Martin Mc Guinness is one of the great leaders of the modern times !

[armagho9]

Who can say for definate that they will not achieve a United Ireland?  Highly unlikely to be by 2016 or 2026 for that matter but i personally believe it will happen.  If SF can persue their aims peacefully then in my opinion it is good leadership.  Still dont see anyone other than Doherty who predicted anything.

[Maguire01]

it isn't 15 years since Gerry and Martin were predicting a United Ireland by 2016. They've settled for a lot less. Either they were bluffing at the time, or we've seen the results of negotiation and compromise.

Nonsense, they predicted nothing of the sort.

EG saved me providing the sources.

[Nally Stand]

Who can say for definate that they will not achieve a United Ireland?  Highly unlikely to be by 2016 or 2026 for that matter but i personally believe it will happen.  If SF can persue their aims peacefully then in my opinion it is good leadership.  Still dont see anyone other than Doherty who predicted anything.

+1

[Maguire01]

With respect , the Brits out goal came a long time after the fightback started.
The initial goal was to stop the persecution , oppression and systematic targeting of nationalist/Irish/ working class and to break the glass ceiling of second class citizenship and the establishments violent methods of doing this through 'legal' and pseudo legal gangs employed to do the dirty work in colusion with legal crown forces.
After a while, it was perceived that it would be easier to just rid the country of the Brits and their puppetmasters and warmongering lackeys as well as the old persecutional policies they retained to maintain the status quo and two tiered society.
So with a fairly equal six counties, the original requirement has been won. The Brits will leave at some stage ( their gov right of jurisdictional control that is) and reunification will take place.
But there is no rush on that. People can live normal lives now - and that is what people always wanted and indeed died for.
I just think you have listened to the media spin on this - and the spin has been dishing out incorrect facts intentionally for over four decades. So I can understand why people think this. Sinn Fein are
as bad themselves at the other end of this pr war!
I like a few of the sf ers, but there's a lot of sihte that is pushing me away from putting up with their statements etc.
Btw , there is no alternative. They are all sihte - north and south ... IMO

I haven't disagreed with you on the triggers that started the conflict, but my original post that you responded to wasn't specific to the start of the conflict, but to the conflict as a whole: "The ability to convince all but a few republicans to settle for a lot less than they had been fighting for for years" . The so-called 'long war' stage started in the 70s - the objectives were clear (see the 'Green Book') - it was a 'Brits out' strategy.

I maintain that the GFA was a compromise for republicans - it's only to be expected where opposing sides negotiate, and is something that most people welcome. Adams himself has said it was a compromise - using that very word.

So I can't see how i'm falling for any 'media spin'

[Maguire01]

Who can say for definate that they will not achieve a United Ireland?  Highly unlikely to be by 2016 or 2026 for that matter but i personally believe it will happen.  If SF can persue their aims peacefully then in my opinion it is good leadership.  Still dont see anyone other than Doherty who predicted anything.

+1

Semantics. Doherty explicitly predicted, the others believed it could or would be achieved. Either way, it appears that they were well off the mark.

[Maguire01]

Who can say for definate that they will not achieve a United Ireland?  Highly unlikely to be by 2016 or 2026 for that matter but i personally believe it will happen. 

Well obviously if you're not going to put a timeframe on it your belief is a lot more likely to be plausable. As for 'they', I assume you mean SF or Republicans in general - unless Adams and McGuinness are still leading the party in 20+ years time, it's unlikely to be them.

[armagho9]

Who can say for definate that they will not achieve a United Ireland?  Highly unlikely to be by 2016 or 2026 for that matter but i personally believe it will happen. 

Well obviously if you're not going to put a timeframe on it your belief is a lot more likely to be plausable. As for 'they', I assume you mean SF or Republicans in general - unless Adams and McGuinness are still leading the party in 20+ years time, it's unlikely to be them.

Yes i mean Republican politicians, and i doubt it if they will be leading SF when it happens but when it does happen they will have played a major role in it coming about.

[Ulick]

it isn't 15 years since Gerry and Martin were predicting a United Ireland by 2016. They've settled for a lot less. Either they were bluffing at the time, or we've seen the results of negotiation and compromise.

Nonsense, they predicted nothing of the sort.

EG saved me providing the sources.

Let me help you with that one:

"It will rain on Monday" = prediction
"I see no reason why it might not rain on Monday" = not a prediction

[Nally Stand]

Who can say for definate that they will not achieve a United Ireland?  Highly unlikely to be by 2016 or 2026 for that matter but i personally believe it will happen.  If SF can persue their aims peacefully then in my opinion it is good leadership.  Still dont see anyone other than Doherty who predicted anything.

+1

Semantics. Doherty explicitly predicted, the others believed it could or would be achieved. Either way, it appears that they were well off the mark.

Fixed

[Hardy]

"Brits out" = core principle
"Deputy First Minister" = acceptable alternative

[Maguire01]

it isn't 15 years since Gerry and Martin were predicting a United Ireland by 2016. They've settled for a lot less. Either they were bluffing at the time, or we've seen the results of negotiation and compromise.

Nonsense, they predicted nothing of the sort.

EG saved me providing the sources.

Let me help you with that one:

"It will rain on Monday" = prediction
"I see no reason why it might not rain on Monday" = not a prediction

Now you're just being pedantic. Clearly the various media organisations, BBC, RTÉ etc, felt the word 'predict' was appropriate.

As per the quotes, Doherty predicted it, the others expressed a belief that it could happen. Either way, they would appear to have settled for the reality that it's not going to happen.

[Maguire01]

Who can say for definate that they will not achieve a United Ireland?  Highly unlikely to be by 2016 or 2026 for that matter but i personally believe it will happen.  If SF can persue their aims peacefully then in my opinion it is good leadership.  Still dont see anyone other than Doherty who predicted anything.

+1

Semantics. Doherty explicitly predicted, the others believed it could or would be achieved. Either way, it appears that they were well off the mark.

Fixed

Fair enough. Doesn't really change that much.

[Fear ón Srath Bán]

Politician Predicts Free Bread Tomorrow Shocker!

[Rossfan]

Will there be cheese with that?

[lynchbhoy]

With respect , the Brits out goal came a long time after the fightback started.
The initial goal was to stop the persecution , oppression and systematic targeting of nationalist/Irish/ working class and to break the glass ceiling of second class citizenship and the establishments violent methods of doing this through 'legal' and pseudo legal gangs employed to do the dirty work in colusion with legal crown forces.
After a while, it was perceived that it would be easier to just rid the country of the Brits and their puppetmasters and warmongering lackeys as well as the old persecutional policies they retained to maintain the status quo and two tiered society.
So with a fairly equal six counties, the original requirement has been won. The Brits will leave at some stage ( their gov right of jurisdictional control that is) and reunification will take place.
But there is no rush on that. People can live normal lives now - and that is what people always wanted and indeed died for.
I just think you have listened to the media spin on this - and the spin has been dishing out incorrect facts intentionally for over four decades. So I can understand why people think this. Sinn Fein are
as bad themselves at the other end of this pr war!
I like a few of the sf ers, but there's a lot of sihte that is pushing me away from putting up with their statements etc.
Btw , there is no alternative. They are all sihte - north and south ... IMO

I haven't disagreed with you on the triggers that started the conflict, but my original post that you responded to wasn't specific to the start of the conflict, but to the conflict as a whole: "The ability to convince all but a few republicans to settle for a lot less than they had been fighting for for years" . The so-called 'long war' stage started in the 70s - the objectives were clear (see the 'Green Book') - it was a 'