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
So, after 30 years of armed insurgency...
Options
Comments
-
-
McDaid--1916 wrote: »I think ull find erin go bragh made the statement not me
Then he is required to prove it
0 -
-
thats your proof?
A poll from an internet forum and an un supported article thats 14 years old reported by an IRA sympathiser in America :rolleyes:
lol0 -
McArmalite wrote: »
But one of the things that gets me about ANY debate on the North, the 'peace' people who shout loudest about the IRA's violence NEVER mention british violence in the situation.
Not me. I have argued with as many loyalists as republicans.Nor britian's culability in creating and maintaining the secterian gerrymander that is the six county state, you'd think the IRA had created the northern state, not the brits and unionists !!!
The state was created by the Anglo-Irish Treaty, as you well know. Not just the ''brits''.It's always the IRA who are predominately denounced with a passing mention of the loyalists. You'd think the british forces didn't exist in the whole equation. The first deaths in the troubles in August 1969 were done by the british RUC and unionist mobs.
Who disputes that? Does that justify the campaign that followed?And needless to say, no one ever charged with any.
No point moaning about that now. The GFA has allowed all the killers to walk free, so theres no point complaining about one side not being charged. Plenty of your side have got away scot-free with similar incidents.
BTW I think all involved in killings should have been made to face justice.
I find it amazing that all those who complain about the violence and heavy-handed nature of the British army do not apply those standards to their own army.
Apparently its a case of ''they started it so now we have carte blanche to behave how we want and play the victim card if anyone criticises us'' :rolleyes:0 -
Advertisement
-
thats your proof?
A poll from an internet forum and an un supported article thats 14 years old reported by an IRA sympathiser in America :rolleyes:
lol
Well there hasn't been a referendum, so opinion polls are the best gauge. Theres plenty more polls where they came from.
Now lets see some polls which show the majority of Irish people don't support Unity then?0 -
Erin Go Brath wrote: »Well there hasn't been a referendum, so opinion polls are the best gauge. Theres plenty more polls where they came from.
Now lets see some polls which show the majority of Irish people don't support Unity then?
Im sorry, but unless you can come up with a poll from a reputible source, i cant even take you seriously, the fact that you believed that the poll's that you presented to me as proof were in anyway a vindication of your point leads me to believe its pointless having a debate with you.0 -
Im sorry, but unless you can come up with a poll from a reputible source, i cant even take you seriously, the fact that you believed that the poll's that you presented to me as proof were in anyway a vindication of your point leads me to believe its pointless having a debate with you.
I guess you went looking, and couldn't find any polls to support your arguement then.
*Does the victory dance* 0 -
First let me say #15, you asked me a fair question about the dropping of Articles 2 & 3 , I answered them but then went on a tangent about people's hypocracy with british violence. So I'll apologise. My comments regarding the hypocracy of many when it comes to state/brit violence is what pee's me off, not you specifiaclly. And british violnce is the root and cause of the problem, the IRA the reaction to this violence.
" Not me. I have argued with as many loyalists as republicans. " the 'peace' people who shout loudest about the IRA's violence NEVER mention british violence in the situation. The british/state forces murder and violence. All these hypocritical type ever do is mainly pontificate about the IRA, briefly mention the loyalists, and then it's back to the IRA, the IRA the IRA. The 4 or 5 previous pages of discussion, the 'nice' people never once mentioned the brits violence - as usual :rolleyes: , and you even proved again " I have argued with as many loyalists as republicans. " no mention of the brits in the equation - YET AGAIN . Be honest, the violence of the IRA is only a reaction to british violence, whether it be the Offical violence of the state forces, RUC,UDR, brit army etc or the Unoffical forces, the UVF, UFF etc, etc. ( Now don' t tell me that the brits aren't the hidden guiding hand behind the loyalists :mad: )
" The state was created by the Anglo-Irish Treaty, as you well know. Not just the ''brits''. " So, Micheal Collins and the negoiators sent over by the Machevillian Dev demanded partition off the war criminal (Desden etc) Churchill, Lord Birkenhead etc and threathened immediate and terrible war etc with his much larger army ?? Say, if a man is forced to sign say, a police statement under duress and threats of more violence etc, is it a legitimate 'agreement ' ?? You may say it is, but the vast majority of Irish people say it isn't and it NEVER will be legitimate in the eyes of the decent average Irish man and woman, even though 'nice' people like your self have brainwashed and deceived yourself into pretending it is.
