Were 'The Troubles' worth it in the end?

lazygal

I was watching Reeling in the Years this evening. The year was 1982 and there were a few features on The Troubles. IRA bombs in London, allegations of RUC shoot to kill policies and an INLA bombing. Which got me thinking, was it worth it in the end? All those deaths and injuries, and the stress of living under threat of bombs and shootings, all the resources used in terms of security personnel, all the chaos and lost opportunities. What did The Troubles (I can't think of a better phrase to use) really achieve in the end? After all that death and mayhem, was it worth it to get where we are now? Surely there was a better way, and things could have been different.

minidazzler

Given the North is still full of hatred and sectarianism, no.

--Kaiser--

Of course it wasn't, what a ridiculous question

o1s1n

Eh, of course it wasn't worth it. What kind of numpty would think it was?

Dj Stiggie

We've basically ended up with what was offered in the '70's. So definitely not.

ugly_mug

it was an ugly nesscessity , orange fascism would not tolerate the notion of equality for a large minority living beside them , London let is boil over and the thing got out of control

has happened in plenty of places the world over

I am pie

It should have all ended in 1973 with the Sunningdale Agreement, sadly Unionist paranoia and an infamous speech by an SDLP politician in Trinity in 1973 made sure that we had to have thousands more dead to get to more or less the same position.

Woeful thread.

Banjo String

minidazzler wrote: »

Given the North is still full of hatred and sectarianism, no.

Nonsense.

A few orange men go nuts during the marching season and everyone gets tarred with the one brush.

It's a complicated question OP. Was it 'worth it'? Hard to say, probably not.
was it necessary? Absolutely.

The troubles (as everyone understands the troubles to be) stemmed more or less from bloody Sunday. That was a result of Catholics wanting to have the same civil rights as their non Catholic neighbours.

The "peace" enjoyed in the North right now is a world away from the madness that ensued frim the 70s to the 90s however.

The troubles to a certain extent were an unfortunate necessity and an inevitable result of the circumstances of the time.

My name is URL

lazygal wrote: »

was it worth it to get where we are now?

As someone who was never directly effected by what happened in the North I'd say it wasn't worth it, but before the 'Troubles' many people were treated and living as second class citizens.. they'd probably see some worth in

ugly_mug

I am pie wrote: »

It should have all ended in 1973 with the Sunningdale Agreement, sadly Unionist paranoia and an infamous speech by an SDLP politician in Trinity in 1973 made sure that we had to have thousands more dead to get to more or less the same position.

Woeful thread.

sunningdale is over rated , the IRA were not on board

hfallada

It tarnished Irish people abroads reputation over the violence of a few people. And also stopped foreign direct investment to northern Ireland, while the south got a **** load of it. When even Carrie Bradshaw is making references to it in sex and the city, you know it's bull****

The Narrator

Only thing that has changed is that hundreds of people, many innocent died.

If anything they have increased the hatred on both sides.

ugly_mug

My name is URL wrote: »

As someone who was never directly effected by what happened in the North I'd say it wasn't worth it, but before the 'Troubles' many people were treated and living as second class citizens.. they'd probably see some worth in

the south abandoned their brothers and sisters in the north and while its not like we had the muscle to do much about it , its not hard to see why the beleaguered catholic population ran to the IRA

if a state treats people decent , only a handful of idealogues are likely to kick up a fuss about nationalism etc , most people just want a simply , happy lifestyle with no one showing them prejudice , unionism couldn't fathom anything more generous than a boot on the catholic throat

ugly_mug

hfallada wrote: »

It tarnished Irish people abroads reputation over the violence of a few people. And also stopped foreign direct investment to northern Ireland, while the south got a **** load of it. When even Carrie Bradshaw is making references to it in sex and the city, you know it's bull****

I don't get why it would have tarnished irish peoples reputation anymore than british peoples rep

tayto lover

Some lads got great jobs out of it though.

I am pie

ugly_mug wrote: »

sunningdale is over rated , the IRA were not on board

This isn't worth a discussion, given the polemic nature of your posts, but they found their way back to it after 20+ years via Adams and Mcguinness bravely and intelligently accepting that their campaign could not deliver via force and that they needed to engage in politics proper. S

ince that period they have made incredible progress and only a few hundred dinosaurs are actively involved now in trying to disrupt it.

More than 90+ % of the country (north and south) support parties lined up behind an agreement which was remarkably similar to Sunningdale.

Sadly the IRA and the Unionist eejits were too proud and too short sighted to see it at the time, they had to poison a generation, murder thousands (on all sides) before they had to be brought to their senses.

