Who, on this forum, is in favour of a 32 county Republic?

DoireNod

getz wrote: »

make the lie big,make it simple ,keep saying it,and eventually they will believe it;....ADOLF HITLER. all propaganda has to be popular and has to accommodate itself to the comprehension of the least intelligent of those whom it seeks to reach...ADOLF HITLER

What are you talking about? Are you talking about British propaganda or what? Or are you trying to compare Irish republicanism to Nazism? Catch yourself on.

getz

DoireNod wrote: »

What are you talking about? Are you talking about British propaganda or what? Or are you trying to compare Irish republicanism to Nazism? Catch yourself on.

the IRA and the irish goverment flirted with the natzi ,they [the IRA] had people training in germany,the then irish goverment had the same anti-jewish stance as the german goverment,even at the end of the war ,the irish goverment gave wanted natzis a safe haven from prosecution,and at that same time refused entry to jewish homeless children,they even sent their regets to germany at the death of hitler,because of the republics showing of natzi support after the war ,russia opposed ireland entry to the UN, all that because the people running ireland at that time were nationalists/republicans brit haters ,it was very much different with irish men and woman on the streets tens of thousands came over either joined the british army or came over to work in the war effort,without them the UK would have been in a mess , check it out there is plenty of imformation on the web

LordSutch

Getz makes a valid observation though (Post #301) ...........

Oh yes, the 32 county Republic is a dead cert, just like before the last election here in the Republic, when each & every true Republican was spouting off about the certainty of between twelve & fifteen Dail seats :rolleyes: and of course Adams was a dead cert to become the next President of the Republic!

DoireNod

So essentially, 'getz', you are saying that Irish republicanism is like Nazism because they shared a common enemy in the British. From this observation, I assume that you see the subsequent independent Irish state as a Nazi state and all subsequent Irish republicanism as being akin to Nazism? I find this ridiculous and almost risible.

You could probably make a stronger comparison to Imperial Germany and Nazi Germany with the British Empire. Both Kaiser Wilhelm and Adolf Hitler cited the British Empire as inspirational.

DoireNod

getz wrote: »

then irish goverment had the same anti-jewish stance as the german goverment,even at the end of the war ,the irish goverment gave wanted natzis a safe haven from prosecution,and at that same time refused entry to jewish homeless children

How can you throw around such misinformation?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Ireland#Twentieth_century

"Joe Briscoe, son of Robert Briscoe, the Dublin Jewish politician, describes the Limerick episode as “an aberration in an otherwise almost perfect history of Ireland and its treatment of the Jews”.[13] Robert Briscoe was a prominent member of the IRA during the Irish War of Independence and the Irish Civil War. He was sent by Michael Collins to Germany in 1920 to be the chief agent for procuring arms for the IRA. Briscoe proved to be highly successful at this mission and arms arrived into Ireland in spite of the British blockade."

Fratton Fred

It doesn't matter if it is Fascism, Nazism, Republicanism or Communism, when people start spouting off unsubstantiated rhetoric and claiming to know what is ideal, it sounds like some sort of brainwashing.

History at the moment is somewhat irrelevant, there is far too much water under the bridge now for anything in Northern Ireland than a peaceful coexistence until the majority of people wish to change things by peaceful means.

Yes, it's a crappy story, yes maybe our forefathers should have done things differently, but we are in the here and now and the situation needs to be managed appropriately.

getz

DoireNod wrote: »

So essentially, 'getz', you are saying that Irish republicanism is like Nazism because they shared a common enemy in the British. From this observation, I assume that you see the subsequent independent Irish state as a Nazi state and all subsequent Irish republicanism as being akin to Nazism? I find this ridiculous and almost risible.

You could probably make a stronger comparison to Imperial Germany and Nazi Germany with the British Empire. Both Kaiser Wilhelm and Adolf Hitler cited the British Empire as inspirational.

in the late 50s i went to school in the irish republic,i was as a 11 year old english kid, and shocked at the anti-english half truths the brothers were spouting ,and as hitler said if you tell the lie often enough some people will believe it,thank god most people in ireland took it with a pinch of salt ,this was the kind of hatred that got the IRA money,now the republic and the north is stuck with these gangs giving out their own form of justice, in all the big cities in ireland,

getz

DoireNod wrote: »

How can you throw around such misinformation?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Ireland#Twentieth_century

"Joe Briscoe, son of Robert Briscoe, the Dublin Jewish politician, describes the Limerick episode as “an aberration in an otherwise almost perfect history of Ireland and its treatment of the Jews”.[13] Robert Briscoe was a prominent member of the IRA during the Irish War of Independence and the Irish Civil War. He was sent by Michael Collins to Germany in 1920 to be the chief agent for procuring arms for the IRA. Briscoe proved to be highly successful at this mission and arms arrived into Ireland in spite of the British blockade."

i notice you are picking bits you want out,why did the republic refuse entry to jewish children,and why did the jewish population decline since the formation of the republic [the only EU country it has] ,and why did jewish doctors have to leave the republic to practice their trade , and why did the republic refuse entry to a famous russian author the irish goverment said at the time it was because he was a jew,

Hawkeye007

trapsagenius wrote: »

Lets keep it civil here.Just as a matter of interest, who here is in favour of a united Ireland?I'm talking long term(i.e in 20/25 years or more)not in the next year or so.