Who disputes that? Does that justify the campaign that followed? Ofcourse it does. The nationalists have MORE right to take up arms against the occupation forces than the any of the counties in the 26.....I'll answer the othe points again.0 -
McArmalite wrote: »First let me say #15, you asked me a fair question about the dropping of Articles 2 & 3 , I answered them but then went on a tangent about people's hypocracy with british violence. So I'll apologise. My comments regarding the hypocracy of many when it comes to state/brit violence is what pee's me off, not you specifiaclly. And british violnce is the root and cause of the problem, the IRA the reaction to this violence.
Ok fair enough, I thought it was directed at me.
"Not me. I have argued with as many loyalists as republicans. " the 'peace' people who shout loudest about the IRA's violence NEVER mention british violence in the situation. The british/state forces murder and violence. All these hypocritical type ever do is mainly pontificate about the IRA, briefly mention the loyalists, and then it's back to the IRA, the IRA the IRA. The 4 or 5 previous pages of discussion, the 'nice' people never once mentioned the brits violence - as usual :rolleyes: , and you even proved again " I have argued with as many loyalists as republicans. " no mention of the brits in the equation - YET AGAIN . Be honest, the violence of the IRA is only a reaction to british violence, whether it be the Offical violence of the state forces, RUC,UDR, brit army etc or the Unoffical forces, the UVF, UFF etc, etc. ( Now don' t tell me that the brits aren't the hidden guiding hand behind the loyalists :mad: )
I wont tell you that. You don't have to tell me about the role of Britain in the conflict, I have never sought to downplay it." The state was created by the Anglo-Irish Treaty, as you well know. Not just the ''brits''. " So, Micheal Collins and the negoiators sent over by the Machevillian Dev demanded partition off the war criminal (Desden etc) Churchill, Lord Birkenhead etc and threathened immediate and terrible war etc with his much larger army ?? Say, if a man is forced to sign say, a police statement under duress and threats of more violence etc, is it a legitimate 'agreement ' ?? You may say it is, but the vast majority of Irish people say it isn't and it NEVER will be legitimate in the eyes of the decent average Irish man and woman, even though 'nice' people like your self have brainwashed and deceived yourself into pretending it is.
OK, now this is a different debate altogether. I don't want to go too much offtopic but my own thoughts on it is that the fairest solution would have been if the two north-eastern counties (roughly) with their predominantly unionist population had been allowed to stay in the UK. It need not have followed an exact county boundary either.
Both states would have been more stable.
You most likely would disagree with that but I do not see how a peaceful 32 county state would have ever been established.Who disputes that? Does that justify the campaign that followed? Ofcourse it does. The nationalists have MORE right to take up arms against the occupation forces than the any of the counties in the 26.....I'll answer the othe points again.
Well I think we will never see eye to eye here.
You view the million or so unionists as occupiers. I don't.
NI is their home, its not like they just landed over here on a boat yesterday to occupy the place!!0 -
Advertisement
-
OK, now this is a different debate altogether. I don't want to go too much offtopic but my own thoughts on it is that the fairest solution would have been if the two north-eastern counties (roughly) with their predominantly unionist population had been allowed to stay in the UK. It need not have followed an exact county boundary either.
Both states would have been more stable.
I dont think the unionists in the remaining 4 counties would have been too happy with that solution either.
People forget also that the Unionists in the 26 counties may have felt that were abandond unmercifully without second thought by their Northern contemporaries.
You view the million or so unionists as occupiers. I don't.
NI is their home, its not like they just landed over here on a boat yesterday to occupy the place!!
They are not occupiers at all. Ok, thier ancesters were planted here on confiscated land but to protestents living there now, it is their home. The planters followed a long line of peoples that came to live in Ireland. Before that we had the Normans, Vikings settled here, the Celts came to Ireland, going back thousands of years to the Neolithic people and Mesolithic people before that. We are all decendands of some group of settlers. It's one way of looking at it.
Many unionists could describe themselfs as Irish-British, British-Irish or just British, it is their perogative and it is up to the rest of us to respect this.
Equally we must respect the wishes of nationalists in the North that regard themselfs as Irish citizens as they are intitled to be under GFA. Statements like this made by a previous poster:
"Its good that Sinn Fein finally can accept that they are subjects of her royal Majesty"
are highly insensitive and childish. It's time to move away from one-upmanship and start building trust. We should focus on shared traditions and customs instead of differences.
I'm starting to ramble a bit and am losing focus so I'm going to end my post here, sorry if it doesn't make any sence.0 -
guinnessdrinker wrote: »I dont think the unionists in the remaining 4 counties would have been too happy with that solution either.
