Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

So, after 30 years of armed insurgency...

Options
12346

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    Erin Go Brath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,708 ✭✭✭Erin Go Brath


    Deleted User wrote: »

    The next question is why should Éire take it on from an economic viewpoint? If Éire was wealthy enough to support Northern Ireland to the same leves as Mainland Britain, then more unionists may be prepaired to think about it.

    We've been listening to ****e like this for donkeys years. Unification will cause the countries economy to collapse etc etc is a typical british scaremongering tactic, and its complete bull!

    Changes will have to be made, taxes will have to be increased by a few % thats it. Whatever short term inconveniences are caused will be offset by the advantages to both jurisdictions in the long term.


  • Options
    #153
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    McArmalite wrote: »
    The unionists have very few friends among the general public in britian. Your average person in britian doesn't know nor care the slightest about them and indeed would prefer to see Ireland getting it's unity as their is a vague believe that britian has treated Ireland horribly down the centuries and/or a desire " to be rid of the bloody Northen Ireland, Ian Paisley and the f**king IRA etc " Look how many English people come to Irealnd on holidays, weekends in Dublin etc and how many of them would it cross their mind to visit say, the 'Twalfth' in Belfast. In Scotland, it's only some yobs who support Rangers in the Glasgow area and want to play the macho secterian thug bit around old firm matches, most other Scots couldn't give a toss if the north was in the UK.

    No, it's the mad imperial ravens of the british rulling calls that upholds occupation.

    **** my boots, you have actually said something that makes sense. That sums up my opinion perfectly.


  • Options
    #154
    Riddle101
    Registered Users Posts: 8,394 ✭✭✭Riddle101


    Truth be told all this isn't because of the IRA or UDA, it's because of evil politicians like Paisley running around trying to stour s**t. It's those so called politicians who started it all, all this War crap, even today they still try to cause trouble. the IRA, UDA, Catholics, Prods they're all just the battlefront for the polticians because they don't want to get there own hands dirty, they'd prefer to use pawns.


  • Options
    #155
    kreuzberger
    Registered Users Posts: 324 ✭✭kreuzberger


    its because the British establishment insist upon subverting democracy on this island in order to retain strategic and political influence and advantage . The politicians then become their pawns , on both sides of the border . When Britain introduced partition one of its cheif architects , Lord Birkenhead, crowed that Britian maintained direct control over one part of Ireland while retaining the ability to exercise indirect control over the other , all with an economy of Irish lives as opposed to British ones .

    Unionist politicians did not import weapons from apartheid south africa and distribute them to loyalist killer gangs in the mid 80s . The British governemnt did . Unionist politicians did not supply the bombs which killed and maimed hundreds in Dublin and Monaghan . The British governemnt did . Unionist politicians did not ensure the Irish police didnt investigate the states biggest atrocity . Unionist politicians did not make the states files into this massacre disappar in their entirety , along with their duplicates , from 5 seperate secure locations including the Department of Justice and Garda HQ only 3 years ago .
    Its that foreign establishment which has been creating mayhem on this isalnd the entire time and without that all our people would have settled their differences along time ago and opted for a civilised and dignified future as a sovereign nation . Because very simply it would be in all our interest to do so . Its not in Britians interests , as they have admitted , to give up control of this lsland and let us determine our own future . So they will keep introducing mayhem whenever necessary to ensure we dont .


  • Options
    #156
    McArmalite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,476 ✭✭✭McArmalite


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    **** my boots, you have actually said something that makes sense. That sums up my opinion perfectly.
    No, the difference is, most of the ordinary people of britain can admit britian's culpability and central role of creating and sustaining the six counties and the need for britian to admit so and declare a policy of withdrawal. Unlike vain and spiteful old Fred, and the other memebers of the britpack on the forum, who will never admit once to britian's cowardly and devious role in creating and perpetuating the unionist state but likes to fool himself and cling onto britain bearing the white man's burden, we're such a great benevolent nation etc, etc. crap.

