Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Towards a United Ireland

Options
1…910121415…33

Comments

  • Options
    #332
    junder
    Registered Users Posts: 2,706 ✭✭✭junder


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Not close mindedness at all. I have cconsidered all the other proposals and they fail the sustainability test.

    Stating that 'violence will happen' is not a threat. People have and will contnue to die because of the British presence here. That is the simple fact of life that we are discussing the solution to. It isn't me that is issuing ultimatums or threatening violence.
    Please treat what is being said with an element of maturity.

    The 'British presence' is the unionist community who are not going anywhere anytime soon


  • Options
    #333
    Bertie Woot
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 352 ✭✭Bertie Woot


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    I wasn't alive at the time so I'm personally absolved. Needless to say I wouldn't have supported it back then if I was.

    Supported what? The creation of the independent 26 county Republic that you live in?
    Says who? You? NI does not belong to us. It's not ours, it belongs to the people of NI. And even if they do want to join with us we don't have to accept them.

    You honestly believe that NI belongs to the British colonial occupier of your country? What sort of an Irishman are you exactly? You seem to get off on this notion of the 26 counties being your country and that you don't want to share it because it does not belong to the people of Northern Ireland, whether they be Unionist or Nationalist.

    Do you think that all Southern and Northern Irish Nationalists feel the same way?
    As another poster has pointed out Germany is inseparably connected to Poland, does Germany have a right to Poland? Does France have a right to Germany? Hell does the UK have a right to France now that they are inseparably connected? Tbh your argument borders on the ridiculous and is perilously close to falling over.

    Germany does not currently occupy and govern a part of Poland, neither does France occupy and govern a part of Germany, so your analogies are woefully unrealistic, puerile, and out the window. And looking upon the UK and France as being "inseparably connected" because they are both in the EU is a misnomer, as the UK could choose to pull out of the EU any time it wanted, so they are not "inseparably connected".

    Your argument would border on "the ridiculous" if you had one. Hitherto all you have done is say "No, my country, not yours!, we not the same people!", ..which is a load of tosh. I'm falling over laughing at your dismal attempt to denigrate a substantial argument in favour of reunification which you have failed to demonish with anything equally or more substantial.
    Ethnically Irish is not nationally Irish.

    Explain.


  • Options
    #334
    pablomakaveli
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,752 ✭✭✭pablomakaveli


    Bertie Woot wrote: »



    Germany does not currently occupy and govern a part of Poland, neither does France occupy and govern a part of Germany, so your analogies are woefully unrealistic, puerile, and out the window. And looking upon the UK and France as being "inseparably connected" because they are both in the EU is a misnomer, as the UK could choose to pull out of the EU any time it wanted, so they are not "inseparably connected".

    .

    You do realise that Poland sits on a lot of former German territory with Russia also currently occupying the formerly German territory of Konigsberg?


  • Options
    #335
    Ziphius
    Registered Users Posts: 714 ✭✭✭Ziphius


    Bertie Woot wrote: »
    Germany does not currently occupy and govern a part of Poland, neither does France occupy and govern a part of Germany, so your analogies are woefully unrealistic, puerile, and out the window. And looking upon the UK and France as being "inseparably connected" because they are both in the EU is a misnomer, as the UK could choose to pull out of the EU any time it wanted, so they are not "inseparably connected".

    This is because we define these countries by their current boundaries. Much the same way, the UK does not "occupy and govern" a part of the Republic of Ireland.

    If you look back historically you will see that boundaries in Europe have shifted numerous times.

    Gdansk in Poland was once Danzig in Germany. Parts of Silesia (Poland) are in modern Germany. South Tyrol (Austria) in Italy, Alsace (Germany) in France, Luxembourg (Luxembourg) in Belgium etc etc


  • Options
    #336
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Bertie Woot wrote: »
    Supported what? The creation of the independent 26 county Republic that you live in?
    Not violently no. It would have had to have been peaceful or not at all.
    Bertie Woot wrote: »
    You honestly believe that NI belongs to the British colonial occupier of your country? What sort of an Irishman are you exactly? You seem to get off on this notion of the 26 counties being your country and that you don't want to share it because it does not belong to the people of Northern Ireland, whether they be Unionist or Nationalist.
    Why do you use loaded terminology like colonial occupier? It makes it very hard to debate with you. But yes NI is a region of the UK, that's where it belongs. If they want independence that's 100% their business.
    Bertie Woot wrote: »
    Do you think that all Southern and Northern Irish Nationalists feel the same way?
    Obviously not looking at this thread.
    Bertie Woot wrote: »
    Germany does not currently occupy and govern a part of Poland, neither does France occupy and govern a part of Germany, so your analogies are woefully unrealistic, puerile, and out the window. And looking upon the UK and France as being "inseparably connected" because they are both in the EU is a misnomer, as the UK could choose to pull out of the EU any time it wanted, so they are not "inseparably connected".
    Poland occupies Germany, Prussia.
    France occupies Germany, Strasbourg
    The UK occupies Ireland, NI.

