No concept for a United Ireland except by Sinn Féin?

murphaph

gallag wrote: »

Things in N.I could have been a lot worse, 3000 total deaths (half that by the IRA alone) over the best part of 50 years. Compare that to Syria etc and it is relatively calm, do you really think the irish army battling the b specials in British territory would have made things better?

Indeed, whilst 3,000 needless deaths are bad, in a global context, it was really a small affair. It could have been 10 times more and I believe if the RoI had intervened militarily that it definitely would have been more deaths in total.

Getting the UN involved etc. would have been absolutely NO GUARANTEE of an improvement over what happened happyman. The UN intervened in many places where people are still being killed!

Happyman42

murphaph wrote: »

Indeed, whilst 3,000 needless deaths are bad, in a global context, it was really a small affair. It could have been 10 times more and I believe if the RoI had intervened militarily that it definitely would have been more deaths in total.

Getting the UN involved etc. would have been absolutely NO GUARANTEE of an improvement over what happened happyman. The UN intervened in many places where people are still being killed!

I disagree, there was no desire on the part of the Civil Rights leaders to encourage the IRA, and the IRA didn't intially see any involvement for them.
It was very much a 'civil rights issue' and they where seeking support anywhere they could find it. Eamonn McCann was very careful to couch it in those terms. Bernadette Devlin (McAliskey) even visited Ian Paisley's house when it looked like he could be ally at one point. It was the ordinary ctizens of the Bogside who pressured the IRA to come to their aid when nobody else did.
Had the Civil Rights movement found vociferous support and protection from the Irish Government I don't see how the IRA could have grown so quickly and so strongly. Take the IRA out of the conflct and there would have been much less killing, plenty of rioting and violence but the level of deaths and mayhem? I can't see it tbh.

junder

murphaph wrote: »

Indeed, whilst 3,000 needless deaths are bad, in a global context, it was really a small affair. It could have been 10 times more and I believe if the RoI had intervened militarily that it definitely would have been more deaths in total.

Getting the UN involved etc. would have been absolutely NO GUARANTEE of an improvement over what happened happyman. The UN intervened in many places where people are still being killed!

The UN regarded Northern Ireland as a purely internal British matter and has no intention of intervening

Thomas_I

junder wrote: »

The UN regarded Northern Ireland as a purely internal British matter and has no intention of intervening

That would mean that the issue was submitted to the UN. I didn´t noticed that this was the case. Well, after all the British had to deal with this because it was their domestic affair (and still it is).

Happyman42

Thomas_I wrote: »

That would mean that the issue was submitted to the UN. I didn´t noticed that this was the case. Well, after all the British had to deal with this because it was their domestic affair (and still it is).

Thanks to what was won with the GFA they wouldn't be making decisions on their own now, there has to be an 'Irish' (Dublin) dimension to any decision.
Might stop them from making another royal mess like they did after the bogside.

Thomas_I

Happyman42 wrote: »

Thanks to what was won with the GFA they wouldn't be making decisions on their own now, there has to be an 'Irish' (Dublin) dimension to any decision.
Might stop them from making another royal mess like they did after the bogside.

I´ve started a new thread re the set up of an new unionist party in NI, as has been reported in a todays BBC News article.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056890838

What do you think about that in re to the GFA?

murphaph

Happyman42 wrote: »

Take the IRA out of the conflct and there would have been much less killing, plenty of rioting and violence but the level of deaths and mayhem? I can't see it tbh.

The Loyalists would have gone mental if the Irish Army had stepped one foot over the border. There would have been mayhem across NI. The IRA were not going to be kept out of it because there would have been huge reprisals against Catholics by Loyalist gangs had the Irish Army done what you suggest they should have.

These reprisals would have been on a massive scale and the IRA would have been much busier. There would have been countless more deaths on all sides. It really is that simple.

Happyman42

murphaph wrote: »

The Loyalists would have gone mental if the Irish Army had stepped one foot over the border. There would have been mayhem across NI. The IRA were not going to be kept out of it because there would have been huge reprisals against Catholics by Loyalist gangs had the Irish Army done what you suggest they should have.

These reprisals would have been on a massive scale and the IRA would have been much busier. There would have been countless more deaths on all sides. It really is that simple.

The loyalists did 'go mental' during the troubles, just like the when the 'nationalists went mental, they managed to do more damage to their own environments.
Yes there would have been casualties but imo the situation would have calmed quicker and there would probably have been less lethal weaponry about. The civil rights movement and the Irish government would have been more reasonable to deal wth.
The new Briitish Conservative government made the worst hardline calculations of all and made any prospect of a negotiated settlement of civil rights issues impossible.
The growth of the IRA was inevitable.