I would describe myself as a republican but I despise the dissidents(criminals is a better word) as much as the next man.I also think a united Ireland should only come about with majority consent in NI.

I agree with you completely. Have a time frame and have consensus (N.I.).
It's amazing at this time at the beginning of the 21st century to have division on this here small island of ours. I also despise these criminals disguising their illegal activities in "the cause". Let's go for it.

MavisDavis

Sykk wrote: »

Hitler was the first thing that came to mind when I started reading his posts aswel. Oh deary!

McNulty stop embarrasing yourself. You're on the internet so you obviously know what century it is.

McNulty is claiming that Republicans have never committed any kind of criminal activity that wasn't related to being a Republican. I don't think he knows what day of the week it is let alone what century.

Nuravictus

getz wrote: »

i notice you are picking bits you want out,why did the republic refuse entry to jewish children,and why did the jewish population decline since the formation of the republic [the only EU country it has] ,and why did jewish doctors have to leave the republic to practice their trade , and why did the republic refuse entry to a famous russian author the irish goverment said at the time it was because he was a jew,

Your not much better, why did the Irish Government return Allied POW's and intern German POW's. We passed the Allies any intell we got and didnt pass it to the germans.


This may sound dumb but wouldnt Ireland be better of as a Federal Republic with the 4 Provinces, it would allow for power sharing in the north and better local government in the south.

Denerick

I'd like to see a united Ireland in principle but would actively campaign against one if it was persued with violence.

Denerick

Pearse was made president of the republic, by adhering to the terms of the republic unlike the current establishment that measure the republic in partitionist terms.

Pearse was never elected by the people.

Pearse was never endorsed by the people.

Most people thought Pearse was nuts.

Pearse only became interested in radical politics after 1911.

Pearse was an inferior human being who had a decent grasp of oratory but lacked a sense of the ridiculous. Most people who ever knew him knew an intense, though well intentioned, weirdo.

lugha

Denerick wrote: »

Pearse was never elected by the people.

Pearse was never endorsed by the people.

Most people thought Pearse was nuts.

Pearse only became interested in radical politics after 1911.

Pearse was an inferior human being who had a decent grasp of oratory but lacked a sense of the ridiculous. Most people who ever knew him knew an intense, though well intentioned, weirdo.

Yet Pearse became one of the most prominent heroes of Irish nationalists, the latter failing to appreciate that you cannot be consistent in so doing and simultaneously criticizing dissident republicans (or previously PIRA etc. for that matter)

evolutionqy7

in favor but doubt it makes a diff whether its joined or not...they look at themselves more as anglo irish than irish so let them be in their own little world...i dont think ireland will gain anything from it...

Bottle_of_Smoke

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

Colin Duffy & Brian Shivers murdered two unarmed soldiers, and wounded an innocent pizza delivery man just trying to do an honest days work.

Loving the "innocent until proven guilty" spirit you're showing there.

Gerry McGeough is an arms dealer who tried to murder a politician -- if these are your examples of great people from the north you can keep it.

Yes and Gerry Kelly was the old bailey bomber, hunger striker and maze escapee. McGuinness was in the IRA. Yet Gerry McGeogh is getting picked on over a 1981 attempted murder because he non-violently opposed acceptance of the PSNI and ran as a candidate in Fermanagh/South Tyrone against Sinn Fein. Couldn't make this nonsense up.

Exile 1798

getz wrote: »

in the late 50s i went to school in the irish republic,i was as a 11 year old english kid, and shocked at the anti-english half truths the brothers were spouting ,and as hitler said if you tell the lie often enough some people will believe it,thank god most people in ireland took it with a pinch of salt ,this was the kind of hatred that got the IRA money,now the republic and the north is stuck with these gangs giving out their own form of justice, in all the big cities in ireland,

The other thing the Brothers were quite fanatical about was spelling and punctuation.

getz

Exile 1798 wrote: »

The other thing the Brothers were quite fanatical about was spelling and punctuation.

unlike today ,most of the kids of my generation left school at 14 and had to go out and earn a living to support the younger members of our families,many a young irish girl had to go to england[in service] at the age of 14, higher education was only for the rich. there will never be a united irish republic, but there will be a united ireland

Exile 1798

Denerick wrote: »

Pearse was never elected by the people.

Pearse was never endorsed by the people.

Most people thought Pearse was nuts.

