A thread for "Republicans" Only

mike65

For this thread my defintion of Republican is willing to back/agreeing to violence as a means to an end.

Do you agree with the end of the P-IRA campaign and the adoption of an exclusivly peaceful and democratic policy to unite North and south.

If this thread is going to work it needs NO imput from anyone else, please.

Mike.

Villain

Guess you'll be waiting so!

Ajnag

Yup theyve all gone to pakistan

j/k.

marco murphy

?

You might be waiting,but there exsists an anti PIRA/PSF community on the internet.No links please.

AmenToThat

mike65 wrote:

Do you agree with the end of the P-IRA campaign and the adoption of an exclusivly peaceful and democratic policy to unite North and south.

The armed struggle is only part of the overall objective of acheiving a united Ireland (something alot of people including many Repuclicans seem to have forgotten) so the answer to your question is now yes I do.
But if conditions change in the occupied six counties and armed struggle is again called for (I can even see a set of circumstances where by armed struggle might someday be needed in the 26) then I will support who ever it is that decides to take up the bomb and the bullet, assuming I agree with the political objectives and reasoning why said groups decides that war is needed.
However hopefully war will not be needed and the future of this island can be resolved peacefully.

county

this sounds a little prejudiced to me,so you can not post if this is not your way of thinking or you dont fit into this group?

marco murphy

AmenToThat wrote:

(I can even see a set of circumstances where by armed struggle might someday be needed in the 26)

:eek: Elaborate

Edit : Sorry mike only seen you requested not to post unless you dissagree

AmenToThat

Poblachtach wrote:

:eek: Elaborate

There is a certain set of circumstances that if they were to unfold I would have no trouble in apposing even by violent meant if necassary, however this is for another thread in the distant future (and hopefully never) and I will not go into it here as it will drag this thread off topic.

Regards

supersheep

I believe that the cessation of violence is the right move to make at this time. Violence was necessary to force the Unionists to the negotiating table. Now they're there, and something can be achieved by the cessation of activities, then that step is the step that should be taken - it's the right move tactically, for one.
I would only support a resumption of violence if pogroms and Unionist repression once again become an issue, and so long as civilians are not the targets of such violence.

Flukey

The right move has been made. The way to tackle terrorism is to address the root causes. That is what has been done over the past 10 - 15 years and this is the result. If the problems continue to be addressed, then the violence will stop.

cheka73

The idea they had in 1916 that the country should be unified through violence and fighting Britain was accepted in 1916.

This isn't 1916......

cheka73

The IRA has ended it's campaign, and the former militants are now helping to restore peace to Northern Ireland, instead of violently trying to procure the increasingly vain hope of a '32-county republic'. But there are still people complaining, whether it's about how the IRA have betrayed the republic by helping administer British rule, or how we have all 'gone soft'.

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

Isn't it time we just accepted it?

aidan_walsh

There are people who believe very strongly in this. You might as well try to tell them that black is white.

cheka73

I know...... but I thought I'd get it off my chest anyway. It's not as if one opinion will change anything anyway.

supersheep

Violence is only acceptable when it might achieve its goal. And there is no chance that violence will defeat the British at this time, and probably ever. Politics is the best means available at this time.

Board@Work

cheka73 wrote:

The 32 county republic is never going to happen, there are too many complications, too much history.

Isn't it time we just accepted it?

I disagree the securing of a 32 County Republic is a very real objective and since the 'good friday' Agreement has become a far easier politically to achieve than violently. What the IRA have realised is that since Sept. 11, Terrorism in any form for any political objective just isn't going to be tolerated by the world leaders anymore, therefore the time is right to disband.

The 32 County Republic as set out in the Proclaimation of Independence is a very real political dream of mine and all republicans (violent or non-violent AKA Fianna Fail). I have always considered myself a constitutional republican. I want a 32 county republic but i'm not going to put a gun to someones head and say thats the way its going to be. What the Unionists and Loyalist need to understand now is that things are moving in that direction and should jump on the train so that they can mould the new ireland together with constitutionalist republican and nationalist and marginalise any new 'democratic' Sinn Fein. Put simply in less that 20 years the nationalists will out-breed the unionists in the north and when the majority what a united ireland there is no basis either legally or morally to stop it happening.

county

but 20% of catholics in the north would wish to remain a part of the union,so breeding like rabbits is not going to make a difference

20 Times 20 Times

i belive in the arm struggle and i also belive it got us to where we are now.

Board@Work

county wrote:

but 20% of catholics in the north would wish to remain a part of the union,so breeding like rabbits is not going to make a difference

If the 20% wish to stay in the union then they certainly don't vote that way. SF and the SDLP both want a united ireland.

Sarge wrote:

i belive in the arm struggle and i also belive it got us to where we are now.

The 6 counties are still in the union and will remain there for the foreseeable future. Society there is as polarised as it has ever been and seems to have (especially in the border regions) a lower standard of living then the rest of the island. Was it worth all those lives. Where we are now on the face of it is now different to 1922. As a military campaign the 'armed struggle' was a complete failure that only succeeded in ruining lives.

county

Board@Work wrote:

If the 20% wish to stay in the union then they certainly don't vote that way. SF and the SDLP both want a united ireland.




The 6 counties are still in the union and will remain there for the foreseeable future. Society there is as polarised as it has ever been and seems to have (especially in the border regions) a lower standard of living then the rest of the island. Was it worth all those lives. Where we are now on the face of it is now different to 1922. As a military campaign the 'armed struggle' was a complete failure that only succeeded in ruining lives.

so would you be a SF voter?