    Example from your pervious post - " In my opinion, there has been two things keeping Britain in Ireland over the last 30 years. The first was that an immediate pull out would create more bloodshed than Ireland has seen since 1922. The second is that for a British government to negotiate with terrorists would mean political suicide. "


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    McArmalite wrote: »
    Example from your pervious post - " In my opinion, there has been two things keeping Britain in Ireland over the last 30 years. The first was that an immediate pull out would create more bloodshed than Ireland has seen since 1922. The second is that for a British government to negotiate with terrorists would mean political suicide. "

    I'll tell you what then. Rather than come out with personal insults, why not explain why I am wrong in my thinking. As I have said before, Britain gets nothing from the partition of Ireland. Just like britain didn't crumble in 1922 it is not going to crumble when unification happens, despite what a lot of people would like to think.

    You accuse the Brits of being arrogant, but you really do like to think Ireland is far more important than it actually is.


  • Options
    #158
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    kreuzberger wrote: »
    its because the British establishment insist upon subverting democracy on this island in order to retain strategic and political influence and advantage . The politicians then become their pawns , on both sides of the border . When Britain introduced partition one of its cheif architects , Lord Birkenhead, crowed that Britian maintained direct control over one part of Ireland while retaining the ability to exercise indirect control over the other , all with an economy of Irish lives as opposed to British ones .

    Unionist politicians did not import weapons from apartheid south africa and distribute them to loyalist killer gangs in the mid 80s . The British governemnt did . Unionist politicians did not supply the bombs which killed and maimed hundreds in Dublin and Monaghan . The British governemnt did . Unionist politicians did not ensure the Irish police didnt investigate the states biggest atrocity . Unionist politicians did not make the states files into this massacre disappar in their entirety , along with their duplicates , from 5 seperate secure locations including the Department of Justice and Garda HQ only 3 years ago .
    Its that foreign establishment which has been creating mayhem on this isalnd the entire time and without that all our people would have settled their differences along time ago and opted for a civilised and dignified future as a sovereign nation . Because very simply it would be in all our interest to do so . Its not in Britians interests , as they have admitted , to give up control of this lsland and let us determine our own future . So they will keep introducing mayhem whenever necessary to ensure we dont .

    Sorry to be awkward, but do you have any proof/basis for any of this other than republican propoganda?


  • Options
    #159
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Erin Go Brath wrote: »

    Changes will have to be made, taxes will have to be increased by a few % thats it. Whatever short term inconveniences are caused will be offset by the advantages to both jurisdictions in the long term.

    That few % increase in taxes may just put a significant % of the (Irish taxpayers) population into the zero disposible income bracket, thus causing a bit of a recession, interest rate increase in the past year have done that to some already.
    Ten years from now may be a different story, if them up north remain civil to each other & start removing barriers (both Physical "peace walls" & mental) and start working together as one community rather than two separate ones, it's the duplcation of services that's the major cause of the economic problems now!
    Sort out the northern Irish economy first before inflicting it on the republic!


  • Options
    #160
    Riddle101
    Registered Users Posts: 8,394 ✭✭✭Riddle101


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    Sorry to be awkward, but do you have any proof/basis for any of this other than republican propoganda?

    You want proof, how about 800 years of British occupation and negligence. how about Britain forcing itself onto us like dogs. Or how about the fact that Britain always seemed to cater to the Unionists and turn a blind eye to them, where if it had been a republican you'd be sure they'd have a thing or two to say about it


  • Options
    #161
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Riddle101 wrote: »
    You want proof, how about 800 years of British occupation and negligence. how about Britain forcing itself onto us like dogs. Or how about the fact that Britain always seemed to cater to the Unionists and turn a blind eye to them, where if it had been a republican you'd be sure they'd have a thing or two to say about it

    that's a no then.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #162
    McArmalite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,476 ✭✭✭McArmalite


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    I'll tell you what then. Rather than come out with personal insults, why not explain why I am wrong in my thinking. As I have said before, Britain gets nothing from the partition of Ireland. Just like britain didn't crumble in 1922 it is not going to crumble when unification happens, despite what a lot of people would like to think.

    You accuse the Brits of being arrogant, but you really do like to think Ireland is far more important than it actually is.

    It's already been explained to you god knows how many times, but you still stick to your benevolent britian bit. Despite thinking your somehow above it all, you actually drink from the same trough as any unionist bigot from Portadown or Ballymena.