People forget also that the Unionists in the 26 counties may have felt that were abandond unmercifully without second thought by their Northern contemporaries.
I think that would just be a case of tough luck. Some of the counties could have been split if need be.
There was/is no ideal solution. Tyrone and Fermanaghs inclusion in NI was basically a land-grab. Those were nationalist areas.
Unfortunately not everyone could be satisfied, but at least it would have been a more honest attempt at solving the problem.0 -
Erin Go Brath wrote: »First up its a joke to call FF 'The Republican Party'. They've done f*ck all to try bring about reunification of the country, bar every so often making noises about running candidates in the Six to keep the Republican element within it satisfied that they're going to endeavour to bring back the 4th Green Field. It never happens though! :rolleyes:
The GFA itself, has it good points and bad. The Unionist veto is my major beef with it. However it exists as a compromise by both sides, so working within it to achieve a UI is the best option.
The IRA's actions in the past few decades has been necessary. If they hadn't took the fight to the Brits and their proxy terror gangs in the North then discrimination, gerrymandering etc would probably be as common in 2008as it was in 1968.
Now that the armed struggle is at an end Republicanism is sustaning itself on the hope that a UI will be achieved through peaceful political means within the existing framework, and a changing demographic with Catholics becoming a majority by 2021 approx.
agree. actually, prior to ahern and partially reynolds, the only time the "ulster question" meanigly sprang up by the likes of de valera and charles j haughey was when the economy down here was messed up, and alloed themselves to distract people from the realities of economic doom. what did they ever do? lynch, all though maybe in the long run was correct, bottled out of his cry that "he could not stand idly by" doing the battle of the bog side. one fine example is section 31 media ban one sf members. had ff been more in contact with moderate members of sf (even behind closed doors) maybe alot could have been done to end the violence earlier.
what had the 30 years of conflict learned us? (without glorifing it) it made the british realise that it could no longer be arrogant and allow unionst via discrimination (of offer of work, gerrymandering, social housing, excusive rule in stormount etc ) get there own way. it made the unionsit community realise that no matter how they tried, the republicans would not lie down and go away. it also made republicans realise that it could not achieve a united ireland via violence. (remember practices like gerrymandering tried to re draw constituencies to suit unionists) the good friday agreement made unionists realise that they had to share power. only this time, there was more meat in the agreement than others such as sunnigdale and the 1985 agreement. issues like fair policing, the proposal of human rights charter were brought in and they all have been affirmed by the st andrews agreement0 -
Im sorry, but unless you can come up with a poll from a reputible source, i cant even take you seriously, the fact that you believed that the poll's that you presented to me as proof were in anyway a vindication of your point leads me to believe its pointless having a debate with you.
rte, irish times and i think cso have done some in the past, maybe they can be found in archives0 -
walrusgumble wrote: »agree. actually, prior to ahern and partially reynolds, the only time the "ulster question" meanigly sprang up by the likes of de valera and charles j haughey was when the economy down here was messed up, and alloed themselves to distract people from the realities of economic doom. what did they ever do? lynch, all though maybe in the long run was correct, bottled out of his cry that "he could not stand idly by" doing the battle of the bog side. one fine example is section 31 media ban one sf members. had ff been more in contact with moderate members of sf (even behind closed doors) maybe alot could have been done to end the violence earlier.
what had the 30 years of conflict learned us? (without glorifing it) it made the british realise that it could no longer be arrogant and allow unionst via discrimination (of offer of work, gerrymandering, social housing, excusive rule in stormount etc ) get there own way. it made the unionsit community realise that no matter how they tried, the republicans would not lie down and go away. it also made republicans realise that it could not achieve a united ireland via violence. (remember practices like gerrymandering tried to re draw constituencies to suit unionists) the good friday agreement made unionists realise that they had to share power. only this time, there was more meat in the agreement than others such as sunnigdale and the 1985 agreement. issues like fair policing, the proposal of human rights charter were brought in and they all have been affirmed by the st andrews agreement
That is a great post.0 -
Ok fair enough, I thought it was directed at me.
I wont tell you that. You don't have to tell me about the role of Britain in the conflict, I have never sought to downplay it.
OK, now this is a different debate altogether. I don't want to go too much offtopic but my own thoughts on it is that the fairest solution would have been if the two north-eastern counties (roughly) with their predominantly unionist population had been allowed to stay in the UK. It need not have followed an exact county boundary either.
