Opinions on Irish identity

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

Then why bother with the RoI referendum part of the GFA?

Because there will be those who will want to reject unity?
It is a democracy after all.
You will vote against because you fear unionist violence and refuse to accept that things will simply not stay the same, if unity is rejected.

That is a wrongheaded vote imo if you truly want an end to conflict in the future.
It is gonna have to be a brave leap, either way.

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Because there will be those who will want to reject unity?
It is a democracy after all.
You will vote against because you fear unionist violence and refuse to accept that things will simply not stay the same, if unity is rejected.

That is a wrongheaded vote imo if you truly want an end to conflict in the future.
It is gonna have to be a brave leap, either way.

I will vote against it if I believe there's a good chance of bombs in Dublin. Would you vote in favour even if you believed there would be bombs in Dublin?

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

I will vote against it if I believe there's a good chance of bombs in Dublin. Would you vote in favour even if you believed there would be bombs in Dublin?

The 'have you stopped beating your wife' question again.

I tried to be clear with you.
I will vote for the future, for an end to the partition that has divided this island.

I recognise that, either way, we have to make a brave choice.
If it results in violence in Dublin or Belfast,
I will go with the option that gives us the only chance at a future without division/conflict.

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The 'have you stopped beating your wife' question again.

I tried to be clear with you.
I will vote for the future, for an end to the partition that has divided this island.

I recognise that, either way, we have to make a brave choice.
If it results in violence in Dublin or Belfast,
I will go with the option that gives us the only chance at a future without division/conflict.

But there are no bombs in Belfast at the moment. There are no bombs in Dublin either. I'll tell you what I think. I think you would take a few bombings in Dublin as a price worth paying for a UI. Amirite?

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

But there are no bombs in Belfast at the moment. There are no bombs in Dublin either. I'll tell you what I think. I think you would take a few bombings in Dublin as a price worth paying for a UI. Amirite?

And we are right back to: I expect things to stay the same if I vote to reject unity. :rolleyes:

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And we are right back to: I expect things to stay the same if I vote to reject unity. :rolleyes:

...and in turn we're back to the subtext that Republicans are more prepared to commit murder to further their political aims than are Loyalists.

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

...and in turn we're back to the subtext that Republicans are more prepared to commit murder to further their political aims than are Loyalists.

Why insist on being unfair to the very clear argument I am making? I don't understand your cringeworthy need to attribute this implication to me.

The very clear subtext is 'violence, one way or the other, from one side or the other'.
I am not making any hierarchies.

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Why insist on being unfair to the very clear argument I am making? I don't understand your cringeworthy need to attribute this implication to me.

The very clear subtext is 'violence, one way or the other, from one side or the other'.
I am not making any hierarchies.

Neither am I. We should robustly and unequivocally reject violence on all sides. That means not voting against a UI in case of Loyalist violence, and it also means not voting for a UI in case of Republican violence. Anyone who would kill anyone else over something as utterly stupid as a line on a map deserves to be shunned by all right-thinking members of society.

That means that a vote in the Republic for or against a UI should be cast purely on the basis of a rational assessment of whether it's a good thing for the Republic, which in turns means rejecting all the tired rhetoric about "abandonment".

Some people have a quasi-religious attachment to the idea that having a border on an island is self-evidently a terrible thing that must be removed at any cost. Not all of us feel that way, and I reject out of hand your irrational attempts to guilt-trip people who don't feel the same way you do into voting the way you personally feel is right.

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

Neither am I. We should robustly and unequivocally reject violence on all sides. That means not voting against a UI in case of Loyalist violence, and it also means not voting for a UI in case of Republican violence. Anyone who would kill anyone else over something as utterly stupid as a line on a map deserves to be shunned by all right-thinking members of society.

That means that a vote in the Republic for or against a UI should be cast purely on the basis of a rational assessment of whether it's a good thing for the Republic, which in turns means rejecting all the tired rhetoric about "abandonment".

Some people have a quasi-religious attachment to the idea that having a border on an island is self-evidently a terrible thing that must be removed at any cost. Not all of us feel that way, and I reject out of hand your irrational attempts to guilt-trip people who don't feel the same way you do into voting the way you personally feel is right.

