian", because those who believe in violence (and those who glorify past violence while hypocritically decrying present violence, all the while threatening future violence if their terms are not met) refuse to countenance any outcome but the one they want.

This is the utter nonsense spouted over and over again by those lucky enough not to be living at the coalface.
Where do you get the idea that violence exists in a vacuum?
Violence is a reaction to something, in Irelands case it has always been a reaction to subjugation and the removal of self determination.
Your hypothesis is based on wishful thinking about a world that does not and never has existed.
The people who engaged in violence may be wrong, misguided (and whatever you are having yourself),but they are not 'physcos' because that would mean they are unable to stop. The IRA stopped when they achieved a deal that they could live with.
There are still people who see violence as a means to attain what they want, you are either gonna deal with that, and do something about it or continue to run away again, hoping you won't get caught up in it .
Condemnation never saved one live in this country.

oscarBravo

Happyman42 wrote: »

This is the utter nonsense spouted over and over again by those lucky enough not to be living at the coalface.

And that's the sort of nonsense spouted in response by those who refuse to accept that there's any other way of perceiving the world other than the way they've been indoctrinated into.

Where do you get the idea that violence exists in a vacuum?
Violence is a reaction to something, in Irelands case it has always been a reaction to subjugation and the removal of self determination.

Where do you get the idea that I have that idea?

I've never claimed that there is no reason for the violence in Irish history; I've claimed that that violence hasn't been necessary. Those who disagree with me live their lives entirely by the logical fallacy of post hoc, ergo propter hoc - Ireland achieved independence after the 1916 rebellion, therefore the 1916 rebellion was the only possible means by which independence could have been achieved. This leads to the sort of bizarre doublethink that defends violence in the past, even though it ran counter to the efforts to achieve the same thing through political means; while condemning violence today, because it runs counter to the efforts to achieve the same thing through political means.

Yes, violence is a response to the conditions that prevail at the time, but that doesn't automatically make it the right response. Most republicans tacitly agree with this, by pointing out that violence is the wrong response to the conditions that prevail today. I'm just taking that logical thinking one step further.

Your hypothesis is based on wishful thinking about a world that does not and never has existed.

As was MLK's "dream" speech. Just because Ireland has never been free from people who believe that murdering others is the correct approach to solving political problems doesn't make it a mistake to aspire to a future when it will be free from them.

There are still people who see violence as a means to attain what they want, you are either gonna deal with that, and do something about it or continue to run away again, hoping you won't get caught up in it .

I am doing something about it. I'm repeatedly pointing out that it's hypocritical to laud people who did the same thing in the past as heroes while condemning those who do it today as "misguided". You may not think that's a particularly constructive approach, but I personally believe it's a lot more useful than the dual hypocrisy of not only differentiating between past and present use of violence, but also of condemning present violence while simultaneously using it as leverage to achieve your aims - the whole "I don't agree with their tactics, but let's give them what they want to make them go away" appeasement philosophy.

Condemnation never saved one live in this country.

It certainly hasn't cost a fraction of the lives that the past violence we as a nation hold in such esteem has - and maybe it would save some lies if it wasn't so transparently dishonest. If we're going to condemn violence, let's do it consistently; not just condemning the violence that doesn't suit our own present agenda.

Happyman42

oscarBravo wrote: »

And that's the sort of nonsense spouted in response by those who refuse to accept that there's any other way of perceiving the world other than the way they've been indoctrinated into. Where do you get the idea that I have that idea?

Who is refusing to accept that there isn't another way? There's plenty of other ways, one of them is been pursued at the minute post the GFA.

I've never claimed that there is no reason for the violence in Irish history; I've claimed that that violence hasn't been necessary. Those who disagree with me live their lives entirely by the logical fallacy of post hoc, ergo propter hoc - Ireland achieved independence after the 1916 rebellion, therefore the 1916 rebellion was the only possible means by which independence could have been achieved. This leads to the sort of bizarre doublethink that defends violence in the past, even though it ran counter to the efforts to achieve the same thing through political means; while condemning violence today, because it runs counter to the efforts to achieve the same thing through political means.

Again, why is it an issue of who defends and who doesn't defend violence?
It doesn't matter a damm what your stance is or mine if violence is going on around you.
Violence invariably happens when those with the power to change things, don't. That is the continuing reason for violence in Irish history.

Yes, violence is a response to the conditions that prevail at the time, but that doesn't automatically make it the right response. Most republicans tacitly agree with this, by pointing out that violence is the wrong response to the conditions that prevail today. I'm just taking that logical thinking one step further. As was MLK's "dream" speech. Just because Ireland has never been free from people who believe that murdering others is the correct approach to solving political problems doesn't make it a mistake to aspire to a future when it will be free from them.