Both states would have been more stable.
You most likely would disagree with that but I do not see how a peaceful 32 county state would have ever been established.
Well I think we will never see eye to eye here.
You view the million or so unionists as occupiers. I don't.
NI is their home, its not like they just landed over here on a boat yesterday to occupy the place!!
" if the two north-eastern counties (roughly) with their predominantly unionist population had been allowed to stay in the UK. " There isn't degrees of acceptable secterianism, there isn't degrees of national freedom. The border was created for secterianism to continue to exist, not end, 'fairness' had nothing to do with it. So what would happen ( and did happen ) to the nationalists left behind in the secterian 2 county state, hmmm, they'd be burnt out, ethnically cleansed is the appropriate word. But then the 'peace' people ( how do you define yourself ? ) seem to believe in an acceptable degree of thuggery, secterianism and murder, so long as it's perpetuated by the british ofcourse. What always gets me about the 'nice people', those who purport a situation where british/unionist violence is acceptable - are those who will not have to live with the consequnces of it. It's ok, so long as it happens to someone else.
" I do not see how a peaceful 32 county state would have ever been established. . Here we go yet again, we'll all be slaughtered in our beds if the unionists don't get there way. Without the support of the brits ,that crowd will do as much fighting as the tens of thousands of unionists left in the Free State. Indeed as pointed out on another post, it shows their real determination when they dropped their fellow unionists south of the border without a second thought or whimper.
" You view the million or so unionists as occupiers. " Firstly, there's NEVER been a million unionists in the occupied counties. I view them as british, the say they are british and I agree, no probs. But they have not any right to veto the wishes of the vast majority of the Irish people. The exist because of their secterian gerrymander, created and life supported by the british, when the 'papes' outnumber them, don't worry, their'll be no shortage of pragmatic unionists to come foward and do a deal, no probs at all. And as for the others unhappy with this, well they can always go back to the mainland, that's their decision.0 -
if the two north-eastern counties (roughly) with their predominantly unionist population had been allowed to stay in the UK. " There isn't degrees of acceptable secterianism, there isn't degrees of national freedom. The border was created for secterianism to continue to exist, not end, 'fairness' had nothing to do with it. So what would happen ( and did happen ) to the nationalists left behind in the secterian 2 county state, hmmm, they'd be burnt out, ethnically cleansed is the appropriate word.
Not necessarily. The same tensions would not be in place. Neither state would be under threat from any minority. Both states (off the top of my head now) would have a minority population of 15-20%.
Discrimination against nationalists was rooted in the very real fear that they would agitate for a UI. I'm not saying it was right, but in a more secure state, then discrimination would be far less likely to happen.
Unless you think that unionists would discriminate against others no matter what the situation? In which case, we are only going around in circles.But then the 'peace' people ( how do you define yourself ? )
Not sure how I'd define myself tbh. I am not a pacifist. War is sometimes justified. In this case I do not believe it was.seem to believe in an acceptable degree of thuggery, secterianism and murder, so long as it's perpetuated by the british ofcourse.
Doesn't apply to me, I've told you already.What always gets me about the 'nice people', those who purport a situation where british/unionist violence is acceptable - are those who will not have to live with the consequnces of it. It's ok, so long as it happens to someone else.
I do not agree with those sentiments." I do not see how a peaceful 32 county state would have ever been established. . Here we go yet again, we'll all be slaughtered in our beds if the unionists don't get there way.
Thats not what I said. Are you arguing against what I am saying or what you think I am saying? I was referring to the past, you are referring to the present.
A 32 county state would not have been secure IMO and therefore unviable. The UVF were armed to the teeth and had considerable support from England (Bonar Law and his crew). There was no way they could have been made to join a UI without massive bloodshed. And even if you supported such a conflict, the chances of nationalist Ireland prevailing would have been 50-50 at best.
Therefore partition (on a smaller scale) would have been the best solution IMO.
You have not given any real argument as to how a 32 county state could have realistically come about.Without the support of the brits ,that crowd will do as much fighting as the tens of thousands of unionists left in the Free State. Indeed as pointed out on another post, it shows their real determination when they dropped their fellow unionists south of the border without a second thought or whimper.
It is impossible to say how they would react." You view the million or so unionists as occupiers. " Firstly, there's NEVER been a million unionists in the occupied counties. I view them as british, the say they are british and I agree, no probs. But they have not any right to veto the wishes of the vast majority of the Irish people. The exist because of their secterian gerrymander, created and life supported by the british, when the 'papes' outnumber them, don't worry, their'll be no shortage of pragmatic unionists to come foward and do a deal, no probs at all. And as for the others unhappy with this, well they can always go back to the mainland, that's their decision.