You carry right on 'unequivocally rejecting' and 'shunning'.
I will get on with attempting to put an end to violence the best way possible. By removing the cause of it.

What is irrational about pointing out the inevitabilities of the real world I live in?
A real world where some people think they are being 'moral' by condemning something while doing nothing, but selfishly suit themselves, to prevent it.

You have every right to reject unity, but be honest as to why you are doing it and face up to and take responsibility for the consequences.

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You carry right on 'unequivocally rejecting' and 'shunning'.
I will get on with attempting to put an end to violence the best way possible. By removing the cause of it.

What is irrational about pointing out the inevitabilities of the real world I live in?
A real world where some people think they are being 'moral' by condemning something while doing nothing, but selfishly suit themselves, to prevent it.

You have every right to reject unity, but be honest as to why you are doing it and face up to and take responsibility for the consequences.

What consequences?

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I will get on with attempting to put an end to violence the best way possible. By removing the cause of it.

I reject your premise. Your repeated vehement declaration that violence is an inevitable consequence of partition is nothing but an irrational belief that there's no way to prevent people murdering other people over a line on a map other than to remove that line on the map.

Now, you've tried to have it every way: you want to claim that Loyalists will abandon violence without as much of a whimper, and that Republicans will never, ever, ever relinquish terrorism until they get their own way; you also will have us believe that Republicans are not inherently more disposed to violence than Loyalists. You don't have to recognise the stark contradiction inherent in those views, but that doesn't mean it's not there.

The cause of violence isn't a line on a map; it's the belief that a line on a map is worth killing people for. When people abandon that frankly insane belief, violence will end. As long as people like you tacitly accept that it's OK for other people to believe it's worth killing people for lines on a map, we will have violence.

Borders don't kill people; people kill people. You truly need to get that into your head.

You have every right to reject unity, but be honest as to why you are doing it...

Why am I doing it?

...and face up to and take responsibility for the consequences.

As murphaph asked, what consequences?

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

I reject your premise. Your repeated vehement declaration that violence is an inevitable consequence of partition is nothing but an irrational belief that there's no way to prevent people murdering other people over a line on a map other than to remove that line on the map.

Now, you've tried to have it every way: you want to claim that Loyalists will abandon violence without as much of a whimper, and that Republicans will never, ever, ever relinquish terrorism until they get their own way; you also will have us believe that Republicans are not inherently more disposed to violence than Loyalists. You don't have to recognise the stark contradiction inherent in those views, but that doesn't mean it's not there.

The cause of violence isn't a line on a map; it's the belief that a line on a map is worth killing people for. When people abandon that frankly insane belief, violence will end. As long as people like you tacitly accept that it's OK for other people to believe it's worth killing people for lines on a map, we will have violence.

Again with the mistruths.
I never said

oscarbravo wrote:

you want to claim that Loyalists will abandon violence without as much of a whimper

I said (and gave reasons why based on the actual facts) that they will be unable to sustain a campaign of violence.
READ what I am saying not what you think I am saying.

The rest of that is just the useless condemnation that never did anything to solve a cyclical conflict.

Borders don't kill people; people kill people. You truly need to get that into your head.

Again, a fairly useless observation.

Why am I doing it?

For selfish reasons.

As murphaph asked, what consequences?

Like you Murphaph needs to read what I wrote earlier properly too. My opinion is all there.

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

...just the useless condemnation that never did anything to solve a cyclical conflict.

And, surprise surprise, your solution to the cyclical conflict is "give one side what it wants". Shockingly, the side you think should get what it wants is the side you support.

Again, a fairly useless observation.

As, it seems, is any observation that doesn't comply with your preconceived ideas.

You stick to your belief that violence is an inevitable consequence of a line on a map; I'll stick to my belief that violence is an inevitable consequence of the view that lines on maps justify violence. My belief has the advantage of not being deeply irrational.

For selfish reasons.

And you accuse me of "useless observations".

In what way is it "selfish" to reject a UI?