    Nations shift and change all the time. Ireland has no God given right to unity. You need to grow up and accept that.
    Bertie Woot wrote: »
    Your argument would border on "the ridiculous" if you had one. Hitherto all you have done is say "No, my country, not yours!, we not the same people!", ..which is a load of tosh. I'm falling over laughing at your dismal attempt to denigrate a substantial argument in favour of reunification which you have failed to demonish with anything equally or more substantial.
    I don't wish to show anything. I just don't see the need to destabilise my country and risk the lives of my fellow countrymen over the hell of NI. Unionists created that mess when they treated Catholics like shít it's not our duty to run in and pick up the pieces.

    Your country has no strategic interest for us. The extra land, people and capital we don't need. NI has nothing to offer us yet the majority of posters on here want us to risk our own country to unify with them. I say bugger to that, we have been separated for the best part of 100 years now. We are different people with a different outlook on life. Unification is neither necessary or wanted.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #337
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    In my opinion, it is the only workable solution to bring lasting peace.



    Again, I live in the 'real world' where violence happens. No amount of climbing up onto the high moral ground has ever solved a conflict. I couldn't care less what your moral stance on violence is btw, it offers no solutions.

    So why for example should the west just not adopt Sharia Law as the terrorism won't stop until it does ?


  • Options
    #338
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    junder wrote: »
    The 'British presence' is the unionist community who are not going anywhere anytime soon

    I'm talking about the British Government and it's institutions and forces. The one that has said it will withdraw when the majority wish them to. Which calls in to question the actual citizenship (in the British governments eyes) of Unionists, wouldn't you say?


  • Options
    #339
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    marienbad wrote: »
    So why for example should the west just not adopt Sharia Law as the terrorism won't stop until it does ?
    Why doesn't he just give me his lunch money because I'm going to slap him until he does.


  • Options
    #340
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    marienbad wrote: »
    So why for example should the west just not adopt Sharia Law as the terrorism won't stop until it does ?

    If you want violence to stop, you have to understand and accept what is causing that violence. The west should be asking 'why do these people want to harm it...if you beat a dog long enough it will eventually bite back.


  • Options
    #341
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,803 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    People have and will contnue to die because of the British presence here.
    No; people die because some people believe that the British presence in Northern Ireland justifies their murder. You are accepting this as axiomatic, and demanding that the rest of us placidly accept it also.

    Your solution is for Britain to leave Northern Ireland, and you blithely assume that there is no reason why this would cause anyone else to want to commit murder. Leaving aside that this indicates that you believe that only republicans are sufficiently sociopathic to be permanently committed to violence, it neatly skips over any effort to persuade republicans to stop killing people in order to further their goals.

    It's strange how you seem to feel that the loyalists are less deeply committed to violence than the republicans are: you are utterly certain that nothing could ever stop republican terrorism short of total victory, but are equally convinced that loyalist terrorists will simply give up and resign themselves to Irishness rather than put up a fight. I guess you believe that republicans are intrinsically more violent than loyalists: not a view I'd share.
    johnnydeep wrote: »
    how long do I have to violently maintain ownership till it becomes mine.
    Your analogy is stupid. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom; we - the people of the Republic - overwhelmingly asserted that fact in a referendum. It's not ours.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #342
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    If you want violence to stop, you have to understand and accept what is causing that violence. The west should be asking 'why do these people want to harm it...if you beat a dog long enough it will eventually bite back.

    Not answering my question though is it ? Of course the west should and in some cases does try to understand what causes the violence. But there is a significant part of those violent factions that want fundamental change in the west.

    Should we give in to them right away or can we hold out a little bit longer ?


  • Options
    #343
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,803 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Bertie Woot wrote: »
    You honestly believe that NI belongs to the British colonial occupier of your country? What sort of an Irishman are you exactly?
    The same sort of Irishman as the damn near everyone who voted to relinquish our territorial claim on Northern Ireland. We said "it's not ours; it's yours, until the people say otherwise."

    Cue some handwaving about how we didn't actually mean to relinquish our territorial claim, because that's an inconvenient fact, but that's what the effect of the constitutional amendment was, and that's what we voted for. Yes, we voted for peace, but we recognised that there was a price to be paid for that peace, and part of the price was the recognition that Northern Ireland is not a part of our country, and won't be until the conditions are right for it to happen.