Well I can only hope you are right about that if a UI ever occurs, pragmatism is much more preferable to another guerilla-style conflict.0 -
Not necessarily. The same tensions would not be in place. Neither state would be under threat from any minority. Both states (off the top of my head now) would have a minority population of 15-20%.
Discrimination against nationalists was rooted in the very real fear that they would agitate for a UI. I'm not saying it was right, but in a more secure state, then discrimination would be far less likely to happen.
Unless you think that unionists would discriminate against others no matter what the situation? In which case, we are only going around in circles.
Not sure how I'd define myself tbh. I am not a pacifist. War is sometimes justified. In this case I do not believe it was.
Doesn't apply to me, I've told you already.
I do not agree with those sentiments.
Thats not what I said. Are you arguing against what I am saying or what you think I am saying? I was referring to the past, you are referring to the present.
A 32 county state would not have been secure IMO and therefore unviable. The UVF were armed to the teeth and had considerable support from England (Bonar Law and his crew). There was no way they could have been made to join a UI without massive bloodshed. And even if you supported such a conflict, the chances of nationalist Ireland prevailing would have been 50-50 at best.
Therefore partition (on a smaller scale) would have been the best solution IMO.
You have not given any real argument as to how a 32 county state could have realistically come about.
It is impossible to say how they would react.
Well I can only hope you are right about that if a UI ever occurs, pragmatism is much more preferable to another guerilla-style conflict.
Not necessarily. The same tensions would not be in place. Neither state would be under threat from any minority. Both states (off the top of my head now) would have a minority population of 15-20%....Discrimination against nationalists was rooted in the very real fear that they would agitate for a UI.....Unless you think that unionists would discriminate against others no matter what the situation?...A 32 county state would not have been secure IMO and therefore unviable. The UVF were armed to the teeth and had considerable support from England (Bonar Law and his crew). There was no way they could have been made to join a UI without massive bloodshed. And even if you supported such a conflict, the chances of nationalist Ireland prevailing would have been 50-50 at best. As I said before - Here we go yet again, we'll all be slaughtered in our beds if the unionists don't get there way. Without the support of the brits ,that crowd will do as much fighting as the tens of thousands of unionists left in the Free State. Indeed as pointed out on another post, it shows their real determination when they dropped their fellow unionists south of the border without a second thought or whimper. - So, now the Provos know what to do, threaten another Bishopsgate but no warnings, God knows, 10's of thousands dead, but with this threat are they going to get their way ??
Not necessarily. The same tensions would not be in place. Neither state would be under threat from any minority. Both states (off the top of my head now) would have a minority population of 15-20%....Discrimination against nationalists was rooted in the very real fear that they would agitate for a UI.
James Connolly was the one who forecast around 1912, that as bad as the situation for the Catholics in the north east was at that time, their situation would be even worse if they were cut off from the rest of the country. unionism is a british created supremacist ideology, and they believe it entitles them who to abuse and dominate any nationalist, discrimination is rooted in the economic and social society engineered by the british to have an ever ready 'garrision' to keep the natives down. The same tensions and secterianism were in place when Catholics weren't allowed vote, never mind agitate. Unionist thuggery didn't just spring up in 1912 due to their 'fear' of a UI and the loss of their 'traditions'. " Discrimination against nationalists" existed since that rabble came into the country, and indeed not just in the 6 north eastern counties but was practisied all over the country.
" There was no way they could have been made to join a UI without massive bloodshed. " Here we go agian, the " million unionists cannot be made to join a UI" hypocracy. But it's ok to make 600,000 nationalists be made join a british state with massive bloodshed. Without the suppost of britian taht crowd will fight as well astheir counterparts did when britian cut the umbilical cord in 1922 south of the border. As James Connolly described the relationship of unionism to britian, it is a relationship not found anywhere in nature. It is a case of one type of parasite breeding off another type of parasite.
" the chances of nationalist Ireland prevailing would have been 50-50 at best ". Typical of the slavish, crawling mindset of the 'peace' people. Sort of - " Well, it's not very nice and I'm as proud a nationalist as you, but they'll kill us all in our beds if they don't get their way ". We out number that sh!t 4 or even 5 to 1, but the " hordy mon from Ulstur " will beat the racially inferior taigs. So, it's croppies lie down or else. Far from helping the sitauation, the 'peace' people only flame their feelings of supremascism, which is the core of unionism. That sh!t wouldn't fight their way out of a paper bag. They weren't conscripted into the british forces in WW2 because their feet was too sore from all the orange marching !!!!