Great, so you are happy to accept a future where there is violence. Some of us don't, because we believe that we understand the root of the problem. While your belief is noble, it isn't of much practial use to anybody, particularily those most affected

I am doing something about it. I'm repeatedly pointing out that it's hypocritical to laud people who did the same thing in the past as heroes while condemning those who do it today as "misguided". You may not think that's a particularly constructive approach, but I personally believe it's a lot more useful than the dual hypocrisy of not only differentiating between past and present use of violence, but also of condemning present violence while simultaneously using it as leverage to achieve your aims - the whole "I don't agree with their tactics, but let's give them what they want to make them go away" appeasement philosophy.

The people who laud past violence most hypocritically are FG FF and all the other partitionists who walked away from their fellow country men and who continually adopt the 'I'm alright Jack, what's the matter with you savages' attitude.
And no, I don't think it is constructive, it's virtually useless in the real world. I'd rather be a useful hypocrite to be honest.

It certainly hasn't cost a fraction of the lives that the past violence we as a nation hold in such esteem has - and maybe it would save some lies if it wasn't so transparently dishonest. If we're going to condemn violence, let's do it consistently; not just condemning the violence that doesn't suit our own present agenda.

Condemnation as a concept is useless. Do something practical.

oscarBravo

Happyman42 wrote: »

Who is refusing to accept that there isn't another way? There's plenty of other ways, one of them is been pursued at the minute post the GFA.

It really would help if you read my posts, and at least pretended to make an effort to understand them, before snapping off a rote response.

And don't bother claiming that you read and understood the post you were replying to, because the paragraph above is in no way a cogent reply to the paragraph it quoted.

Violence invariably happens when those with the power to change things, don't. That is the continuing reason for violence in Irish history.

And that's a classic example of one-dimensional thinking.

I'll waste an analogy on you. If I'm in a bar, and I happen to glance at a woman in the bar, and her boyfriend thumps me for "looking at his woman", his "reason" for the violence is "someone looking at his woman". If another punter in the bar points out that violence is going to continue to happen as long as people go around looking at other people's women, that's true as far as it goes - but it's a symptom of a failure to think of other possible approaches than violence.

Great, so you are happy to accept a future where there is violence. Some of us don't, because we believe that we understand the root of the problem. While your belief is noble, it isn't of much practial use to anybody, particularily those most affected

Fair enough - I'll continue to condemn all fist fights in bars, and you can continue to talk about the completely justified brawls we had years ago, while describing current brawlers as "misguided", but darkly muttering about how people are going to keep getting beaten up in pubs if people don't learn to stop looking at each other's women.

I'd rather be a useful hypocrite to be honest.

I'd rather not be a hypocrite, because I don't see hypocrisy as useful. But if you want to continue to believe that you can have a future without violence, all the while lauding the violent heroes of the past, carry on with your "useful" hypocrisy. It seems to be working a treat so far.

Condemnation as a concept is useless. Do something practical.

What would you have me do?

Happyman42

oscarBravo wrote: »

It really would help if you read my posts, and at least pretended to make an effort to understand them, before snapping off a rote response.

And don't bother claiming that you read and understood the post you were replying to, because the paragraph above is in no way a cogent reply to the paragraph it quoted. And that's a classic example of one-dimensional thinking.

I'll waste an analogy on you. If I'm in a bar, and I happen to glance at a woman in the bar, and her boyfriend thumps me for "looking at his woman", his "reason" for the violence is "someone looking at his woman". If another punter in the bar points out that violence is going to continue to happen as long as people go around looking at other people's women, that's true as far as it goes - but it's a symptom of a failure to think of other possible approaches than violence. Fair enough - I'll continue to condemn all fist fights in bars, and you can continue to talk about the completely justified brawls we had years ago, while describing current brawlers as "misguided", but darkly muttering about how people are going to keep getting beaten up in pubs if people don't learn to stop looking at each other's women. I'd rather not be a hypocrite, because I don't see hypocrisy as useful. But if you want to continue to believe that you can have a future without violence, all the while lauding the violent heroes of the past, carry on with your "useful" hypocrisy. It seems to be working a treat so far. What would you have me do?

Of course while you are up on the high ground thinking up more useless analogies, down in the real world, people die and get killed and have their lives ruined.
I can't be bothered debating with the pious, when you have something that will be of use in the real world and when you accept the realities (yes, the cruel sad big wide real world) then get back to me.

oscarBravo

Happyman42 wrote: »

...when you have something that will be of use in the real world and when you accept the realities (yes, the cruel sad big wide real world) then get back to me.