The troubles are a tragic period of slow learning. The civil rights issue became a side issue and could have been effectivly settled by Sunningdale, sadly only the moderates saw it and the tragedy continued a few decades more. I would be careful taking too much pride in it.

Sunnyisland

I would say there be trouble in this thread soon...so I will just watch.

Riddle101

I suppose you could say it brought attention to the goings on in the North. The corrupt RUC, the sectarian hatred, human rights violations etc. It was marred with violence, but every action has a reaction and I believe that's what led to The Troubles in the first place. Had things been done easier, if the British Government had done a better job in the North, maybe there wouldn't have been any conflict at all. But like most conflicts, the whole thing was mishandled and in the end it will be another piece of Ireland's bloody history.

anncoates

I would hazard a guess that the death of thousands of people, the embittering of future generations and an economically moribund region to reach a point where both sides have spectacularly failed to achieve their main goals (for military Republicans, the North is still partitioned ; for Loyalists, it is no longer a "Protestant" state rather a representative devolved government instead of direct rule) could only be judged as "not being worth it".

padd b1975

Dj Stiggie wrote: »

We've basically ended up with what was offered in the '70's. So definitely not.

Sunningdale for slow learners.

Sunnyisland

anncoates wrote: »

I would hazard a guess that the death of thousands of people, the embittering of future generations and an economically moribund region to reach a point where both sides have spectacularly failed to achieve their main goals (for military Republicans, the North is still partitioned ; for Loyalists, it is no longer a "Protestant" state rather a representative devolved government instead of direct rule) could only be judged as "not being worth it".

Was it not like that before the present troubles started in 1969 ? Really its a very hard question to answer as one has to look at the cause of the troubles which always goes back to Brittish rule in Ireland and the partition of the country.

Everyone loves peace and its great to see its still creeping onwards.

downonthefarm

wouldnt say so,innocent people died on all sides and phsycopaths * aplenty were created

Sunnyisland

Maybe the question should have been are any wars/troubles/rebellions/ etc etc worth it ?

ugly_mug

realies wrote: »

Maybe the question should have been are any wars/troubles/rebellions/ etc etc worth it ?

do you think those who start wars do so for the laugh ?


count yourself fortunate that you never felt pushed to take up arms

anncoates

realies wrote: »

Was it not like that before the present troubles started in 1969 ? Really its a very hard question to answer as one has to look at the cause of the troubles which always goes back to Brittish rule in Ireland and the partition of the country.

Everyone loves peace and its great to see its still creeping onwards.

That's the point. As noted already, the current setup is what was on the table at sunningdale nearly 40 years ago.

Plus the conflation of civil rights and the troubles is slightly disingenuous. The civil rights movement and politicians would probably have achieved that anyway. The Troubles proper was really the IRA campaign against the British and the subsequent British and Loyalist campaigns despite the involvement of the Protestant paramilitaries and security forces in catholic oppression before 1969.

Menas

Nothing is worth the loss of life, but the fact is that catholics did not have equal rights in Northern Ireland at the start of the troubles. They do now.
Also the right to self determination for northern ireland is now in law.

Sunnyisland

ugly_mug wrote: »

do you think those who start wars do so for the laugh ?


count yourself fortunate that you never felt pushed to take up arms

How would you know what I have or haven't done in my life ?

Podgerz

While of course not "worth" any lives being lost; the following was achieved for Catholics in the North due to their existence. Not only S

-Irish passports for those in the North who want them
-First All Ireland vote/consensus since 1918
-Elimination of sectarian RUC
-Civil (Housing, job, ) Rights for Catholics
-A semiautonomous government body comprising both Catholics and Protestants
-A North/South Ministerial Council is to be established to develop co-operation between the 2 states and assist each other on issues of common interest,
-Public bodies must demonstrate cross-community and other equal opportunities.
-A Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission was established to protect minorities in Northern Ireland and to ensure that business is conducted without discrimination.
-The British government signed the Council of Europe Charter for Regional or Minority Languages and help to preserve the Irish language for those who wish to use it.

Among Other things. no it wasnt "worth" loss of life, but the above would not hav ebeen achieved had it not occured.

.jacksparrow.

ugly_mug wrote: »

do you think those who start wars do so for the laugh ?


count yourself fortunate that you never felt pushed to take up arms

He was saying what you are just in a roundabout way.

OCorcrainn

Ask Ian Paisley and the rest of the unionist hardliners along with the people who were in the RUC and loyalist paramilitaries in 1969 who burnt nationalist communities to the ground and made them into refugees and killed Catholic and nationalist civil rights protestors if it was worth it.