Board@Work

I already said that I am a constitutional republican therefore I cannot vote for SF as they want (maybe wanted) to subvert the constitution of this country. I am not a supporter of any political party at the moment as they all talk but do nothing.

Flex

cheka73 wrote:

Isn't it time to start listening and talking, instead of killing

Yes, because the Unionists finally agreed to start 'listening and talking' and treating nationalists equally.

The 32 county republic is never going to happen, there are too many complications, too much history.

You know, they used to say the exact same thing about Ireland(or any part thereof) existing as a seperate nation from the UK aswel, pretty much for the exact same reasons youve given against the north and south uniting.

Catholics will eventually outnumber Protestants (40 years or less), then the "Protestant state for Protestants" will be dead and buried, at which point protestants may realise that living in a nation with a Catholic majority isnt so bad. Also, if so many Catholics were unionist, they could simply vote for the Alliance party.

Im all in favor of following the constitutional approach to a UI, theres no need for the IRA to continue to exist and there hasnt been for years.Constitutionalism is the quickest way to a UI.

However, when the time comes that the majority vote for a UI, if loyalists started threatening war to prevent a UI being created, Id fight.

Laguna

I think the IRA only packed in their arms because counterfeiting and racketeering was more lucrative than "Their struggle". I think they're basically afraid now with how Britain is reacting to the islamic terrorists and want to back out now before Britain says "**** this, lets drop bombs".

Fenian

I fully agree with the IRA's decision to end the armed side of the struggle. The way forward is not through bombing army bases to rubble but getting the brits to dismantle them themselves.

In my view its not just about breeding them out its also about joining the police force. The RUC/PSNI has always been the stick the Brits used to beat down republicans, but if republicans made up the bulk of the police force the Brits and Unionists wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

Gaining control of the police force in the north is the first step towards a United Ireland.

county

Flex wrote:

Yes, because the Unionists finally agreed to start 'listening and talking' and treating nationalists equally.


sorry but a lot of my friends are unionists and that is such a sweeping statment to say about any body

marco murphy

board@work do you support RSF?

county

Rsf?

Fenian

Republican Sinn Fein, split from Sinn Fein over the decision to take seats in the Dail.

Zombrex

Flex wrote:

However, when the time comes that the majority vote for a UI, if loyalists started threatening war to prevent a UI being created, Id fight.

You are forgetting a number of important factors -

1) In 40 years time God know how wrapped up we will be in the E.U it will probably be a lot simpler to create a independent state of N.I. If you think about it, what does N.I actually need Britian or Ireland for anyway, except military defense, and with the moves towards a united E.U defense force, the 20th Century idea that N.I needs to be part of Britian or Ireland is slowly dwindling.

2) The desire for a united ireland is not as strong as it once was in N.I catholics, in 40 years I would say it will be far far weaker than it is even now. I think it is very unlikely that there will be enough United ireland catholics who will want to fundamentally shake up N.I by uniting the island in 40 years time, instead of simply saying part of Britian or become more and more like and independent state

3) Even if in 40 years time there exists a desire for a united Ireland still burning in N.I catholics, it is very unlikely the desire will exist in the Republic. History has taught that when 2 countries united it is normally damaging for both countries economies, especially the more prosperous country (ie R.O.I).

Personally, I don't think a united Ireland in the way we understand it today will ever happen.

bonkey

Wicknight wrote:

If you think about it, what does N.I actually need Britian or Ireland for anyway,

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

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

the 20th Century idea that N.I needs to be part of Britian or Ireland is slowly dwindling.

Its only a 20th Century idea in that N.I. didn't exist as a seperate entity prior to that. However, were I to say that Irish independence is a 20th Century idea....I'm sure you'll see what I'm driving at.

2) The desire for a united ireland is not as strong as it once was in N.I

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

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

jc

Board@Work

Poblachtach wrote:

board@work do you support RSF?

No way guys. I am a constitutionalist and a pacifist. Therefore I believe in the rule of law and the only way to change the law isn't through violence but through the ballot box.

I am an Irish Republican in the widest sense of the word. IE I believe strongly in united this island however violence and the use of violence should never be used. In my view, and perhaps this is niave in the extreme, no political view or objective is worth taking a human life for. Democracy and the use of the established democratic institutions should be the only way of achieving this goal. Regards of what SF or RSF think there was never a democratic basis for their war of the last 30 years.

They may want to get justification from the elections of 1918 when the first dail was created (and therefore the 'republic' as spealt out on the GPO) but that no longer exists after the island wide referendums in 1997 for the agreement

oscarBravo

supersheep wrote:

Violence is only acceptable when it might achieve its goal.

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

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

The Fish

cheka73 wrote:

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

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

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

Isn't it time we just accepted it?

it

The Fish

Board@Work wrote:

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

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

QUOTE]

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

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

tomMK1

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

tomMK1

bonkey wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

jc

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

jhegarty

The Fish wrote:

Board@Work wrote:

QUOTE]

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

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

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

jhegarty

tomMK1 wrote:

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

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

the_syco

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

=-=

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

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

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

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

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

supersheep

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

Flukey

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

tomMK1

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

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

the_syco wrote:

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

=-=

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

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

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

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

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

oscarBravo

supersheep wrote:

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

Koff.

jhegarty

Flukey wrote:

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

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

Zombrex

jhegarty wrote:

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

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

tomMK1

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

supersheep

oscarBravo wrote:

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

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

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

supersheep

supersheep wrote:

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

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

jhegarty

Wicknight wrote:

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

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

supersheep

Earthman wrote:

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

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

supersheep

supersheep wrote:

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

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

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