Like you Murphaph needs to read what I wrote earlier properly too. My opinion is all there.

Come on, don't be coy. What consequences?

It's incredibly annoying trying to have a conversation with someone who won't come out and say what he means. Since you won't tell us what the consequences are, the logical conclusion for me to draw is that you mean we can either vote for a UI or take responsibility for the terrorism that will result. But then you'll accuse me of putting words in your mouth.

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

And, surprise surprise, your solution to the cyclical conflict is "give one side what it wants". Shockingly, the side you think should get what it wants is the side you support. As, it seems, is any observation that doesn't comply with your preconceived ideas.

The solution to any conflict is to remove the cause.
And I make no bones about what side I am on.

You stick to your belief that violence is an inevitable consequence of a line on a map; I'll stick to my belief that violence is an inevitable consequence of the view that lines on maps justify violence. My belief has the advantage of not being deeply irrational. And you accuse me of "useless observations".

From what you know of the world and people, who is going stop violence occurring quicker?
Somebody who condemns violence or somebody who actually tries to remove the cause of it?

In what way is it "selfish" to reject a UI?

If you are doing it because it will impact negatively on your economy. That is self interest = selfish.

Come on, don't be coy. What consequences?


It's incredibly annoying trying to have a conversation with someone who won't come out and say what he means. Since you won't tell us what the consequences are, the logical conclusion for me to draw is that you mean we can either vote for a UI or take responsibility for the terrorism that will result. But then you'll accuse me of putting words in your mouth.

Jesus, it was only a handful of posts ago. :rolleyes:

franciebrady wrote:

So you'd be happy to send those who identify as Irish the message,- it matters none that you signed an agreement - and expect the situation to stay the same.
With the greatest respect, that is completely delusional.
Extremist unionism (which happens to be in power) would goad nothern Ireland into a bloodbath imo.

oscarBravo

So: the root cause of violence is a line on a map. This is a religious tenet and cannot be questioned. Other lines on other maps don't cause violence, but that's not relevant because we're only talking about this line. The question of whether or not it makes sense to commit violence over a line on a map is not up for discussion; removing the line on the map will magically solve all problems.

Loyalists won't be able to sustain a campaign of violence. Republicans will be able to sustain a campaign of violence. This doesn't make Republicans more violent than Loyalists; it has something to do with ratios and apparently nothing to do with the fact that condemning violence is seen as less constructive than yielding to it. Oh yeah, and Unionists will provoke a bloodbath, which apparently makes Unionists bad people, but doesn't reflect nearly as badly on the people who will actually commit the violence.

And finally, voting on the basis of what's good for the economy of my country is an egregious and unforgivable sin.

Yeah, you're going to win a lot of converts to your dream of a United Ireland with that steaming pile of hooey.

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

So: the root cause of violence is a line on a map. This is a religious tenet and cannot be questioned. Other lines on other maps don't cause violence, but that's not relevant because we're only talking about this line. The question of whether or not it makes sense to commit violence over a line on a map is not up for discussion; removing the line on the map will magically solve all problems.

Loyalists won't be able to sustain a campaign of violence. Republicans will be able to sustain a campaign of violence. This doesn't make Republicans more violent than Loyalists; it has something to do with ratios and apparently nothing to do with the fact that condemning violence is seen as less constructive than yielding to it. Oh yeah, and Unionists will provoke a bloodbath, which apparently makes Unionists bad people, but doesn't reflect nearly as badly on the people who will actually commit the violence.

Again, lofty condemnation and misrepresentation.. And not a whole pile of good in the real world.

And finally, voting on the basis of what's good for the economy of my country is an egregious and unforgivable sin.

I said it was 'selfish' which is what it is. I just called it for what it was. If you can't handle that, so be it.

Yeah, you're going to win a lot of converts to your dream of a United Ireland with that steaming pile of hooey.

I don't dream of a united Ireland particularly, I do dream of an Ireland without conflict and equality for all it's people.

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Again, lofty condemnation and misrepresentation.. And not a whole pile of good in the real world.