Some people seem to think it was the nationalists that caused the Troubles. Look up the 1969 riots. The Troubles started in 1966, the IRA split and remobilised in 1970 due to the violence, (fours years after) and in that time and before, the loyalist paramilitaries and the RUC were murdering innocent people. All because they wanted to deny them equal status and share power with them. Which in the end was the result anyway.

So was the Troubles worth it? No because it could have been avoided all those years ago, but the unionist sectarian state and their paramilitaries and security force decided otherwise. When Terrence O Neill, one of the few unionist politicians I ever respected was removed from power by the rest of the unionists for trying to reconcile with Catholics and nationalists that was a sign of things to come and it was one of the worst things that ever happened in northern Irish politics.

anncoates

Podgerz wrote: »

Among Other things. no it wasnt "worth" loss of life, but the above would not hav ebeen achieved had it not occured.

These things would have most certainly have been achieved politically by now .

Its inconceivable to think that that level of concerted bigotted misrule would still be tolterated in a UK region in this era.

The troubles delayed political progress instead of ushering them in.

Again, the IRA moved from a civil rights /defence mode in 1969 when they declared war on the Brits who were ironically initially welcomed in catholic areas to restore order and stop loyalists.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

lazygal wrote: »

I was watching Reeling in the Years this evening. The year was 1982 and there were a few features on The Troubles. IRA bombs in London, allegations of RUC shoot to kill policies and an INLA bombing. Which got me thinking, was it worth it in the end? All those deaths and injuries, and the stress of living under threat of bombs and shootings, all the resources used in terms of security personnel, all the chaos and lost opportunities. What did The Troubles (I can't think of a better phrase to use) really achieve in the end? After all that death and mayhem, was it worth it to get where we are now? Surely there was a better way, and things could have been different.

No, it wasn't worth it.

Podgerz

anncoates wrote: »

These things would have most certainly have been achieved politically by now .

Its inconceivable to think that that level of concerted bigotted misrule would still be tolterated in a UK region in this era.

The troubles delayed political progress instead of ushering them in.

Again, the IRA moved from a civil rights /defence mode in 1969 when they declared war on the Brits who were ironically initially welcomed in catholic areas to restore order and stop loyalists.

So you are saying that from 1922 to 1970 that no progress on issues of Human Rights/ Civil Rights for Catholics were achieved politically -NONE. Yet magically in the twenty years from 1970 to 1990 there would have been such a jump politically that Catholics in the north would have been afforded the afore mentioned rights. With all due respect, you better Cop yourself on, not a hope.

Its not a coincidence that the 1973 Agreement occurred only a few years after the start of the troubles. And anybody that claims otherwise is a liar, or deluded. Who would have initiated these changes politically, the Brits did not care and the Irish Government dared not to interrupt the situation.

Karl Stein

OCorcrainn wrote: »

Some people seem to think it was the nationalists that caused the Troubles. Look up the 1969 riots.

Nationalists didn't go looking for a fight. The fight came to them.

Karl Stein

anncoates wrote: »

These things would have most certainly have been achieved politically by now .

It's not certain at all - it's your opinion. It's simply impossible to say.

LordSutch

Of course it wasn't worth it. What kind of numbskull would think it was?

All that maiming, murder & grief for what?

Red Nissan

lazygal wrote: »

I was watching Reeling in the Years this evening. The year was 1982 and there were a few features on The Troubles. IRA bombs in London, allegations of RUC shoot to kill policies and an INLA bombing. Which got me thinking, was it worth it in the end? All those deaths and injuries, and the stress of living under threat of bombs and shootings, all the resources used in terms of security personnel, all the chaos and lost opportunities. What did The Troubles (I can't think of a better phrase to use) really achieve in the end? After all that death and mayhem, was it worth it to get where we are now? Surely there was a better way, and things could have been different.

Of course, too big a subject, but never forget that both Governments knew most of the activity and used it to their own ends to garner support for any particular law or infringement of rights so they could impose, Poll Tax, "You must support your Police in this hour of need" etc.

And it all ended with nine deaths, six in prison and three in Malta. It's not unlike spending €400,000 in getting a statement from the Irish Government printed in Irish and yet ONE, one copy was bought.

We know who you are, Gardaí could stop 90% of crime overnight, recover 99% of personal stolen property and prevent maybe 80% from happening ~ but they have to issue 30,000 penalty points and issue 100,000 traffic tickets and 500,000 parking tickets and so on and on and on.