    Now, you can bandy about emotionally-charged terms like "colonial occupier", but that's because you can't handle the objective fact that Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom, and not a part of Ireland.


  • Options
    #344
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    No; people die because some people believe that the British presence in Northern Ireland justifies their murder. You are accepting this as axiomatic, and demanding that the rest of us placidly accept it also.

    Your solution is for Britain to leave Northern Ireland, and you blithely assume that there is no reason why this would cause anyone else to want to commit murder. Leaving aside that this indicates that you believe that only republicans are sufficiently sociopathic to be permanently committed to violence, it neatly skips over any effort to persuade republicans to stop killing people in order to further their goals.

    It's strange how you seem to feel that the loyalists are less deeply committed to violence than the republicans are: you are utterly certain that nothing could ever stop republican terrorism short of total victory, but are equally convinced that loyalist terrorists will simply give up and resign themselves to Irishness rather than put up a fight. I guess you believe that republicans are intrinsically more violent than loyalists: not a view I'd share.

    Like I said, you need to stop moralising, it isn't in the least bit helpful nor does it provide any solutions. Nobody of any importance to this conflict gives a fig about your moral compass.
    I never said that either was less committed to violence, I offered an assessment about their capability to mount a sustained campaign and how a British government would do everything in it's power to ensure the success of a UI. Add the considerable support of the Americans to that and our own security forces and you might see how difficult their campaign would be despite their committment. That's not to mention the pointlessness of it...to achieve what...to force themselves on the British? Reality check please.


  • Options
    #345
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    marienbad wrote: »
    But there is a significant part of those violent factions that want fundamental change in the west.

    ?

    Probably because the west has been fundamentally trying to change their societies for generations...or at least since they discovered they had all the oil. Chickens always come home to roost.


  • Options
    #346
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,803 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Like I said, you need to stop moralising, it isn't in the least bit helpful nor does it provide any solutions. Nobody of any importance to this conflict gives a fig about your moral compass.
    How very dare I have an opinion other than "you're right, let's cave to terrorism (as long as it's from terrorists whose aims Happyman42 agrees with, not that he agrees with their means at all, no sirree)". What makes your moral compass so much more valuable than mine?
    I never said that either was less committed to violence, I offered an assessment about their capability to mount a sustained campaign and how a British government would do everything in it's power to ensure the success of a UI. Add the considerable support of the Americans to that and our own security forces and you might see how difficult their campaign would be despite their committment. That's not to mention the pointlessness of it...to achieve what...to force themselves on the British? Reality check please.
    I'm reminded of all the Tom Clancy-esque bluster about how the second invasion of Iraq would be over in weeks.

    Tell me this: if there was a campaign of loyalist violence in a united Ireland, would you be arguing for the importance of understanding the roots of the violence and dealing with the underlying issues? If someone argued that the root cause of the violence was a united Ireland and that the only way of ending it was an independent NI, would you accept that it's important to give the terrorists what they want in order to bring an end to the violence? Or, as I suspect, do you only believe in appeasing terrorists who want the same thing you want?


  • Options
    #347
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    That's not to mention the pointlessness of it...to achieve what...to force themselves on the British? Reality check please.

    A point lost on the doomsayers.


  • Options
    #348
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Tell me this: if there was a campaign of loyalist violence in a united Ireland

    To what ends?


  • Options
    #349
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Probably because the west has been fundamentally trying to change their societies for generations...or at least since they discovered they had all the oil. Chickens always come home to roost.

    When you start using ''probably'' you are betraying your shallow knowledge of history. The Islamic world has been at loggerheads with the west , with varying degrees of intensity for over a 1000 years.

    Just now it appears that the west is in the ascendancy, but it was not always so and it may not remain so.

    So I ask you again should we just give in to the terrorists now or can we hold out a little bit longer ?


  • Options
    #350
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    How very dare I have an opinion other than "you're right, let's cave to terrorism (as long as it's from terrorists whose aims Happyman42 agrees with, not that he agrees with their means at all, no sirree)". What makes your moral compass so much more valuable than mine? I'm reminded of all the Tom Clancy-esque bluster about how the second invasion of Iraq would be over in weeks.
    I accept that violence is happening and that it will continue to happen if there is a British presence.
    It doesn't matter what I think of that violence morally, or what you think of it. I want to stop it blighting us all.
    Tell me this: if there was a campaign of loyalist violence in a united Ireland, would you be arguing for the importance of understanding the roots of the violence and dealing with the underlying issues? If someone argued that the root cause of the violence was a united Ireland and that the only way of ending it was an independent NI, would you accept that it's important to give the terrorists what they want in order to bring an end to the violence? Or, as I suspect, do you only believe in appeasing terrorists who want the same thing you want?