Thomas_I

Happyman42 wrote: »

The loyalists did 'go mental' during the troubles, just like the when the 'nationalists went mental, they managed to do more damage to their own environments.
Yes there would have been casualties but imo the situation would have calmed quicker and there would probably have been less lethal weaponry about. The civil rights movement and the Irish government would have been more reasonable to deal wth.
The new Briitish Conservative government made the worst hardline calculations of all and made any prospect of a negotiated settlement of civil rights issues impossible.
The growth of the IRA was inevitable.

It´s interesting in this context what I´ve read recently in Dixon´s book that even PM Heath was more inclined to drop NI and give way for the unification with the RoI on the peoples will but it was the "Loyalist backlash" at that time and the response from the IRA which made it impossible to the British to give in. On the other hand, in the 1970s there wouldn´t had been a majority of the people voting for unification with the RoI.

It is also interesting, although I´ve come across these allegations that the British in GB didn´t regard NI as being British at all. In their view, NI was just something like a colony after their modernization program for NI failed and that´s why they switched to a "colonial style" rule by direct rule from London.

The British Army was stuck in the middle of the Republicans and the Unionists / Loyalists and in 1972 the sentiment for pulling out the troops in Britain was growing. That´s according to polls made then and this was backed by the British press which brought them under pressure from the government side. He (Dixon) also tells that even among the Unionists themselves there were not less people inclined towards unification, because they already knew that they were not wanted by the British in GB. So it has been the Loyalists which were the hard core of resistance towards unification.

It´s easy to put the blame on the British government, but the situation then has been already too complex and sensitive in regards to avoid an open civil war in which the British Army had been caught inbetween worse than they already were.

There are some various reasons responsible for the growing of the IRA, but the British governments conduct of the whole crisis is just one part of whole picture.

The Corinthian

Happyman42 wrote: »

We're really getting the world tour now.
There was a 'total breakdown of law and order' that was what the British Army was sent in to restore.

The 'World tour' is to illustrate Longwill's point, that you were so eager to cite without actually understanding. A temporary loss of law and order does not automatically constitute a loss of sovereignty, especially when the sovereign state still has means to reimplement it, which the UK did when it sent in the army.

Only when the sovereign state no longer has such means or breaks down completely, as in Somalia, can one realistically argue that sovereignty has been lost.

Otherwise you are essentially saying that it's OK to invade anywhere the moment there's a riot, such as the 1981 Brixton riots.

Which bit of a 'what if' discussion are you having difficulty with?

None, but then you can't really accuse the Irish government of not having balls because certain conditions that would have been necessary to make such an action viable never came to pass.

My point is that, to achieve a peaceful withdrawal, the sending in of the UN could have been the deal clincher. The nationalists pacified and the Unionists snookered, the IRA's growth seriously retarded and a hiatus to establish the soial reforms created.

Until you can quote other statements coming from the British cabinet then we can take it that the mindset of the British government was not to exacerbate the situation.

As things stood, sure. But when faced with a foreign invasion, are you seriously suggesting that this attitude would not be seriously tested?

No, I'm not taking anythng. I asked you to supply quotes or sources that back up your dogmatc assertion that Britian would respond by using massive and lethal force and that the security of the Republc was at threat, whch you say was a certainty.

And those who were best versed with operation Armageddon did and do consider it to have been a certainty. This is why I asked you what about your scenario would have been so different - to date, all you've been able to offer is a number of hypothetical developments, than never actually happened. Which is fine if we want to speak completely abstractly, but you can't use those as a basis of what actually occurred.

I suppled Longmill's assessment that the British would have responded only with an ultimatum to wthdraw. If you believe otherwise, it's only fair you tell us, why?

That's not what he said. I said that the British response would have been an ultimatum to withdraw - and then what? Ultimately, his assessment was that, based upon the Irish army's response to this there were only two possible outcomes for it; "withdrawal or total destruction".

Again, which bit of a 'what if' discussion are you having difficulty with?
I have produced commentary & quotes to back up my theory, what have you produced???

I've produced counter arguments, historical precedent and, apparently, been able to understand better the very commentary that you're relying upon.

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Obviously. And if such acts rid the world of regimes like the KR, I won't object.

You may not object, but ultimately no one cares what you think.