Banjo String

Red Nissan wrote: »

Of course, too big a subject, but never forget that both Governments knew most of the activity and used it to their own ends to garner support for any particular law or infringement of rights so they could impose, Poll Tax, "You must support your Police in this hour of need" etc.

And it all ended with nine deaths, six in prison and three in Malta. It's not unlike spending €400,000 in getting a statement from the Irish Government printed in Irish and yet ONE, one copy was bought.

We know who you are, Gardaí could stop 90% of crime overnight, recover 99% of personal stolen property and prevent maybe 80% from happening ~ but they have to issue 30,000 penalty points and issue 100,000 traffic tickets and 500,000 parking tickets and so on and on and on.

Eh

markomuscle

'the troubles' haven't ended, there will be trouble in these counties for many generations to come I predict

losthorizon

Red Nissan wrote: »

Of course, too big a subject, but never forget that both Governments knew most of the activity and used it to their own ends to garner support for any particular law or infringement of rights so they could impose, Poll Tax, "You must support your Police in this hour of need" etc.

And it all ended with nine deaths, six in prison and three in Malta. It's not unlike spending €400,000 in getting a statement from the Irish Government printed in Irish and yet ONE, one copy was bought.

We know who you are, Gardaí could stop 90% of crime overnight, recover 99% of personal stolen property and prevent maybe 80% from happening ~ but they have to issue 30,000 penalty points and issue 100,000 traffic tickets and 500,000 parking tickets and so on and on and on.

I actually dont understand this post. And the Malta reference has left me scratching my head

Yellow121

Just as split now as we have been for centuries.

losthorizon

First Malta, now split

returnNull

SamHall wrote: »

Eh

google translate doesnt help much either:eek:

LordSutch

Yellow121 wrote: »

Just as split now as we have been for centuries.

Yes the island is split, but then as you say 'it has been for centuries' with two dominant tribes living on this island who both wish to continue their seperate cultures (running in tandem) and with cooperation and plenty of interaction . . . .

Which is fine, as long as there's no violence.

Yellow121

LordSutch wrote: »

Yes the island is split, but then as you say 'it has been for centuries' with two doninant tribes who both wish to continue their seperate cultures running in tandem . . . .

Which is fine, as long as there's no violence.

Wasn't talking about the Island but it's inhabitants.

Crooked Jack

markomuscle wrote: »

'the troubles' haven't ended, there will be trouble in these counties for many generations to come I predict

If Irish history is anything to go by then sadly, you're probably right.
Of course there's one way to end it all forever but we couldn't possibly be doing that. It'd make far too much sense.

LordSutch

Yellow121 wrote: »

Wasn't talking about the Island but it's inhabitants.

Two tribes with two different cultures (which is fine), but as I just said, we can all share the island nowadays and respect each others differences, without pulling guns on each other. The Troubles have shown that murder solves nothing, and offers nothing positive to society, on either side of the border! The Troubles wearn't worth a single life.

OCorcrainn

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

Nationalists didn't go looking for a fight. The fight came to them.

That was the point of what I said.

Red Pepper

Red Nissan wrote: »

Of course, too big a subject, but never forget that both Governments knew most of the activity and used it to their own ends to garner support for any particular law or infringement of rights so they could impose, Poll Tax, "You must support your Police in this hour of need" etc.

And it all ended with nine deaths, six in prison and three in Malta. It's not unlike spending €400,000 in getting a statement from the Irish Government printed in Irish and yet ONE, one copy was bought.

We know who you are, Gardaí could stop 90% of crime overnight, recover 99% of personal stolen property and prevent maybe 80% from happening ~ but they have to issue 30,000 penalty points and issue 100,000 traffic tickets and 500,000 parking tickets and so on and on and on.

You have Troubles! What Irish doc are you on about?

Yellow121

LordSutch wrote: »

Two tribes with two different cultures (which is fine), but as I just said, we can all share the island nowadays and respect each others differences, without pulling guns on each other. The Troubles have shown that murder solves nothing, and offers nothing positive to society, on either side of the border! The Troubles wearn't worth a single life.

The troubles weren't worth a single life is true but if you think we are only split into two tribes and in no other way then you are way off.

Nodin

LordSutch wrote: »

Two tribes with two different cultures (which is fine), but as I just said, we can all share the island nowadays and respect each others differences, without pulling guns on each other. The Troubles have shown that murder solves nothing, and offers nothing positive to society, on either side of the border!.......

...other than the removal of a sectarian police force, the end of institutional discrimination etc and so on.