Pearse only became interested in radical politics after 1911.

Pearse was an inferior human being who had a decent grasp of oratory but lacked a sense of the ridiculous. Most people who ever knew him knew an intense, though well intentioned, weirdo.

This is certainly what Ruth Dudley Edwards states.

I trust you don't take her too seriously as an author. This is after all a person who reviews films she hasn't bothered watching for the Daily Mail.

Ironically many people consider her a bit nuts. Bit of an ill-intentioned weirdo.

Denerick

Exile 1798 wrote: »

This is certainly what Ruth Dudley Edwards states.

I trust you don't take her too seriously as an author. This is after all a person who reviews films she hasn't bothered watching for the Daily Mail.

Ironically many people consider her a bit nuts. Bit of an ill-intentioned weirdo.

Her biography on Patrick Pearse is quite fair and she goes very easy on him, all things considered.

And yes, her review on the Wind that Shakes the barley was an insult on everyone's intelligence.

P.S- Reading Nationalist interpretations of Pearse is not fun. Brian P.Murphy wrote an extremely dull book which manages to consistently avoid the real issues underlying Pearses writings ('Pearse and the lost Republican Ideal')

lugha

Exile 1798 wrote: »

This is certainly what Ruth Dudley Edwards states.

The difficulty with Pearse does not depend on which interpretation of his legacy you believe. I don't think there is any great denial that the rising did not have the support of the people. If you hail as a hero someone who acted without the support of the people they claim to represent then you are in no position to criticize others for doing the same.
There is much dismay at McNulty32's views here but he is certainly being consistent.

Exile 1798

Denerick wrote: »

Her biography on Patrick Pearse is quite fair and she goes very easy on him, all things considered.

And yes, her review on the Wind that Shakes the barley was an insult on everyone's intelligence.

P.S- Reading Nationalist interpretations of Pearse is not fun. Brian P.Murphy wrote an extremely dull book which manages to consistently avoid the real issues underlying Pearses writings ('Pearse and the lost Republican Ideal')

I have that book resting in the shelf as yet unread. I've scanned the contents and I must say it doesn't look promising, which is why I've put it on the back burner. In your opinion is it worth the bother?

moonpurple

Good Friday Agreement

DECLARATION OF SUPPORT
1. We, the participants in the multi-party negotiations, believe that the
agreement we have negotiated offers a truly historic opportunity for a new
beginning.
2. The tragedies of the past have left a deep and profoundly regrettable
legacy of suffering. We must never forget those who have died or been
injured, and their families. But we can best honour them through a fresh
start, in which we firmly dedicate ourselves to the achievement of
reconciliation, tolerance, and mutual trust, and to the protection and
vindication of the human rights of all.
3. We are committed to partnership, equality and mutual respect as the
basis of relationships within Northern Ireland, between North and South,
and between these islands.
4. We reaffirm our total and absolute commitment to exclusively
democratic and peaceful means of resolving differences on political
issues, and our opposition to any use or threat of force by others for any
political purpose, whether in regard to this agreement or otherwise

actua11

I believe they should not become part of the 32 county republic. The 6 counties have had the best part of a centuary to develop into a distinct state in their own right. They have their own identity, history, culture, sporting exploits etc., something which would be lost if they were incorporated into the other 26. An Andorra type solution would suit best with a basic ceremonial role for the U.K and Ireland but in general they'd be left to themselves.

Denerick

Exile 1798 wrote: »

I have that book resting in the shelf as yet unread. I've scanned the contents and I must say it doesn't look promising, which is why I've put it on the back burner. In your opinion is it worth the bother?

Its worth a read, the first few chapters are a 'rehabilitation' of Pearse's motivations. His preface is interesting though, he was a student of A.J.P Taylor in Oxford (An English radical who consistently decried the British presence in Northern Ireland) He certainly has an interesting background. But it is fundamentally an apologist work, slightly tiresome, but with some good moments of insight.

MysNthR0p3

actua11 wrote: »

I believe they should not become part of the 32 county republic. The 6 counties have had the best part of a centuary to develop into a distinct state in their own right. They have their own identity, history, culture, sporting exploits etc., something which would be lost if they were incorporated into the other 26. An Andorra type solution would suit best with a basic ceremonial role for the U.K and Ireland but in general they'd be left to themselves.

A century is not really any relevant time to establish a culture to replace any preceding indigenous one. It also does not take into account the fact that there will soon be a majority of populace who may be more inclined to a unification with The State than previously.

The province should be allowed decide its own future, however to create itself as a separate state would be to invite trouble.

I personally want to see a 32 county Republic, but only one that's achieved peacefully.

blinding

A peaceful 32 county United Ireland for me achieved through peaceful means.

Those of us that want to see the above should do as much as we can to see this happen.

Imaginative ideas are needed and those of that want it to happen should make our voices heard.