...

oscarBravo wrote: »

What would you have me do?

Thomas_I

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

What makes you so certain the British are going to want to withdraw? and why are you so certain that an independent Northern Ireland wouldn't work?

There is no certainty of an withdrawal of the British, there is rather a possibility for them doing so because they once might become that fed up with the whole thing that it saves them more money than it is worth to spent. There is more certainty that an independent NI wouldn´t work because as we´ve seen recently, some people there have a "natural talent" to deter foreign investors and customers to come to NI. NI without the financial support from London is lost and I think that is the great fear of these Unionists / Loyalists that London might let them down but even then, they´d refuse to admit that this would happen because of their own fault.

These people are living in their own "micro-cosmos" and don´t bother to take in their considerations that they´re not alone on this planet, let alone to say on that Island.

Thomas_I

oscarBravo wrote: »

... stop glorifying past violence. Put an end to 1916 commemorations. Tell our children that the violence in our country's history is something we should look back on and learn from as a negative lesson, much the way the native American genocide and slavery are in the US. Emphasise the fact that the Irish Free State became Ireland, and in turn became the Republic of Ireland, all without so much as a raised voice, never mind any bloodshed. Point out that after an undemocratic rebellion, a vicious war of independence and a bloody civil war, we ended up with a Free State that was barely distinguishable from the Home Rule that could very well have been achieved in the same timeframe but without the bloodshed.

Apart from that "pomp and circumstances" the RSF makes out of it, I see no "glorifying past violence" by the commemoration of the Easter Rising conducted by the Irish Government in Dublin. On the contrary it looks more to me as an real "commemorating" the death of that event which was the expressed political will to resist the for centuries lasting occupation and oppression of Ireland by the British. How do you like to justify that towards "your children"?

You´re omitting the fact that it was the Unionists / Loyalists who rejected Home Rule for Ireland and they were the first who took up arms and organised themselves in paramilitary organisations to "defend the Union". You are also omitting that in one way rejecting Home Rule for Ireland as a whole, in the onther way they were quite happy to have their own regime installed by the British and the then NI-PM James Craig didn´t care whether "the rest of Ireland" would remain within the BE or not as long as he could keep his own "Ulster State".

As you´re stating that all the bloodshed had could be avoided by Home Rule, I´m quite surprised why you haven´t even thought of the Unionists in this regard then. Surely it had could been avoided but unfortunately there were some people in Ulster who liked and still like to be "more British than the British themselves".

oscarBravo wrote: »

... those who believe in violence (and those who glorify past violence while hypocritically decrying present violence, all the while threatening future violence if their terms are not met) refuse to countenance any outcome but the one they want.

That´s simply an generalisation because Happyman42 is imo not "believing in violence" as you see it, he is "dealing with the real threat of violence" in politics and I´ve not yet come across any post of him in which he stated otherwise.

Even those pacifists and advocats of non-violence like Martin Luther King and also Gandhi were aware of violence, faced it, resisted and respond to it in their non-violent ways. I´ve also a great deal of admiration towards both these historical characters, but aside of their dreams, they were also working on the realities and became both victims of violence themselves.

I can understand the feelings and worries of people who went through the decades of the troubles in NI. There is nothing that I´d envy them at all, but if the people in NI are rather inclined to continue in being stuck in the past and handing over their own traumatisations to the younger generations, how can there be any chance of a lasting peace between Unionists and Republicans? In this regard it bares the chances for a better future whether it will lead to a United Ireland or not is part of that but in the present situation rather an secondary issue. The first and most crucial thing that matters is to have peace and to give the people on both sides the time to move foreward.

oscarBravo

Thomas_I wrote: »

Apart from that "pomp and circumstances" the RSF makes out of it, I see no "glorifying past violence" by the commemoration of the Easter Rising conducted by the Irish Government in Dublin. On the contrary it looks more to me as an real "commemorating" the death of that event which was the expressed political will to resist the for centuries lasting occupation and oppression of Ireland by the British.

The very fact of commemorating the rising is glorifying violence. There was a political process underway at the time, and a minority of a minority decided to circumvent that political process and start a war.

It's a truism that we can never know what would have been, but I refuse to accept the dogma, born of a logical fallacy, that independence could only ever have come about through violence. I'll concede that it's possible that it might not have; but I've yet to see an Irish Republican concede that it's possible that it could.

One justification for the Easter rebellion was the argument that the political process was too slow, and that the rebellion would accelerate the creation of an Irish republic. As it turned out, the republic didn't come into existence for more than three decades after the rebellion. Way to accelerate the process.