I said it was 'selfish' which is what it is. I just called it for what it was. If you can't handle that, so be it.





I don't dream of a united Ireland particularly, I do dream of an Ireland without conflict and equality for all it's people.

So if an Ireland without conflict and with equality for all its people could be achieved while maintaining the border, you'd be ok with partition?

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

So if an Ireland without conflict and with equality for all its people could be achieved while maintaining the border, you'd be ok with partition?

No. Because I think partition was and is wrong, has impoverished an entire region. Economically and culturally.
I would never stop advocating for it.

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No. Because I think partition was and is wrong, has impoverished an entire region. Economically and culturally.
I would never stop advocating for it.

So it is about partition and not the effects of partition. If NI and the border regions were doing just fine you'd still advocate an end to partition, right?

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

So it is about partition and not the effects of partition. If NI and the border regions were doing just fine you'd still advocate an end to partition, right?

What? I don't understand.

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What? I don't understand.

If NI and the border regions in the south were flying economically and everyone was happy as Larry, you'd still want the border gone, right?

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

If NI and the border regions in the south were flying economically and everyone was happy as Larry, you'd still want the border gone, right?

Yes.

jm08

murphaph wrote: »

So it is about partition and not the effects of partition. If NI and the border regions were doing just fine you'd still advocate an end to partition, right?

You need to look at how that partition came about - basically it was cutting some people away from their tribe and putting two tribes together who were culturally incompatible.

Edward M

jm08 wrote: »

You need to look at how that partition came about - basically it was cutting some people away from their tribe and putting two tribes together who were culturally incompatible.

The world over is full of people of different cultures and they get along fine. The UK mainland itself is a prime example of this.
Fair enough to say though that NI, as was anyway, was totally dominated by bigots who trod on the nationalist/catholic community.
I think a UI would be more inclusive of both communities than the status quo.
Its not something that's going to happen anytime soon I would feel, but maybe the best option for the island as a whole would be the creation of the circumstances whereby a united Ireland could be achieved.
I do not think its that close just yet!

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes.

So it's just an ideological thing for you. It has nothing whatsoever to do with equality for all.

jm08

Edward M wrote: »

The world over is full of people of different cultures and they get along fine. The UK mainland itself is a prime example of this.

They don't actually. Different religions rarely mix well. I'd imagine on the UK mainland they were mostly protestant, but now there are problems with migrants who don't really fit in to western society (Muslims in particular).

Fair enough to say though that NI, as was anyway, was totally dominated by bigots who trod on the nationalist/catholic community.
I think a UI would be more inclusive of both communities than the status quo.
Its not something that's going to happen anytime soon I would feel, but maybe the best option for the island as a whole would be the creation of the circumstances whereby a united Ireland could be achieved.
I do not think its that close just yet!

The DUPers do not want that to happen.

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

So it's just an ideological thing for you. It has nothing whatsoever to do with equality for all.

You had to reduce all the problems with partition down to nothing to get to say that?. good man, that's brilliant.

Edward M

jm08 wrote: »

They don't actually. Different religions rarely mix well. I'd imagine on the UK mainland they were mostly protestant, but now there are problems with migrants who don't really fit in to western society (Muslims in particular).



The DUPers do not want that to happen.

Alright, but they manage to live together peacefully in the main. They aren't seeking to gain or claim a territory as their own to barter off as a bargaining chip.
The perfect country doesent exist btw..
I would feel that the DUPers are but one voice and in true democracy their support would depend on the percentage of vote they receive, just another voice but not absolute.

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You had to reduce all the problems with partition down to nothing to get to say that?. good man, that's brilliant.

Tis just a line on a map these days.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You carry right on 'unequivocally rejecting' and 'shunning'.
I will get on with attempting to put an end to violence the best way possible. By removing the cause of it.

What is irrational about pointing out the inevitabilities of the real world I live in?
A real world where some people think they are being 'moral' by condemning something while doing nothing, but selfishly suit themselves, to prevent it.

You have every right to reject unity, but be honest as to why you are doing it and face up to and take responsibility for the consequences.

Violence isn't caused by lines on a map. So changing lines on a map won't stop violence.