I say this because you appear to be labouring under some sort of delusion that just because you see things a certain way, naturally everyone else in the World must too. Doesn't work that way, which is why international law exists. You may feel it justified only if it protects a population against genocide, but other nations may feel it justified for other reasons, such as defending a religion, or perhaps their definition of genocide may differ wildly from yours.

And in your World view that the law may be ignored where doing so is justified, without defining what that means (if you did, you'd simply be drawing up a new law), it's up to those other nations to decide, not you.

Do you not see this?

Happyman42 wrote: »

The outcome of the Falklands crisis, it seems, did not have one inevitable conclusion from the outset, as Corinthain would probably insist it would.

I wouldn't insist on that at all - the British could have easily lost that conflict, and they knew it. But in the end they didn't and what followed was pretty much inevitable. To the victor go the spoils.

smcgiff

Sorry lads, while ye were arguing I thought I'd sort out the whole UI, Unionist things for ye.

Here's THE solution.

Ireland to become a 32 county political entity within a United Kingdom federation (okay, can see the hackles raised already). The Queen would become the head of state (is that the sound of guns being cocked).

The other constituents of the federation would be Scotland, Wales and... about Nine regional areas of England, such as Cornwall, North East England. That way there'd be no region (England currently) that overwhelms the rest of the constituent (countries) regions. London would have to be kept intact, which would make it the largest constituent of the new federation (but not big enought to dominate the 50 million other peoples.

The flag would be the British flag, but the current NI cross would be changed to Green.

The parliament would alternate between the 12 regions ala the EU.

Now for the middle east...

Happyman42

The Corinthian wrote: »

The 'World tour' is to illustrate Longwill's point, that you were so eager to cite without actually understanding. A temporary loss of law and order does not automatically constitute a loss of sovereignty, especially when the sovereign state still has means to reimplement it, which the UK did when it sent in the army.

Only when the sovereign state no longer has such means or breaks down completely, as in Somalia, can one realistically argue that sovereignty has been lost.

Here's what Longmill said;

The Irish governemnt astutely recognised that Irish military intervention could only be internationally justified in the event of a total breakdown of law and order in Northern Ireland. Under these circumstances Irish intervention could not be labelled as an assault on British sovereignty.

Here's what the British announced they where doing:

The British Government has sent troops into Northern Ireland in what it says is a "limited operation" to restore law and order.

No mention by Longmill of a 'loss of sovereignty' being neccessary at all, just a breakdown of law and order.

Otherwise you are essentially saying that it's OK to invade anywhere the moment there's a riot, such as the 1981 Brixton riots.

No comparison to that event, move onto the next whistle stop.

As things stood, sure. But when faced with a foreign invasion, are you seriously suggesting that this attitude would not be seriously tested?

Yes it would have been tested, but given who was in Brtish government and their attitude I firmly believe that diplomatic bargining would have taken place and a strategy worked out, then the Irish would have withdrawn.

That's not what he said. I said that the British response would have been an ultimatum to withdraw - and then what? Ultimately, his assessment was that, based upon the Irish army's response to this there were only two possible outcomes for it; "withdrawal or total destruction".

What?

I've produced counter arguments, historical precedent and, apparently, been able to understand better the very commentary that you're relying upon.

You just twist what people say, including Longmill to suit your argument or you have an over developed appreciation of your cognitive skills.

I wouldn't insist on that at all - the British could have easily lost that conflict, and they knew it. But in the end they didn't and what followed was pretty much inevitable. To the victor go the spoils.

What the article shows is that a military response was NOT inevitable, which is what you claim.

By the way, after they had reclaimed The Falklands the task force called at Thule in the South atlantic and reclamed it, Argentna had 'invaded' it in 1976 and the British where using diplomatic channels trying to get them to withdraw up until 1982.

The Corinthian

Happyman42 wrote: »

No mention by Longmill of a 'loss of sovereignty' being neccessary at all, just a breakdown of law and order.

Actually, he specifically discusses possible "circumstances Irish intervention could not be labelled as an assault on British sovereignty". So I suggest you actually read what you're seemingly relying upon in your argument or, if you have, try not to remember it selectively.

No comparison to that event, move onto the next whistle stop.

If, by your argument, all is required is "a breakdown of law and order", then Brixton fits the bill perfectly. And please stop trying to weasel out of points through blanket dismissal.

Yes it would have been tested, but given who was in Brtish government and their attitude I firmly believe that diplomatic bargining would have taken place and a strategy worked out, then the Irish would have withdrawn.

Which I accept - that it's in your opinion. Unfortunately you've failed to present any credible argument or evidence that supports this in any probable reality though.