How do you like to justify that towards "your children"?

I don't understand the question.

You´re omitting the fact that it was the Unionists / Loyalists who rejected Home Rule for Ireland and they were the first who took up arms and organised themselves in paramilitary organisations to "defend the Union". You are also omitting that in one way rejecting Home Rule for Ireland as a whole, in the onther way they were quite happy to have their own regime installed by the British and the then NI-PM James Craig didn´t care whether "the rest of Ireland" would remain within the BE or not as long as he could keep his own "Ulster State".

I haven't addressed that point, because I don't see how you can justify actual violence by pointing to a threat of violence. Yes, the unionists threatened violence to advance their political views, but the republicans didn't merely threaten, they started a war.

I don't understand the double-standards that will condemn James Craig for being prepared to take up arms in defence of the Union, while simultaneously lauding Pearse et al for taking up arms in opposition to it.

As you´re stating that all the bloodshed had could be avoided by Home Rule, I´m quite surprised why you haven´t even thought of the Unionists in this regard then. Surely it had could been avoided but unfortunately there were some people in Ulster who liked and still like to be "more British than the British themselves".

I didn't state that all the bloodshed could have been avoided; I pointed out that if you interrupt a political process by starting a war, you're guaranteeing bloodshed, and we got it in spades.

The war of independence ended in partition. Who's to say that the Home Rule process wouldn't have ended in partition, without bloodshed?

Even those pacifists and advocats of non-violence like Martin Luther King and also Gandhi were aware of violence, faced it, resisted and respond to it in their non-violent ways. I´ve also a great deal of admiration towards both these historical characters, but aside of their dreams, they were also working on the realities and became both victims of violence themselves.

I'm not sure what I've said that suggests that I'm unaware of violence.

Mr Cumulonimbus

oscarBravo wrote: »

The very fact of commemorating the rising is glorifying violence.

If thats the primary thing thats bothering you, then the 4th of July and Bastille Day would want to be scrapped too.

There was a political process underway at the time

Suspended by the outbreak of WW1.

and a minority of a minority decided to circumvent that political process and start a war.

Who's the "of a minority" you are referring to here?

One justification for the Easter rebellion was the argument that the political process was too slow, and that the rebellion would accelerate the creation of an Irish republic.

It's a fair justification to make. How did Daniel O'Connell's Repeal Movement of the early 1840's fare out? Not too well. Didn't O'Connell call it off because of British threats of direct action? Go forward 40 years or so, the Reform Act of 1884 increases the size of the Irish electorate enabling Parnell's Irish Parliamentary Party to claim a majority of the Irish seats at the November 1885 election, including 17 out of 33 seats in Ulster. Did the British grant independence thereafter or after any election up to December 1910? No.

As it turned out, the republic didn't come into existence for more than three decades after the rebellion. Way to accelerate the process.

Analysis aided by hindsight. I've never valued it very highly.

I haven't addressed that point, because I don't see how you can justify actual violence by pointing to a threat of violence. Yes, the unionists threatened violence to advance their political views, but the republicans didn't merely threaten, they started a war.

I don't understand the double-standards that will condemn James Craig for being prepared to take up arms in defence of the Union, while simultaneously lauding Pearse et al for taking up arms in opposition to it.

Hold on, are you accusing Thomas I of double standards? All he pointed out was that you omitted to mention that it was Unionism that laid down the marker for undermining the political process at the time. Importing 20,000+ guns kind of stated their intentions in that regard.

By their actions, Unionism brought the alternative of physical force into the centre of early 20th century Irish politics which had been dormant up to then. It was a massively destabilising move.

Thomas_I

oscarBravo wrote: »

The very fact of commemorating the rising is glorifying violence. ...

I my view it is not, because using the same standards as you, it would be the same when HM Queen Elizabeth II attends the ceremony on Armistice Day every year to commemorate those who gave their lives since WWI.

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's a truism that we can never know what would have been, but I refuse to accept the dogma, born of a logical fallacy, that independence could only ever have come about through violence. I'll concede that it's possible that it might not have; but I've yet to see an Irish Republican concede that it's possible that it could.

From the historical records and documents it is quite clear what could have been without these Unionist die-hards opposing home rule because without the start of WWI in 1914, the home rule act had passed. I´m sure of that.

oscarBravo wrote: »

One justification for the Easter rebellion was the argument that the political process was too slow, and that the rebellion would accelerate the creation of an Irish republic. As it turned out, the republic didn't come into existence for more than three decades after the rebellion. Way to accelerate the process. I don't understand the question. I haven't addressed that point, because I don't see how you can justify actual violence by pointing to a threat of violence. Yes, the unionists threatened violence to advance their political views, but the republicans didn't merely threaten, they started a war.