Violence is caused by people. You need to change people to stop violence. In changing them, you may end up with a new identity that rises above violence. Hence this thread.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Violence isn't caused by lines on a map. So changing lines on a map won't stop violence.

Violence is caused by people. You need to change people to stop violence. In changing them, you may end up with a new identity that rises above violence. Hence this thread.

Sorry, who made this comment 'violence is caused by lines on a map'?


Do you know what partition did to people and communities? What enforcing that partition did to people and communities?

Lines don't cause violence, the effects of those lines do. Another fact. Just look at our history for all the back up you need.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Do you know what partition did to people and communities? What enforcing that partition did to people and communities?

Lines don't cause violence, the effects of those lines do. Another fact. Just look at our history for all the back up you need.

Again, partition didn't cause violence, people did.

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Sorry, who made this comment 'violence is caused by lines on a map'?


Do you know what partition did to people and communities? What enforcing that partition did to people and communities?

Lines don't cause violence, the effects of those lines do. Another fact. Just look at our history for all the back up you need.

All in the past.

dd972

Don't want to trivialise things by bringing football into it, but it's odd how Neil Lennon, a Catholic from the North was a hate figure in the North and Scotland for those of a Unionist persuasion, yet the current incumbent of the same position Brendan Rodgers doesn't get anything like the same hatred yet he's a Catholic Northerner.

As regards the North, the people on either sides of the 'peace walls' have more in common with each other than they do with people in Cork, Glasgow or Manchester, I hope they come down one day, one was actually removed a few weeks back which is a step in the right direction, a seamless progression to a UI isn't really possible until there's a semblance of unity up there, the Swiss and Belgians can live together with bigger ethno-linguistic differences.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Again, partition didn't cause violence, people did.

Just out of the blue eh? :rolleyes:

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Just out of the blue eh? :rolleyes:

Doesn't take away from the truth, lines on maps, partitions, flags, languages, none of them cause violence, people do. Each and every person who committed an illegal act of violence is to blame for the conflict.

Now, it is the responsibility of those in the North to make sure it doesn't happen again no matter the circumstances.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Doesn't take away from the truth, lines on maps, partitions, flags, languages, none of them cause violence, people do. Each and every person who committed an illegal act of violence is to blame for the conflict.

Now, it is the responsibility of those in the North to make sure it doesn't happen again no matter the circumstances.

No argument there.

I have always said it. Everyone is responsible from the top down. Those with the power to change things being the most responsible for what happens.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No argument there.

I have always said it. Everyone is responsible from the top down. Those with the power to change things being the most responsible for what happens.

Don't change what I said and twist it to your meaning.

Read my statement carefully.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Don't change what I said and twist it to your meaning.

Read my statement carefully.

The British government had the most responsibility. They underwrote a sectarian statelet and its violence, and carried out violent acts of its own and whitewashed them. Responsibility steps down from there.
That is what I meant.

Who did you mean?

jm08

Edward M wrote: »

Alright, but they manage to live together peacefully in the main. They aren't seeking to gain or claim a territory as their own to barter off as a bargaining chip.
The perfect country doesent exist btw..
I would feel that the DUPers are but one voice and in true democracy their support would depend on the percentage of vote they receive, just another voice but not absolute.

The nationalists in NI are not migrants to NI and I'm pretty sure that if around 50% of the population of England was Muslim (with full representation in parliament) I'd imagine England might not be the same place it is now.

My point remains that the DUP and their supporters will not give an inch to nationalists in NI and that must be very difficult for nationalists to have to take (and they are showing that they have had enough of it by voting for Sinn Fein).

jm08

dd972 wrote: »

Don't want to trivialise things by bringing football into it, but it's odd how Neil Lennon, a Catholic from the North was a hate figure in the North and Scotland for those of a Unionist persuasion, yet the current incumbent of the same position Brendan Rodgers doesn't get anything like the same hatred yet he's a Catholic Northerner.

Brendan Rodgers didn't play senior football for NI, ROI or Celtic, so basically NI unionists haven't had much of an opportunity to display their hate.