" Without the support of the brits ,that crowd will do as much fighting as the tens of thousands of unionists left in the Free State. "0 -
McArmalite wrote: »[As I said before - Here we go yet again, we'll all be slaughtered in our beds if the unionists don't get there way. Without the support of the brits ,that crowd will do as much fighting as the tens of thousands of unionists left in the Free State. Indeed as pointed out on another post, it shows their real determination when they dropped their fellow unionists south of the border without a second thought or whimper. - So, now the Provos know what to do, threaten another Bishopsgate but no warnings, God knows, 10's of thousands dead, but with this threat are they going to get their way ??
I didn't say that we would all be slaughtered in our beds.
I don't know if you are deliberately ignoring my points or if you genuinely can't understand them.
Explain to me how a UI could have occurred in 1921? Taking into account the political realities of the day.James Connolly was the one who forecast around 1912, that as bad as the situation for the Catholics in the north east was at that time, their situation would be even worse if they were cut off from the rest of the country. unionism is a british created supremacist ideology, and they believe it entitles them who to abuse and dominate any nationalist, discrimination is rooted in the economic and social society engineered by the british to have an ever ready 'garrision' to keep the natives down. The same tensions and secterianism were in place when Catholics weren't allowed vote, never mind agitate. Unionist thuggery didn't just spring up in 1912 due to their 'fear' of a UI and the loss of their 'traditions'. " Discrimination against nationalists" existed since that rabble came into the country, and indeed not just in the 6 north eastern counties but was practisied all over the country.
So nationalists have existed since the time of the Ulster plantation, when that ''rabble'' first came over?
If you really believe that, your sense of history is very simplistic." There was no way they could have been made to join a UI without massive bloodshed. " Here we go agian, the " million unionists cannot be made to join a UI" hypocracy. But it's ok to make 600,000 nationalists be made join a british state with massive bloodshed. Without the suppost of britian taht crowd will fight as well astheir counterparts did when britian cut the umbilical cord in 1922 south of the border. As James Connolly described the relationship of unionism to britian, it is a relationship not found anywhere in nature. It is a case of one type of parasite breeding off another type of parasite.
Oh yes, James Connolly, my favourite communist. His ideas have been a proven failure. I wouldn't rely too much on a marxist.
It really is difficult to debate with someone who is not reading what I am writing.
I did not say it is ok to make 600,000 nationalists join a british state with massive bloodshed.
I said ''There was no way they (unionists) could have been made to join a UI without massive bloodshed''
Can you propose a way in which they could have been made join a UI without bloodshed?" the chances of nationalist Ireland prevailing would have been 50-50 at best ". Typical of the slavish, crawling mindset of the 'peace' people. Sort of - " Well, it's not very nice and I'm as proud a nationalist as you, but they'll kill us all in our beds if they don't get their way ". We out number that sh!t 4 or even 5 to 1, but the " hordy mon from Ulstur " will beat the racially inferior taigs. So, it's croppies lie down or else. Far from helping the sitauation, the 'peace' people only flame their feelings of supremascism, which is the core of unionism. That sh!t wouldn't fight their way out of a paper bag. They weren't conscripted into the british forces in WW2 because their feet was too sore from all the orange marching !!!!
So the true hatred is coming out now. If your analysis is based on hatred, no wonder you cannot stick to the points raised.
Every answer turns into an angry rant.0 -
#15 i would say a way to get unionists to join a united ireland would be to show them the benefits of living in such a republic.if it were shown to them the benefits and relevence to working class protestants im sure many would be at least open to discussions.of course you're going to get the odd extremist who rejects the idea but that's human nature.the important thing is to keep working at it and bridge the gap between unionists and republicans,protestants and catholics,and get them working together on issues which would benefit them as a community0
-
Advertisement
-
#15 i would say a way to get unionists to join a united ireland would be to show them the benefits of living in such a republic.if it were shown to them the benefits and relevence to working class protestants im sure many would be at least open to discussions.of course you're going to get the odd extremist who rejects the idea but that's human nature.the important thing is to keep working at it and bridge the gap between unionists and republicans,protestants and catholics,and get them working together on issues which would benefit them as a community
I think it is even easier than that, you just have to find a way for it to happen without anyone appearing to have "Lost".
