Is it time for the IRA to disband?

rien_du_tout

Just to swing the topic another way here...... call it off topic if u must:)

Daveirl, I'm going to challenge your statement that Ireland was never as one. hmmmm...... well I think I've solved it in my language. Ireland....... this island. Now I think I remember u giving examples of islands and saying they werent a single state why should we be. well I'm sure u see the flaw in your own statement (which I might be quoting wrong:() in that I could give my own examples of islands being 1 country -Madagascar, australia, I'm sure if I had a map I could think of a few more. As far as I remember you named big land masses, or at least ares which werent comparable to irelands land area....so I did the same.

I know that for grattans parliament ireland was treated as 1. I think that during some other protestant acsendancy parliaments that the island was treated as one. Why shouldnt it have been? there was a more spread concentration of "unionists" than there is now adays. So why should ireland back then have been though of as anything but the island of Ireland. Although not a seperate state, a region which during different periods had parliaments controlling the whole island. A region linked by cultural habits, folklore, and language. The act of union only lasted,what...... a 100 years. Previous to that I believe the king controlled the kingdoms of ireland and great britain. Seems like ireland has a fair amount of history as 1. I know I havent dived deeply into extremely irresputable factual information but u get my gist.

Note: not an attack on daveirl but on his views........ then again, views do make up part of a persons personality.....

seán

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

bonkey

Originally posted by rien_du_tout
Seems like ireland has a fair amount of history as 1.

Interestingly, one could also point out that all of your examples are of Ireland under British Rule. Could one not equally argue that this shows that Ireland is one nation because British Rule made us so?

Ireland, prior to its subjugation, may have been considered one nation to the extent that it had a High King and a hierarchy of rule below that, which imparted some sense of structure to the power on the island. Even then, however, it was apparently rare for the provinces to remain peaceful within and amongst each other for extended periods of time, and one must also consider the Viking settlements also on "our" land.

Ireland's unity comes from our culture. From our shared heritage. From, unquestionably, the fact that Ireland is a relatively small island.

However, we should not delude ourselves into believing that this commonality of culture requires common governance. Our history shows that we have, in fact, never really had such common governance in any meaningful sense while we remained an intependant nation.

If it is a persons choice to wish for a all-island Ireland, then that is their right. However, history is not as strongly on your side as you may expect.

jc

mike65

Boy its a sad state of affairs if anyone is suggesting Ireland has ever been united. It took British rule to achieve that. Does'nt anyone do history anymore?

Its ironic is'nt it?

If the nasty Brits had'nt arrived and conquered
then chances are the clan-based nature of Irish society would proberly have continued without interruption until maybe the last 100 years (I suspect the realisatation that everyone pulling together would be a good thing would have hit home eventually)

Mike.

mike65

This from Typedef

NATO was set up as an opposing bloc to the Warsaw pact and it was no accident that NATO was performing operations in Russia's back yard, by bombing the Yugoslavs....

....NATO as an entity allowed ethnic cleansing (read genocide) to take place between the Tutsi and Hutus in Rwanda. It allowed Pol Pot to exterminate hundreds of thousads (if not millions) of people, without so much as a bullet (or daisy cutter) dropped by NATO.

Oh but wait, all of a sudden NATO, has had an epiphany, has found god and realised intercession is desireable?
No. NATO was proving that it has the military muscle and guile to preform operations in a former Soviet State, basically.

Since when has a partisan military organisation (NATO) been an adequate supplicant for the United Nations? Ah, since the Americans have decided the UN is irrelevant (read not an American puppet).

er Typo NATOs job was with respect of protecting its member states from the Warsaw pact opposition, hence its name - North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

So WTF would it be doing in Rwanda? That was a total UN failure.

Mike.

sceptre

Originally posted by mike65
er Typo NATOs job was with respect of protecting its member states from the Warsaw pact opposition, hence its name - North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

Just a small wee correction: the Washington Treaty establishing NATO was signed in April 1949; the Warsaw Pact was established by the Warsaw Treaty signed in May 1955 as a reaction to the establishment of NATO.

Your point is just as valid either way though: fat boy Churchill was making speeches about iron curtains from March 1946 in Fulton (Missouri).

Victor

Originally posted by sceptre
Just a small wee correction: the Washington Treaty establishing NATO was signed in April 1949; the Warsaw Pact was established by the Warsaw Treaty signed in May 1955 as a reaction to the establishment of NATO.

Of course, the USSR had de facto (but not absolute, note Hungary and Czechoslovakia) control over the militaries in eastern Europe from 1944/45.

Typedef

Originally posted by mike65
This from Typedef



er Typo NATOs job was with respect of protecting its member states from the Warsaw pact opposition, hence its name - North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

So WTF would it be doing in Rwanda? That was a total UN failure.

Mike.

Yes but, on the same basis. What the f*ck was NATO doing in Yugoslavia, hardly a 'defencive' war. Rwanda proves NATO couldn't give a damn about ethnic cleansing, since NATO didn't do a damn thing about it there.