As regards the North, the people on either sides of the 'peace walls' have more in common with each other than they do with people in Cork, Glasgow or Manchester, I hope they come down one day, one was actually removed a few weeks back which is a step in the right direction, a seamless progression to a UI isn't really possible until there's a semblance of unity up there, the Swiss and Belgians can live together with bigger ethno-linguistic differences.

Peace Walls are going up. They are not coming down.
Brexit negotiator Verhofstadt's shock at Belfast peace walls - Northern Ireland's 'frozen conflict

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/brexit/brexit-negotiator-verhofstadts-shock-at-belfast-peace-walls-northern-irelands-frozen-conflict-36191951.html


Most worst kind of conflicts are sectarian ones - going back to the crusades - Sunni v Shia, Hindus v Muslims, Jews v Muslim and muslims v. everyone else.

Edward M

jm08 wrote: »

The nationalists in NI are not migrants to NI and I'm pretty sure that if around 50% of the population of England was Muslim (with full representation in parliament) I'd imagine England might not be the same place it is now.

My point remains that the DUP and their supporters will not give an inch to nationalists in NI and that must be very difficult for nationalists to have to take (and they are showing that they have had enough of it by voting for Sinn Fein).

That's a very fair point firstly.
As regards SF, I can wholly sympathise with their northern Irish support and indeed with any nationalist supporters in the north given the historic repression suffered there.
But realistically as a governing prospect for an independent nation their overall economic policies would be devastating to a country trying to build itself up.
No argument from me towards your view of the DUP either.
Living in the Republic though, I see any chance of a strengthening of SF's position as a big concern economically.
I would be happy as Larry with a united Ireland, but not with SF as is in power here.

munsterlegend

Good article by Joe Brolly on the dysfunctional north.

https://m.independent.ie/sport/columnists/joe-brolly/joe-brolly-all-of-us-in-the-gaa-in-the-six-counties-have-been-part-of-a-culture-of-silence-of-cowardice-36290151.html

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The British government had the most responsibility. They underwrote a sectarian statelet and its violence, and carried out violent acts of its own and whitewashed them. Responsibility steps down from there.
That is what I meant.

Who did you mean?

I don't recall seeing or hearing of any member of the British government shooting someone, planting a bomb or kneecapping anyone. Too many in society shrink their personal responsibility and it is a cop-out to blame people at the top.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

I don't recall seeing or hearing of any member of the British government shooting someone, planting a bomb or kneecapping anyone. Too many in society shrink their personal responsibility and it is a cop-out to blame people at the top.

Yes. I know you only hold the top of some organisations responsible.

The British allowed the set of circumstances to develop that led to conflict and at all times held the solution. They underwrote the violent sectarian state for a number of years before finally taking responsibility.

We can see what is happening when they have again reneged on their responsibilities.

Others also had responsibility but the buck stops at the top here.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes. I know you only hold the top of some organisations responsible.

The British allowed the set of circumstances to develop that led to conflict and at all times held the solution. They underwrote the violent sectarian state for a number of years before finally taking responsibility.

We can see what is happening when they have again reneged on their responsibilities.

Others also had responsibility but the buck stops at the top here.

The buck stops with the people who pulled the triggers and set the bombs.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

The buck stops with the people who pulled the triggers and set the bombs.

So the soldiers in WW1 were responsible for WW1?
Unique point of view.

jm08

blanch152 wrote: »

I don't recall seeing or hearing of any member of the British government shooting someone, planting a bomb or kneecapping anyone. Too many in society shrink their personal responsibility and it is a cop-out to blame people at the top.

Who do the British security forces report to? Can you explain why the British Government refuse to release documents relating to the Dublin Monaghan bombings?

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So the soldiers in WW1 were responsible for WW1?
Unique point of view.

Terrible comparison.

For a start the soldiers of WWI were mostly conscripted.

Joining the IRA was always optional!

jm08

murphaph wrote: »

Terrible comparison.

For a start the soldiers of WWI were mostly conscripted.

Joining the IRA was always optional!

No conscription in Ireland and 54% were volunteers.