United Ireland Poll - please vote

And that is YOUR opinion of how it might have gone.

Mine, based on reading contemporary accounts, Hansard, the writings of Wilson, Callaghan and Heath etc. lead me to my view and that of the Army, that what we needed to do was force the British to act. A British government which in my opinion would not have ordered a military response to what the entire world could see (Again see international comment) was a humanitarian crisis.

As to your sensationalist 'what if' about pogroms against Catholics and nationalists...that was what was fecking happening and continued to happen and which they needed protection from. And protection arrived into a vacuum Irish government KNOWINGLY allowed to form. Both government in FACT knew what would happen.

Do your research.

Your opinion is singular, uninformed and misguided.

There isn't a single credible historian who would argue that a "humanitarian mission" in 1970 involving the Irish Army would have improved the situation.

The entire world couldn't see anything. 1970 didn't have the internet. Whole swathes of the world were subject to censorship. The world would have seen what the big powers wanted it to see. You are viewing 1970 through the lens of today, a common mistake in looking at history. This is not the only time you have done this. You have equated 1916 and the War of Independence with the Troubles, though they were very different times and even a basic study of the principles of history would warn you against such simplistic vision.

You talk about my sensationalist what if about pogroms, when I was quoting directly from a historian's perspective. I haven't been putting forward my opinion on this, I have been putting forward the accepted historical expert view of those events.

Ah right, that old chestnut. If we don't call it an invasion it isn't an invasion... am I right?

The Irish Miltary cross an international border of a NATO member uninvited is what now? It isn't an invasion but a 'humanitarian' mission. Didn't Bush say something similar in Iraq? LOL

I love bringing this up to be honest because it shows us the level of nonsense you are willing to spout.

As to Partition, you have yet to state how it could have been avoided? What is and where was the silver bullet?

Oh no, not at all. You are on record that partition should have not been signed off and used 'whatever it took' including refusing signing off on the Treaty....

Whatever it took, includes invasion and war... does it not? Your words not mine. :)

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/114425360/#Comment_114425360

You CANNOT 'invade' your own country Mark.

So you would be happy if China invaded Taiwan?

Or Pakistan annexed part of India? Or Russia invaded Ukraine?

No, Francie, you would not. There are UN recognised boundaries. The border on this island is a UN recognised boundary and was such in 1970. It was also a NATO external boundary.

And off we go around the world to deflect again.

WE didn't recognise the border in 1970 blanch, constitutionally we saw the British as invaders and we made claim to what was partitioned.

Them's the facts and our Constitution trumps anything the UN has to say. The British ignore the UN when it suits as does the US.

Bullshit.

Had you listened to historians this very morning discussing partition and the treaty you would have heard them give the opinion I did.

The British would have been compelled by the pressure they were under themselves NOT to bring war to Ireland again if we repudiated the Treaty.

Try and get rid of the hat doffing, awestruck spectacles blanch and look at the whole picture.

As world history tells us, diplomatic approaches would have been exhausted before the British would have risked attacking a humanitarian mission nor would it have restarted a damaging war in Ireland over the non signing of the Treaty.

Will you stop making up complete misrepresentations.

The historical experts on the radio are talking about 1921 not 1970.

Yes, there is no doubt that rejecting partition in 1921 was more militarily viable than a "humanitarian mission" in 1970, but that ignores the democratic mandate to accept the Treaty, something you are conveniently forgetting. Perhaps you cling to the notion that democratic legitimacy for violence isn't necessary.

Northern Ireland is part of the Republic now?

Didnt you vote for the GFA...??

ROFL

People banging on about the Treaty this morning are forgetting the one salient bit. That Ulster was given the chance to cede from the UK and join the Free State but choose not to. Isn't that democracy, as flawed as it was back then?

What we are hearing today from the usual crew who want to peddle their revisionist history is that the majority on the whole island gets to say who rules over Belfast and Unionists... and tough **** if you don't like it.

Yet, wasn't this what the whole War of Independence was about? *

We didn't want to be ruled by Westminister, but is it's ok for Dublin to rule people in the North who didn't want to be?

Partition was the only choice and people going on about some other war are deluded.

PARTITION.WAS.INEVITABLE!!!

• The GFA concedes the future of NI will be made by the people of NI alone, yet we have keyboard warriors telling us it shouldn't have been like that in 1921, WE should have told them what to do and tough if they didn't like it.