    In world affairs Ireland is of only tiny significance, and if we were left to our own devices that's all the vast majority of us would ever want. We don't have any secret mega desire like you lot do for thinking we're of world impotance, when in fact all you are these days is a second rate power in Europe and a third rate power in the world. Look at the debacle between the naval personnell in Iranian waters last year, the Cod War etc But Ireland is of upmost importance to Irish people - and understandably so.

    Britian wasn't hesitant in running out of Hong Kong a few years ago despite the 'majority of the people' argument. And don't be so silly to say it was because the terms of the agreement was up and not to do with the fact that the billion strong Chinese could strool in and you crowd could do zero about - YET AGAIN ;):D Indeed, if Ireland had say half britian's population, you crowd wouldn't hang around the occupied counties for too long then would you, tail between the legs and run time again. Anyway, you should be good at that, you were doing little else around the world for 50 or so years weren't you ??


  • Options
    #163
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    McArmalite wrote: »
    Britian wasn't hesitant in running out of Hong Kong a few years ago despite the 'majority of the people' argument. And don't be so silly to say it was because th eterms of the agreement was up and not to do with the fact that the billion strong Chinese could doodle in and you crowd could do zero about - YET AGAIN ;):D


    The lease was up!


  • Options
    #164
    McArmalite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,476 ✭✭✭McArmalite


    Deleted User wrote: »
    The lease was up!
    :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #165
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    McArmalite wrote: »
    It's already been explained to you god knows how many times, but you still stick to your benevolent britian bit. Despite thinking your somehow above it all, you actually drink from the same trough as any unionist bigot from Portadown or Ballymena.

    In world affairs Ireland is of only tiny significance, and if we were left to our own devices that's all the vast majority of us would ever want. We don't have any secret mega desire like you lot do for thinking we're of world impotance, when in fact all you are these days is a second rate power in Europe and a third rate power in the world. Look at the debacle between the naval personnell in Iranian waters last year, the Cod War etc But Ireland is of upmost importance to Irish people - and understandably so.

    Britian wasn't hesitant in running out of Hong Kong a few years ago despite the 'majority of the people' argument. And don't be so silly to say it was because the terms of the agreement was up and not to do with the fact that the billion strong Chinese could strool in and you crowd could do zero about - YET AGAIN ;):D Indeed, if Ireland had say half britian's population, you crowd wouldn't hang around the occupied counties for too long then would you, tail between the legs and run time again. Anyway, you should be good at that, you were doing little else around the world for 50 or so years weren't you ??

    Try again, this time answer the question and try not to go off on a rant.


  • Options
    #166
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    McArmalite wrote: »
    Britian wasn't hesitant in running out of Hong Kong a few years ago despite the 'majority of the people' argument. And don't be so silly to say it was because the terms of the agreement was up and not to do with the fact that the billion strong Chinese could strool in and you crowd could do zero about - YET AGAIN??

    Forgot to mention, that the chinese population of Hong Kong were generally happy to "return to China", Even more so when they were given assurances that businesses in the former colony will be allowed to continue largely as before.


  • Options
    #167
    Hagar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,793 ✭✭✭✭Hagar


    Deleted User wrote: »
    The lease was up!
    At least they had a lease. It's much harder to get squatters out. ;)


  • Options
    #168
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Hagar wrote: »
    At least they had a lease. It's much harder to get squatters out. ;)

    Surely after 800 years title of the must pass to the squatters though;)


  • Options
    #169
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    We're riding McA's tangent to honkers at the moment ;)


  • Options
    #170
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Deleted User wrote: »
    We're riding McA's tangent to honkers at the moment ;)

    I blame the Cod myself, if they hadn't tasted so good none of this would have happened.:D


  • Options
    #171
    McArmalite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,476 ✭✭✭McArmalite


    Deleted User wrote: »
    We're riding McA's tangent to honkers at the moment ;)
    Yourself and Fred seem to be getting too 'friendly' at the moment, Joan will start to wonder Phillip ? :D:D:D


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #172
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    McArmalite wrote: »
    Yourself and Fred seem to be getting too 'friendly' at the moment, Joan will start to wonder Phillip ? :D:D:D

    I was hoping the brotherly love would rub off on you as well, give us a hug :D


  • Options
    #173
    Gobán Saor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 415 ✭✭Gobán Saor


    Deleted User wrote: »
    The lease was up!
    Only the so-called New Territories were held on a lease. Hong Kong proper and most of Kowloon were ceded by China after the Opium wars and were British in perpetuity.....or at least until the Chinese bullied, oops I mean gently persuaded, Thatcher into agreeing to give them back.