The two sides may as well be arguing over which end of their boiled egg to eat first, all they know now are that there are two sides and neither wants to lose.0 -
Fratton Fred wrote: »I think it is even easier than that, you just have to find a way for it to happen without anyone appearing to have "Lost".
The two sides may as well be arguing over which end of their boiled egg to eat first, all they know now are that there are two sides and neither wants to lose.
Here he goes YET AGAIN :rolleyes: " the two sides ". The two sides....the people on both sides..... both community's...... the Orish are the problem with britian ' bearing the white man's burden amongst the unruly savage natives ' theme coming up yet again and again and again with him :rolleyes::rolleyes:. Britain or the british like yourself aren't a central part of the problem, britian is a detached, well meaning, benevolent kinly old uncle in the equation. It's all down to the unagreeable Orish. ( Well, the unionists aren't Irish - their british, so stop trying to lump us with that one.) God you just LOVE yourselves don't you.
As long as perfidious albion holds up the unionist 'veto', i.e. britian will hide behind "the wishes of the majority of the people of northern Ireland" excuse, the the unionists will NEVER have to negoiate. - as stated previously.0 -
#15 i would say a way to get unionists to join a united ireland would be to show them the benefits of living in such a republic.if it were shown to them the benefits and relevence to working class protestants im sure many would be at least open to discussions.of course you're going to get the odd extremist who rejects the idea but that's human nature.the important thing is to keep working at it and bridge the gap between unionists and republicans,protestants and catholics,and get them working together on issues which would benefit them as a community
Taking an analogy between the brits/unionists and the nationalists, like say, an employer and striking workers. The employer who's been given unconditional support and money by the govt. to hold any position he likes against striking workers, without the government withdrawing it's support, the employer will NEVER have to negoiate it's position. I'm not trying to be a smartalec but anyone who has been misled into thinking that the unionists (employer) is going to change his position because the nationalists (strikers) are 'nice' to him - , but you couldn't be further off the mark. Same with the unionists and britian so called abiding by "the wishes of the majority of the people of northern Ireland " excuse. And britian doesn't want to change that - because that's exactly what britian wants. If britian wanted to change it's policy and thought it would get rid of the unionists, it'd do so in the morning quicker than a blink.
And yes Rossi, you would get the odd extremist who rejects the idea, not just north of the border, but also the Indo-unionists and west brits down here.0 -
McArmalite wrote: »Here he goes YET AGAIN :rolleyes: " the two sides ". The two sides....the people on both sides..... both community's...... the Orish are the problem with britian ' bearing the white man's burden amongst the unruly savage natives ' theme coming up yet again and again and again with him :rolleyes::rolleyes:. Britain or the british like yourself aren't a central part of the problem, britian is a detached, well meaning, benevolent kinly old uncle in the equation. It's all down to the unagreeable Orish. ( Well, the unionists aren't Irish - their british, so stop trying to lump us with that one.) God you just LOVE yourselves don't you.
As long as perfidious albion holds up the unionist 'veto', i.e. britian will hide behind "the wishes of the majority of the people of northern Ireland" excuse, the the unionists will NEVER have to negoiate. - as stated previously.
what the **** are you on about? you have a seriously big chip on your shoulder don't you?0 -
:rolleyes:Fratton Fred wrote: »what the **** are you on about? you have a seriously big chip on your shoulder don't you?0 -
A very one-sided analogy and a rather silly one at that!McArmalite wrote: »Taking an analogy between the brits/unionists and the nationalists, like say, an employer and striking workers. The employer who's been given unconditional support and money by the govt. to hold any position he likes against striking workers, without the government withdrawing it's support, the employer will NEVER have to negoiate it's position. I'm not trying to be a smartalec but anyone who has been misled into thinking that the unionists (employer) is going to change his position because the nationalists (strikers) are 'nice' to him - , but you couldn't be further off the mark. Same with the unionists and britian so called abiding by "the wishes of the majority of the people of northern Ireland " excuse. And britian doesn't want to change that - because that's exactly what britian wants.
A more readistic analogy would be to compare it with the merger of two major supermarket chains.
Morrissons & Safeway merged a few years ago.
Morrissons were a major chain in the north of England, Safeways was a major chain in the south of england, both chains overlapped in the midlands. When the stores merged Morrissons were the senior partner, all the Safeway stores were rebranded to be Morrissons. All the Safeway staff had to change their orange uniforms to green ones & their wage slips had the employer name changed and their staff contracts were re-written. The job remained the same for all except for the "branding".