    I genuinely believe if the process is democratic, open and proper then there will be little violence. But if it did occur then outstanding issues would have to be dealt with. If it is simply stubborn resistence then, No, I wouldn't be in favour of giving in to it.


  • Options
    #351
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    marienbad wrote: »

    So I ask you again should we just give in to the terrorists now or can we hold out a little bit longer ?

    So what exactly where the demands of the Twin Towers or London bombers? I didn't get that memo and just assumed they where revenge attacks.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #352
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    So what exactly where the demands of the Twin Towers or London bombers? I didn't get that memo and just assumed they where revenge attacks.

    Why not just answer my question ? Should we give in to Islamic terrorism or not ? They will not stop until we do .


  • Options
    #353
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    marienbad wrote: »
    Why not just answer my question ? Should we give in to Islamic terrorism or not ? They will not stop until we do .

    Yes, we should stop bombing them into acceptance of our gifts and stop exploiting them for our benefit. (The west in general)
    That is why they have taken the war to the west after all.


  • Options
    #354
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Yes, we should stop bombing them into acceptance of our gifts and stop exploiting them for our benefit. (The west in general)
    That is why they have taken the war to the west after all.

    I have no problem with a lot of that, but it is not really than simple . Should we also ban Salman Rushdie's books ? Censor those Danish Cartoons ? Allow open season on Theo Van Gogh ?


  • Options
    #355
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    marienbad wrote: »
    I have no problem with a lot of that, but it is not really than simple . Should we also ban Salman Rushdie's books ? Censor those Danish Cartoons ? Allow open season on Theo Van Gogh ?

    If you believe that will stop them reacting that way, then yes.


  • Options
    #356
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    If you believe that will stop them reacting that way, then yes.

    Surely you must be misunderstanding me here ??


  • Options
    #357
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    marienbad wrote: »
    Surely you must be misunderstanding me here ??

    Don't think so.
    By the way, I never said that we should give in to terrorism. I said that in the case of Ireland we won't stop the violence if we don't address the cause, there are lots of others calling for a British withdrawal who are not and never have been what you call terrorists.


  • Options
    #358
    junder
    Registered Users Posts: 2,706 ✭✭✭junder


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    I'm talking about the British Government and it's institutions and forces. The one that has said it will withdraw when the majority wish them to. Which calls in to question the actual citizenship (in the British governments eyes) of Unionists, wouldn't you say?

    Does it? Is that another precondition of your united Ireland that I lose My citzenship?


  • Options
    #359
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Don't think so.
    By the way, I never said that we should give in to terrorism. I said that in the case of Ireland we won't stop the violence if we don't address the cause, there are lots of others calling for a British withdrawal who are not and never have been what you call terrorists.

    Well then I just can't accept your point of view . You are effectively saying the violence trumps all.

    Just follow your own train of thought to its end conclusion . Someone somewhere will find offence to anything and everything and if they wave the violence card they get their way !!

    You really need to reread your own post no. 350 where you outline you would fight any violence to a democratically agreed process. We have a democratically agreed process in place now and following your own logic you are obliged to face down the men of violence.


  • Options
    #360
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    junder wrote: »
    Does it? Is that another precondition of your united Ireland that I lose My citzenship?

    Well, the sensible thing to do would be to have a citizenship that isn't under threat or can be sold out from under you, like the British have said they will do. Be part of a new country, a united Ireland!
    N.I. Unionists are in a worse position than Falklanders; at least they can never be out voted.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #361
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    marienbad wrote: »
    Well then I just can't accept your point of view . You are effectively saying the violence trumps all.

    Just follow your own train of thought to its end conclusion . Someone somewhere will find offence to anything and everything and if they wave the violence card they get their way !!

    You really need to reread your own post no. 350 where you outline you would fight any violence to a democratically agreed process. We have a democratically agreed process in place now and following your own logic you are obliged to face down the men of violence.

    Like Oscar you are applying a moral code to my solution, it has nothing to do with moral objections so therefore is not applicable to every act of violence in the world. It is case specific. So can you stop with the moral judgements? You have no idea of what my attitude to violence is, you might think you do but you couldn't possibly know because I haven't expressed it.
    It is my opinion of the ongoing conflict here and is not a manifesto applicable to all violent situations.


Advertisement