The Irish Republic was proclaimed in 1916 and thus it was de facto established. It was also confirmed by the first Dáil of 1919 and the lack of international recognition of that doesn´t mean that it ceased to exist. You can just argument about the lack of legislative power that Republic had during the interim decades up to 1949 where for the sake of peace the Irish Free State came into power which lastet until 1937, replaced by the Irish State to finally achieve ultimate freedom and legislative power of the proclaimed Republic of Ireland in 1949 as the fulfillment of 1916 .

You can´t convince me that the Unionists / Loyalists in NI who stationed huge amounts of arms and amo had let them hidden anywhere else and let them go rotten. I consider the Irish War of Independence as a justified and legitimate rising in arms against a foreign force of occupation. It is proved that without that war, the British Government had neither the slightest intention to go into negotiations nor had it resumed the act of home rule because of the resistance from the Unionists. To throw both sides into the balance once can´t omit the British policies at that time when the British Empire was still in its full strenght.

oscarBravo wrote: »

I don't understand the double-standards that will condemn James Craig for being prepared to take up arms in defence of the Union, while simultaneously lauding Pearse et al for taking up arms in opposition to it. I didn't state that all the bloodshed could have been avoided; I pointed out that if you interrupt a political process by starting a war, you're guaranteeing bloodshed, and we got it in spades.

I don´t see double-standards in my opinion because James Craig is the one, among other Unionists, with the double-standards re the home rule issue. I have no problem to acknowledge the values of Pearse, Connolly etc. because I can´t accept the stance that the Irish people would had been in any way obliged to give in to the for centuries lasting attempt to Anglicize them against their own will.

oscarBravo wrote: »

The war of independence ended in partition. Who's to say that the Home Rule process wouldn't have ended in partition, without bloodshed? I'm not sure what I've said that suggests that I'm unaware of violence.

I´ve always blamed the Unionists for the partition of Ireland and I won´t cease in doing so, because they are imo clearly responsible for that and there are enough historical evidences to proof that. I didn´t say that you´re unaware of violence, on the contrary you are picking those pieces that suite you best.

Happyman42

Oscar reminds me of those retired Garda Commissioners, ex- heads of Civil Service departments etc who are wheeled out ad infinitum by RTE. They know how it all should have been done NOW THAT THEY HAVE RETIRED but never did any of it when in office.

I wonder could you consider the Flag issue and tell us how we can act to avoid it all ending in death and further destruction. That would be a useful contribution to be advocating instead of moral crusading about that which is done and past.



*(What's the bets his answer is to put the flag back up??? )

oscarBravo

Happyman42 wrote: »

I wonder could you consider the Flag issue and tell us how we can act to avoid it all ending in death and further destruction. That would be a useful contribution to be advocating instead of moral crusading about that which is done and past.

You want me to propose solutions for Northern Ireland's issues that don't involve learning lessons from past mistakes?

Sorry, can't help you.

Happyman42

oscarBravo wrote: »

You want me to propose solutions for Northern Ireland's issues that don't involve learning lessons from past mistakes?

Sorry, can't help you.

Ronan O'Gara would be proud of that kick to touch.

Perish the thought that Unionism could make a mistake.

Thomas_I

oscarBravo wrote: »

You want me to propose solutions for Northern Ireland's issues that don't involve learning lessons from past mistakes?

Sorry, can't help you.

So you can´t help them either:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-21140125

How about learning lessons from past mistakes that continue at the present time by these people?

I suppose that they would have a good laugh at your "non-violence" explanations. Any other proposals to them?

oscarBravo

Happyman42 wrote: »

Perish the thought that Unionism could make a mistake.

I find it very hard to have a rational discussion with someone who keeps making up stuff they have decided I believe so that they can disagree with it.

Thomas_I wrote: »

So you can´t help them either:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-21140125

Nope.

How about learning lessons from past mistakes that continue at the present time by these people?

It would be nice if they did, yes.

I suppose that they would have a good laugh at your "non-violence" explanations. Any other proposals to them?

None that the good people of Northern Ireland are likely to listen to, no. But then, if the good people of Northern Ireland were in the habit of listening, they might not have quite the problems they have today.

Happyman42

oscarBravo wrote: »

I find it very hard to have a rational discussion with someone who keeps making up stuff they have decided I believe so that they can disagree with it.

Just call it OscarBravo, what should Unionism do about the flag issue?