What makes Yugoslavia different? The fact that Yugoslavia is in Russia's backyard perhaps?

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Johnny_the_fox

Sorry I havent had time to read the whole thread.....

so please excuse any repeated points...

Is it time for the IRA to disband?

IMO I dont think the IRA should disband... why?

cos of the simple reason - the IRA fought for the freedom of the South....
why cant use the same for setting the north free???



Funny thing is -> I prefer Magners (North) to the Bulmers (South) anyday

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by Johnny_the_fox
why cant use the same for setting the north free???

a. They won't be able to defeat the British Army militarily and so would be wasting their time to try.
b. Their very existence is an impediment to agreed reunification.
c. They are an illegal organisation.
d. They are a treasonous organisation.

Clear now?

Originally posted by Johnny_the_fox
IMO I dont think the IRA should disband... why?

cos of the simple reason - the IRA fought for the freedom of the South....
why cant use the same for setting the north free???

hmmm the OLD IRA fought for the freedom of the south,and the north at the same time, but eventually the South's "freedom" was won by Democratic actions, and the bullet was dispensed with,Why not the same for the provisional IRA and the process of setting the North "free"??
In other words there comes a time for peace, and let, whatever else happens evolve from that.
mm

bonkey

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
a. They won't be able to defeat the British Army militarily and so would be wasting their time to try.
b. Their very existence is an impediment to agreed reunification.
c. They are an illegal organisation.
d. They are a treasonous organisation.

Clear now?

Well, if points a,. c and d did not apply equally to the actions of the "old" IRA, you might have cleared things up.

As for point b, the only reason their existence is an impediment to reunification is because the unionists have more or less said "we will not progress until the IRA have disbanded".

I mean, if they said "We will not progress until all Fianna Fail members in the Republic are ritually sacrificed", would you call the continued existence of Fianna Fail members an impediment? Yes, its an obviously one-sided example, but the point is still valid. The question to be asked is what the impediment is - why such a move is necessary in order for progress to be made.


jc

David-[RLD]-

i didn't have time to read everything but..

as for saying that there's a loyalist majority in the six counties, what about the 200,000 people who were excluded from the voting register in the last election?
so we don't know what the REAL majority is. it could be unionist, it could be nationalist.

the Republic of Ireland would not exist if it weren't for the IRA. simple as that.

old IRA, new IRA, who cares? it's the same damn organisation with the same beliefs. what's the difference between what they did in the early 20th century and what they've done recently? bombings, shootings, it's all the same stuff. I agree that the IRA should fade away, not disband, after unity has been achieved.

(btw I am a pro-Agreement Republican so please don't flame me for this post :mad:)

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

mike65

Dave here's a story about "lost" voters

Around 30,000 people will disappear from the voters' register for the European Elections, Sinn Fein predicted today.


Newry and Armagh Assembly member Conor Murphy made the claim ahead of figures due to be released by the Electoral Office next Monday.

He said: ``Last year when the first register compiled under the new legislation was produced well over 130,000 people were missing.

``Some people did manage to get back onto the register but over 100,000 were disenfranchised as a direct result of legislation demanded by the SDLP and the UUP.

``It is obvious from discussions we have had with both the Electoral Office and the Electoral Commission this situation is going to get worse year on year and that the register will continue to shrink.``

Voters in Northern Ireland are required to register each year to vote, with forms delivered at their homes.

A television, billboard and advertising campaign took place during registration urging people to secure their vote.

However Sinn Fein has been fiercely critical of the rolling registration process.

Mr Murphy said today he expected more people would be disenfranchised.

``It is my expectation that the register due to be made public on Monday will once again show a significant increase in the amount of people disenfranchised.

``This situation cannot be allowed to continue. The legislation needs changed and people`s right to vote needs to be once again made paramount.``

Cant help but suspect this is about the time honoured SF
tactic of voting early and often.

Mike.

bonkey

Laysus lads....

when I posted a link to a thread that was over a year old, it wasn't so that it could be resurrected to run in parallel with another almost-identically named thread started this weekend.

Still...whatever keeps y'all happy, I guess.

jc

mike65

Originally posted by bonkey
Laysus lads....

when I posted a link to a thread that was over a year old, it wasn't so that it could be resurrected to run in parallel with another almost-identically named thread started this weekend.

I has a similair thought but...

Originally posted by bonkey


...whatever keeps y'all happy, I guess.

jc

David-[RLD]-

daveirl, here you are.

http://www.anphoblacht.com/news/detail/3294

the original IRA was the official army of the Free State. anti-Treaty forces broke off to form the "Official IRA". (afair)

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

ireton

no, it is time for the IRA to start up again.
bring it on bogside bitches.

David-[RLD]-

Originally posted by daveirl
exactly, the people you said had the same goals as pre 21 republicans didn't. You've proved my point.

there were two kinds of pre 21 republicans. those wanting full independence (de valera) and those wanting any kind of deal that came their way (collins).

they were all involved in the IRA (or IRB) some way or another.