    Anyway, when is the lease on the 6 counties up? :D:D


  • Options
    #174
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Gobán Saor wrote: »
    Only the so-called New Territories were held on a lease. Hong Kong proper and most of Kowloon were ceded by China after the Opium wars and were British in perpetuity.....or at least until the Chinese bullied, oops I mean gently persuaded, Thatcher into agreeing to give them back.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_of_the_sovereignty_of_Hong_Kong
    Gobán Saor wrote: »
    Anyway, when is the lease on the 6 counties up? :D:D
    Ask the landlord ;) half the tenants wont like it!!


  • Options
    #175
    Gobán Saor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 415 ✭✭Gobán Saor


    Deleted User wrote: »
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_of_the_sovereignty_of_Hong_Kong

    Nothing in the link contradicts what I said:confused:

    In fact it supports it. Eg "Although Hong Kong Island and Kowloon had been ceded to the United Kingdom in perpetuity, the control on the New Territories was a 99-year lease."

    Britain decided it would be impractical to hand back the leased territories only. Anyway China was disputing the validity of the 19th century treaties and did not recognise British sovereignty over Hong Kong and Kowloon. It was a case of Britain agreeing to hand over by diplomatic means or face conflict with China.


  • Options
    #176
    Gobán Saor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 415 ✭✭Gobán Saor


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Ask the landlord ;) half the tenants wont like it!!
    Speaking as a member of the landlord (ie the Irish people) I'm sure any unhappy tenants in the inevitable new arrangement will have no difficulty finding accommodation elsewhere;)


  • Options
    #177
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Gobán Saor wrote: »
    Nothing in the link contradicts what I said:confused:

    In fact it supports it. Eg "Although Hong Kong Island and Kowloon had been ceded to the United Kingdom in perpetuity, the control on the New Territories was a 99-year lease."

    Britain decided it would be impractical to hand back the leased territories only. Anyway China was disputing the validity of the 19th century treaties and did not recognise British sovereignty over Hong Kong and Kowloon. It was a case of Britain agreeing to hand over by diplomatic means or face conflict with China.

    Diplomatic means is your answer there.

    Negotiations were ongoing for a long time and the chinese agreed to keep Hong Kong pretty much in the same condition it was in under British rule. Britain had no reason to keep hold of it.


  • Options
    #178
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Gobán Saor wrote: »
    Speaking as a member of the landlord (ie the Irish people) I'm sure any unhappy tenants in the inevitable new arrangement will have no difficulty finding accommodation elsewhere;)


    you're from Ulster?


  • Options
    #179
    Hagar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,793 ✭✭✭✭Hagar


    Yeah, Donegal, Cavan, Monaghan. ;)

    BTW Squatters rights only apply if the original owner never asks you to vacate the property. God knows we asked them and reminded them enough to get out.


  • Options
    #180
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Hagar wrote: »
    Yeah, Donegal, Cavan, Monaghan. ;)

    BTW Squatters rights only apply if the original owner never asks you to vacate the property. God knows we asked them and reminded them enough to get out.

    That was why I said Ulster, or should I have referred to the Kingdom of Ulster, being the original land owner.

    I guess the trouble with the tennants leaving, is that the government would have to rehouse them and no one wants them:D


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #181
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Hagar wrote: »
    Yeah, Donegal, Cavan, Monaghan. ;)

    BTW Squatters rights only apply if the original owner never asks you to vacate the property. God knows we asked them and reminded them enough to get out.
    Perhaps the ulster scots could swap with the scots irish (those who invades the western isles of scotland, a few years ago).

    *inserts cat amongst pigeons* :D


Advertisement