Imagine that Morrissons are Éire & Safeways are northern Ireland.
The unionists would lose their "British - UK really" identity, their taxes & benefits will be dealt with by Dublin rather than London. Many of the British provided jobs would "Go east" and they would be in the same country as the likes of you. For a successful merger both sides need to see some benefit to them in it, what benefits do the unionists get? and what does Éire get out of it apart from a financial black hole.
The unionists have too many friends on the mainland (particually Scotland) for that to happen without their consent. The thoughts of sharing a country with the likes of you scares the shít out of them!McArmalite wrote: »If britian wanted to change it's policy and thought it would get rid of the unionists, it'd do so in the morning quicker than a blink.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »A very one-sided analogy and a rather silly one at that!
A more readistic analogy would be to compare it with the merger of two major supermarket chains.
Morrissons & Safeway merged a few years ago.
Morrissons were a major chain in the north of England, Safeways was a major chain in the south of england, both chains overlapped in the midlands. When the stores merged Morrissons were the senior partner, all the Safeway stores were rebranded to be Morrissons. All the Safeway staff had to change their orange uniforms to green ones & their wage slips had the employer name changed and their staff contracts were re-written. The job remained the same for all except for the "branding".
Imagine that Morrissons are Éire & Safeways are northern Ireland.
The unionists would lose their "British - UK really" identity, their taxes & benefits will be dealt with by Dublin rather than London. Many of the British provided jobs would "Go east" and they would be in the same country as the likes of you. For a successful merger both sides need to see some benefit to them in it, what benefits do the unionists get? and what does Éire get out of it apart from a financial black hole.
The unionists have too many friends on the mainland (particually Scotland) for that to happen without their consent. The thoughts of sharing a country with the likes of you scares the shít out of them!
No completely wrong. The unionists (Morrissons) existance depends 100% on the false economy britian created for it to surrvive. As long as britian says it is perpared to uphold that false economy, than Morrissons (unionists) have no reason to negoiate and enter change. Besides the whole thing isn't just about a business merge, the supremacist ideology underling unionism is also a factor.
The unionists have very few friends among the general public in britian. Your average person in britian doesn't know nor care the slightest about them and indeed would prefer to see Ireland getting it's unity as their is a vague believe that britian has treated Ireland horribly down the centuries and/or a desire " to be rid of the bloody Northen Ireland, Ian Paisley and the f**king IRA etc " Look how many English people come to Irealnd on holidays, weekends in Dublin etc and how many of them would it cross their mind to visit say, the 'Twalfth' in Belfast. In Scotland, it's only some yobs who support Rangers in the Glasgow area and want to play the macho secterian thug bit around old firm matches, most other Scots couldn't give a toss if the north was in the UK.
No, it's the mad imperial ravens of the british rulling calls that upholds occupation.0 -
-
McArmalite wrote: »As long as britian says it is perpared to uphold that false economy, .
At least you accept that the Northern Irish economy has been shafted so hard up the ar$e as a direct result of the "troubles" it is no longer able to stand up!
The next question is why should Éire take it on from an economic viewpoint? If Éire was wealthy enough to support Northern Ireland to the same leves as Mainland Britain, then more unionists may be prepaired to think about it.
It really comes down to jobs & money in the end, too many risk losing both with a "merger" that includes republicans as well!0 -
Advertisement
-
You are correct in your assumption that the vast majority of the general public don't give a toss about northern Ireland.McArmalite wrote: »The unionists have very few friends among the general public in britian. Your average person in britian doesn't know nor care the slightest about them and indeed would prefer to see Ireland getting it's unity as their is a vague believe that britian has treated Ireland horribly down the centuries and/or a desire " to be rid of the bloody Northen Ireland, Ian Paisley and the f**king IRA etc " Look how many English people come to Irealnd on holidays, weekends in Dublin etc and how many of them would it cross their mind to visit say, the 'Twalfth' in Belfast. In Scotland, it's only some yobs who support Rangers in the Glasgow area and want to play the macho secterian thug bit around old firm matches, most other Scots couldn't give a toss if the north was in the UK.
No, it's the mad imperial ravens of the british rulling calls that upholds occupation.
The Conservative party (formally known as the Conservative & Unionist party) still give a lot of support to their former Unionist colleagues, they are gradually turning against this idea but will support unionist for as long as is necessary, in return for their support in the house of commons.
The political landscape is changing but as long as the UK is a democracy then the decision as to wheather Northern Ireland stays or goes is down to the people of Northern Ireland ALL THE PEOPLE.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement