A thread for "Republicans" Only

oscarBravo

supersheep wrote:

Violence is only acceptable when it might achieve its goal.

Is this a philosophy you apply to all violence? It's OK as long as it's successful?

Or do you mean that violence is acceptable once it might achieve a goal that you agree with?

The Fish

cheka73 wrote:

The IRA has ended it's campaign, and the former militants are now helping to restore peace to Northern Ireland, instead of violently trying to procure the increasingly vain hope of a '32-county republic'.

But there are still people complaining, whether it's about how the IRA have betrayed the republic by helping administer British rule, or how we have all 'gone soft'.

Who else here thinks that the extreme nationalist sentiment of securing a 32 county republic through supposedly heroic warlike means is past it's time? Isn't it time to start listening and talking, instead of killing? The 32 county republic is never going to happen, there are too many complications, too much history.

Isn't it time we just accepted it?

it

The Fish

Board@Work wrote:

I disagree the securing of a 32 County Republic is a very real objective

Put simply in less that 20 years the nationalists will out-breed the unionists in the north and when the majority what a united ireland there is no basis either legally or morally to stop it happening.[/

QUOTE]

Firstly, it will take a vote on BOTH sides of the border before a 32 county republic can come into existence and given the opinions of the vast majority of those south of the border (clearly demonstrated after voting to relinquish our claim over the North), it would appear that even if the entire NI population voted in favour of a united Ireland, it still wouldn't be enough votes.

Secondly, the idea that nationalists will outbreed unionists in 20 or 30 years is a "fatansy" that NI nationalists have been clinging on to ever since partition back in 1922. Ironically, the birth rate of nationalists in NI has been decreasing in recent years, while almost 7 out of 10 people who leave NI to find work abroad would class themselves as being nationalist (National Statistics Office). The net result is that the difference is negligible so don't be relying on anyone breeding like rabbits!

tomMK1

lets see what the 2010 census say about the population of the north. now the IRA have gone, people will start to reappear in an official sense, plus nationalists might actually fill out the census forms - which they havent done since at least 1980

tomMK1

bonkey wrote:

Using such logic there never has been a reason why Northern Ireland shouldn't be a seperate nation.

So why isn't it one today? Because neither side of the population is willing to accept such independence as being a solution. Why should that change in the future.

I'd say it isnt a seperate nation today due to the fact that six counties ont heir own will never make an independent state. thats the way the place was designed.

I'd qualify that to say that the desire for a United Ireland has lessened relative to the price people are willing to pay for same. Such things are, however, very often cyclical. I wouldn't assume that the current trend away from violence and towards a peaceful solution is irreversible.

If there is peaceful dissention in a generation or two, someone will hit on the idea that the peaceful avenue has failed. Then back to violence, until some genius figures that the violent approach has failed....

jc

I have this strange feeling that the war in the north wasnt solely based on a united ireland. it was based on achieving equality and democracy.

jhegarty

The Fish wrote:

Board@Work wrote:

QUOTE]

Firstly, it will take a vote on BOTH sides of the border before a 32 county republic can come into existence and given the opinions of the vast majority of those south of the border (clearly demonstrated after voting to relinquish our claim over the North), it would appear that even if the entire NI population voted in favour of a united Ireland, it still wouldn't be enough votes.

Secondly, the idea that nationalists will outbreed unionists in 20 or 30 years is a "fatansy" that NI nationalists have been clinging on to ever since partition back in 1922. Ironically, the birth rate of nationalists in NI has been decreasing in recent years, while almost 7 out of 10 people who leave NI to find work abroad would class themselves as being nationalist (National Statistics Office). The net result is that the difference is negligible so don't be relying on anyone breeding like rabbits!

i don't think you can claim that a vote to unify Ireland would not pass because the good Friday agreement passed..... some people may want a unified ireland , but not by the means of guns....

jhegarty

tomMK1 wrote:

I have this strange feeling that the war in the north wasnt solely based on a united ireland. it was based on achieving equality and democracy.

the civil rights movement started looking for one man, one vote... because at the time votes were based on property ownership which biased one community...

the_syco

I used to support SF, but stopped 4 years ago, due to their socialist ideals coming out.

=-=

I laughed when I read the IRA statement, as I see it as a weakness. For a long time, the Loylists have asked for this, and now that they have gotten it, what will the Loylists do now? Will they stop attacking nationlists? I doubt it. As I type this, there is an ongoing feud between 2 loylist factions. Once thats over, they'll turn their attention to the Nationlist communities, who will "officialy" no longer have their IRA "protection", so may be seen as a soft target.

Aside from the Omagh incident (where the police cleared the wrong main street - there being two in Omagh, the street called Main Street, and the main street where all the shops are), the IRA have given warning prior to any main bombing, making it unlike most of the terrorist organisations in the world. Since 911, this type of attack became politicly unpopular, but

now that IRA has "seprated" from SF, do the IRA have to care about whats "politicly popular" or not?

I say main bombing, as I doubt they gave any warning for the tit-for-tat war (or should I say ongoing battles?) between the Nationlist and Loylist area's. I bring up this subject again, as I find it worrying that the Nationlists will no longer be part of a controlable faction (the IRA), but just a random bunch of thugs. You may say they were always thugs, but they were controled thugs. Now, though, they will not have any command to report to, who may control their movements.

I wait to see what the reaction now will be when the Loylists attack the Nationlists. What Nationlist faction will the main people of the IRA (bomb makers, etc) go into? The PIRA are now gone, supposedly, so who will take their place? The RIRA? And will they give a damn about what the "old people" of the IRA think, since they're meant to have surrendered?

supersheep

I don't think the war was a waste. I think that, without it, Nationalists would be even more beaten down than they were in 1970. The war got the Unionists to sign up to 'Sunningdale' - thirty years later, admittedly, but the same idea nonetheless.
It takes a war to bring the oppressor to the negotiating table.

Flukey

So let's keep talking then. It has made far more progress in the past 10 years than the 25 years of violence did prior to that.

tomMK1

I see right where you're coming from and those fears are very real - but personally i think we have to trust in the future and try to move forward. it mightn't work, but at the same time, it might.

part of that though is the governments moving forward in doing something about the policing situation in the north (for a start).

the_syco wrote:

I used to support SF, but stopped 4 years ago, due to their socialist ideals coming out.

=-=

I laughed when I read the IRA statement, as I see it as a weakness. For a long time, the Loylists have asked for this, and now that they have gotten it, what will the Loylists do now? Will they stop attacking nationlists? I doubt it. As I type this, there is an ongoing feud between 2 loylist factions. Once thats over, they'll turn their attention to the Nationlist communities, who will "officialy" no longer have their IRA "protection", so may be seen as a soft target.

Aside from the Omagh incident (where the police cleared the wrong main street - there being two in Omagh, the street called Main Street, and the main street where all the shops are), the IRA have given warning prior to any main bombing, making it unlike most of the terrorist organisations in the world. Since 911, this type of attack became politicly unpopular, but

now that IRA has "seprated" from SF, do the IRA have to care about whats "politicly popular" or not?

I say main bombing, as I doubt they gave any warning for the tit-for-tat war (or should I say ongoing battles?) between the Nationlist and Loylist area's. I bring up this subject again, as I find it worrying that the Nationlists will no longer be part of a controlable faction (the IRA), but just a random bunch of thugs. You may say they were always thugs, but they were controled thugs. Now, though, they will not have any command to report to, who may control their movements.

I wait to see what the reaction now will be when the Loylists attack the Nationlists. What Nationlist faction will the main people of the IRA (bomb makers, etc) go into? The PIRA are now gone, supposedly, so who will take their place? The RIRA? And will they give a damn about what the "old people" of the IRA think, since they're meant to have surrendered?

oscarBravo

supersheep wrote:

I don't think the war was a waste. I think that, without it, Nationalists would be even more beaten down than they were in 1970. The war got the Unionists to sign up to 'Sunningdale' - thirty years later, admittedly, but the same idea nonetheless.
It takes a war to bring the oppressor to the negotiating table.

Koff.

jhegarty

Flukey wrote:

So let's keep talking then. It has made far more progress in the past 10 years than the 25 years of violence did prior to that.

There may have been more done in the last 10 years of talking (i don't think any will deny that as they watch the towers coming down today) but would they have even been at the table , or would they have even been a table , without the previous 25 years ?

Zombrex

jhegarty wrote:

There may have been more done in the last 10 years of talking (i don't think any will deny that as they watch the towers coming down today) but would they have even been at the table , or would they have even been a table , without the previous 25 years ?

As civil rights movements in other countries showed, they would have been at the table 20 years ago if it hadn't been for the "war". The IRA gave the British government (some would say force them to) the excuse to ignore the geniune civil rights abuses in N.I for decades. Once the legitimate civil rights movement was hi-jacked by the militant Republican movement it was doomed to the twilight zone for 20 years. The IRA did as much harm to the Catholic civil rights movement as the Unionist ever did. :mad:

tomMK1

ah .. thats just so inaccurate, and based on assumption the civil rights movement was hijacked by loyalism and bigotry

supersheep

oscarBravo wrote:

Is this a philosophy you apply to all violence? It's OK as long as it's successful?

Or do you mean that violence is acceptable once it might achieve a goal that you agree with?

