droidman123 wrote: » Try that the other way around
jh79 wrote: » Point is of course the military would leave if the IRA were gone.
RobMc59 wrote: » Everyone gained from the GFA except the IRA and to make it even worse for disgruntled republicans, SF continue to take the Queen's shilling!
droidman123 wrote: » The point is the i.r.a. would never of been there if the british wernt there
jh79 wrote: » And they are still there but the IRA are gone.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Ah, it's 'the IRA are gone' hour, is it?
FrancieBrady wrote: » Can you address the question that downcow ran a mile from? How is it, if the British were happy with the GFA that it was the British side that hated it most and railed against it from day one? From the UUP at times to the belligerence of the DUP who have never accepted it to elements of the Tory party like Michael Gove. Kicking and screaming is the analogy most suited to their reactions...yet now you are trying to play it as win to taunt people. (taunting which is not achieving it's aim by the way, having a great laugh at it here, actually )
jh79 wrote: » Inactive, whatever floats your boat. Looking forward to their British civil service pension i'd imagine. Wonder if Gerry's Irish TD pension is better than a British MLA pension?
downcow wrote: » I answered it. Release of ira sectarian killers was very difficult for the unionists and many nationalists
FrancieBrady wrote: » Oops you nearly slipped up there jh...imagine losing the abiliry to selectively pronounce the IRA still exists. Now they are 'not gone' thet are 'inactive'. I think you have exposed the ridiculousness of the selective debating of belligerent unionists/loyalists and partitionists. I have no problem accepting that the IRA gave up on removing the British by force and decided on a democratic path. Why getting a living from that is a bad thing only you can answer if you stop licking your bitter chops for a minute or two
jh79 wrote: » Nothing to be bitter about , happy for SF to maintain the status quo indefinitely. Happy for a UI if someone funds it. Even if it goes ahead without funding i'm sure i'll survive the financial fall out. The IRA surrendering and making a living while hoping for democracy to bring about a UI was the best possible outcome but why sugar coat it. They surrendered and NI is far better place now because of it.
jh79 wrote: » Googled the pensions for MLA's , it's awful! Someone should tell the Unionists how much we pay in the Republic! Might sway them!
FrancieBrady wrote: » Because nobody surrendered. Those who wanted to maintain a bigoted sectarian statelet lost though, quite demonstratively. You just wish to demean a section of people who were satisfied with the terms of an agreement while pretending furiously that are STILL those who oppose that agreement and who will remain a threat to it if the likes of SF did not exist.
jh79 wrote: » I'm demeaning an organisation, a sectarian terrorist one at than.
FrancieBrady wrote: » And selecting them as losers/surrender monkeys over and above the sovereign government and the sectarian party that oversaw the territory until it inevitably went up in flames is how you demean the people and communities from where they came and still reside in. I never supported the IRA but I don't fool myself about what happened either. What is wrong with certain Irish people who engage in this kind of deferential fearsome debate would be a good subject of study for some physcology student/post grad.
jh79 wrote: » But you are fooling yourself by claiming a stalemate. The British couldn't just hand back NI, the Republic couldn't just take it back either. The only possible outcome was a GFA style agreement and an IRA surrender. The British achieved that. Gerry knew it too and convinced or guided the IRA into surrender depending on wether he was a member or not.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Self serving deferential hat doffing as blatant as that post as I have rarely seen The combined forces of Britain and Unionism fought concession for decades until the British seen what the next stage was going to be, the campaign being fought in their back yard and economic heartland. The IRA warned them and they responded. The level of 'infiltration' mattered not a bit when it came down to it. The tragic fact is that the British only ever responded to force in Ireland Carson and Craig knew that just as the IRA did.
RobMc59 wrote: » Francie,the IRA aren't even a spent force,they just gave up and Britain ,Ireland and the rest of the sane people breathed a sigh of relief. Now,twenty odd years later the realisation that they've been outfoxed has finally dawned on them and it hurts.
jh79 wrote: » How is it that bad doffing ? The IRA surrender without achieving a United Ireland is a fact.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Describe this 'surrender'? You can't because it didn't happwn except in feverish minds of the worst kind of Irish person and delusional British people. A fully armed group negotiating an agreement with a government that was previously trying to militarily defeat it is not a surrender. What you continue to reveal is a hat doffing servile mentality that swallows what colonists and imperialists want you to believe. It is evident in all colonies...the inability to shake off the inferiority complex your colonists gave you intentionally. It takes several generations for it to be shook off. Try thinking for yourself.
FrancieBrady wrote: » The reasonable view is that both sides realised that a stalemate had been reached. When the British ended the Unionist veto (by the even more hated than the GFA) with the Anglo Irish Agreement the way was clear for a negotiated settlement that will lead to a UI if that is what a majority want. Adams insistence on a 'British intention to withdraw and a statement of no selfish or strategic interest' being included in the GFA are what ensured that the Hume - Adams talks succeeded where Hume had failed before. When that was achieved IRA disarmament and British de-militarisation (as critical to success IMO) followed
jh79 wrote: » How is it hat doffing to call it surrender when a terrorist org disarms and as you claim fully disbands without achieving their singular aim?
FrancieBrady wrote: » You are so intent on demeaning you refuse to see or accept that disarming only happened when an agreement that massively advanced the interests of Irish people was achieved. No group ever went into battle saying.. 'Well, we might achieve this...or with a bit of luck we might...etc etc. The GFA is Britain's tacit withdrawal, thet have no longer got a selfish or strategic interest here and the GFA also protected the rest of us on this island over Brexit. It is a massive achievement by all who negotiated it and held strong in the face of unionist opposition to it.
jh79 wrote: » How was it a tacit withdrawal by the British after the IRA surrender? The BA were no longer required but it is still part of Britain, direct rule is possible at any time and the British decide when if at all a referendum takes place.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Because Britain will no longer defend it's interests. Which it very much did up to the GFA. It is now what it always should have been, up to the people of the island of Ireland to decide it's fate. Of course you and downcow will handwave that away as nothing but it was and is seismic. May and Johnson tested the strenght of the GFA but failed to find any wiggle room in it and had to shaft unionists instead. The 'majority' of people on this island wish to be in the EU and Britain has to accomodate that. 'We decide', not Britain. Poor old Enda and indeed Leo didnt realise the power they had and ruled out special status for NI until SF showed them the way in a series of Dail debates on the matter. The GFA was no surrender; it was an achievement that empowers and protects us to this day
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w4.vanillicon.com/v2/4b1a2e86cedae1628937f4503f2281da.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