What?

Did you actually read Longmill's analysis?

You just twist what people say, including Longmill to suit your argument or you have an over developed appreciation of your cognitive skills.

Are we back to relying upon ad hominem attacks? You seem to resort to that a bit too easily.

What the article shows is that a military response was NOT inevitable, which is what you claim.

You either didn't read what I wrote or you didn't understand it.

I completely agree that a military conflict was not inevitable over the Falklands, because they had a real chance of losing, and said so. What I further said is that once that Rubicon was crossed and then Britain won, what followed that victory was inevitable.

Of course, Ireland is not Argentina, so it's not really a fair comparison. For a start Argentina had a pretty well equipped, sizeable military, sat next to the theatre of war, on the other side of the World from Britain. Not something the British would have too crazy about rushing into.

Ireland was next door and had a tiny military, with World War II equipment. Better odds for the British, methinks. Foregone conclusion.

Now would you like to misrepresent or dismiss anything else, or would you just like to insult me again?

Mr Cumulonimbus

The Corinthian wrote: »

You may not object, but ultimately no one cares what you think.

Thats merely your assumption. Nothing more, nothing less.

No one cares what you think

What do you mean by this? I’m just giving my opinion. Whats with the dismissive line?

I say this because you appear to be labouring under some sort of delusion that just because you see things a certain way, naturally everyone else in the World must too.

No delusion. And you're making assumptions yet again. Don't know where you're getting this "everyone in the world must be thinking what I'm thinking" train of thought. I never said this. Just saying again, merely my opinion. Others may share it, others may not.

Doesn't work that way, which is why international law exists. You may feel it justified only if it protects a population against genocide, but other nations may feel it justified for other reasons, such as defending a religion, or perhaps their definition of genocide may differ wildly from yours.

Off you go with the “international law” again. A repetitive line you're following here. I do realise that differing reasons exist as to why nations may feel it justified to intervene in other countries affairs. Obvious I would have thought.

And in your World view that the law may be ignored where doing so is justified, without defining what that means (if you did, you'd simply be drawing up a new law), it's up to those other nations to decide, not you.
Do you not see this?

You keep labouring on with the "you" bit. Whats your point here?

Happyman42

The Corinthian wrote: »

Actually, he specifically discusses possible "circumstances Irish intervention could not be labelled as an assault on British sovereignty". So I suggest you actually read what you're seemingly relying upon in your argument or, if you have, try not to remember it selectively.

Why are you twisting? Here's Longwill's conclusion, which s exactly what I am saying they should have done.
On the contrary, the Irish government could have successfully claimed that it authorised cross-border operations primarily for humanitarian reasons in response to Britain’s failures under humanitarian law.

If, by your argument, all is required is "a breakdown of law and order", then Brixton fits the bill perfectly. And please stop trying to weasel out of points through blanket dismissal.

There was no comparison because the people rioting in Brixton did not belong to a set that another government had a constitutional interest and concern for.(or rather; should have had an interest in)

Which I accept - that it's in your opinion. Unfortunately you've failed to present any credible argument or evidence that supports this in any probable reality though.

Apart from illustrating a mindset within the British government and actual providing quotes that display a desire to find a lasting solution and the desire to keep the British from getting further embroiled in the conflict?
I wonder what could have achieved that...a GFA/Sunningdale style agreement maybe, brought about the same way as the one that was arrived at years later after 1000's of deaths and injuries and destroyed lives. By forcing the British to address the issues at the heart of the conflict.

Are we back to relying upon ad hominem attacks? You seem to resort to that a bit too easily.

That's funny, I was sure it was you who started that by your little condescending outburst a while back. But I see I am not the only one it 'brngs the worst out in'

I completely agree that a military conflict was not inevitable over the Falklands, because they had a real chance of losing, and said so. What I further said is that once that Rubicon was crossed and then Britain won, what followed that victory was inevitable.

Of course, Ireland is not Argentina, so it's not really a fair comparison. For a start Argentina had a pretty well equipped, sizeable military, sat next to the theatre of war, on the other side of the World from Britain. Not something the British would have too crazy about rushing into.

Ireland was next door and had a tiny military, with World War II equipment. Better odds for the British, methinks. Foregone conclusion.

Which is all fine and dandy if I had contended that Britian would have responded militarily. But I didn't. But as we now agree and have seen evidence of, a military response wasn't inevitable and America is not neccessarily a gung ho supporter of everything Britian decides to do. A huge missed oppurtunity.