It's from the just war theory. When violence is futile, it can never be right. When it is not, then it has the potential to be right. Not is right, but has the potential to be right.
By saying it's ok as long as it's successful, you are distorting my words. I never said that. I usually do not agree with violence, but I am willing to countenance it if a cause is right. And yes, obviously I won't support violence to achieve a cause I disagree with. However, I might say that it is justifiable... Also, I believe that violence is only justified against 'soldiers' - and I'm including terrorists, resistance forces and paramilitary police forces in that too.
And apologies for not replying to this before - I missed it when I was skimming the thread, and my sister was on my shoulder nagging me to get off...

supersheep

supersheep wrote:

It's from the just war theory. When violence is futile, it can never be right. When it is not, then it has the potential to be right. Not is right, but has the potential to be right.

Violence to achieve a political aim in a democracy is never ok tbh

jhegarty

Wicknight wrote:

As civil rights movements in other countries showed, they would have been at the table 20 years ago if it hadn't been for the "war". The IRA gave the British government (some would say force them to) the excuse to ignore the geniune civil rights abuses in N.I for decades. Once the legitimate civil rights movement was hi-jacked by the militant Republican movement it was doomed to the twilight zone for 20 years. The IRA did as much harm to the Catholic civil rights movement as the Unionist ever did. :mad:

are you sure about that... we know how happy the unionists were to talk during the period of the Sunningdale Agreement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunningdale_agreement

supersheep

Earthman wrote:

Violence to achieve a political aim in a democracy is never ok tbh

Debateable how democratic the entire Northern State was... Especially at the time the Troubles started. Yes, it was nominally a democracy, but actually?

supersheep

supersheep wrote:

Debateable how democratic the entire Northern State was... Especially at the time the Troubles started. Yes, it was nominally a democracy, but actually?

I think I've made my own position clear often enough on this and that is that I doubt the inequalities that were there in the 60's and 70's would have survived E.U membership.

The violence and bombing right through the 80's and early 90's by the IRA was completely senseless and certainly both unwarranted and un popular.

Zombrex

jhegarty wrote:

are you sure about that... we know how happy the unionists were to talk during the period of the Sunningdale Agreement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunningdale_agreement

And we know how willing the KKK were to let black people vote in southern USA, yet they managed it in under 20 years without waging a terrorist war (from 1954/55 - Brown vs Board of Education & Rosa Parks to about 1968/69)

Zombrex

supersheep wrote:

Debateable how democratic the entire Northern State was... Especially at the time the Troubles started. Yes, it was nominally a democracy, but actually?

Yes debateable how truely democratic the North was in the 50s and 60s but I think you would have to stretch that a long way to say that it (and Britian) was so undemocratic that an armed struggle was justified (not saying you are, but others certainly are).

Using the example of my previous post, the situtation in N.I for Catholics was bad but not nearly as bad as blacks in Southern America and they managed to get proper democratic freedom protected in law faster in the USA without a terrorist campaign (i would say they got it faster because they didn't have a terrorist campaign).

jhegarty

Wicknight wrote:

1954/55 - Brown vs Board of Education

that was a case won in the us supreme court because of the constitution....

do you think Catholics would have won "one man, one vote" in case in front of the house of lords (which is the highest court in the uk) ?

tomMK1

Earthman wrote:

I think I've made my own position clear often enough on this and that is that I doubt the inequalities that were there in the 60's and 70's would have survived E.U membership.

The violence and bombing right through the 80's and early 90's by the IRA was completely senseless and certainly both unwarranted and un popular.

I would argue against that. there was a lot of injustices all round the board going on during the 1980s in the north - certainly enough to warrent what the IRA were up to in the eyes of nationalists.

oscarBravo

jhegarty wrote:

that was a case won in the us supreme court because of the constitution....

do you think Catholics would have won "one man, one vote" in case in front of the house of lords (which is the highest court in the uk) ?

Probably. What makes you think they wouldn't have?

tomMK1

i'd say the history of the north would make one think they wouldnt get one man one vote from the unionists

Zombrex

jhegarty wrote:

do you think Catholics would have won "one man, one vote" in case in front of the house of lords (which is the highest court in the uk) ?

Did they try?

jhegarty

oscarBravo wrote:

Probably. What makes you think they wouldn't have?

simple , the uk doesn't have a writen constitution.... so you can't argue protection under it....

Zombrex

jhegarty wrote:

simple , the uk doesn't have a writen constitution.... so you can't argue protection under it....

You can't argue that a law is unconstitutional if you don't have a constitution .. brilliant :rolleyes:

You can still argue for civil rights without blowing up pubs and shooting taxi drivers though ... do you have any evidence that if the Irish Civil rights movement would have not been a success without the terrorist campaign? What did the IRA make the U.K form a constitution???

tomMK1

isnt it true the violence was introduced by the loyalist factions and the ruc when they attacked the civil rights marchers? didnt the like of bernadette devlin give out that the cicil rights movement accepted too little too quickly? Outline to me please when 'terrorists' took over the nicra?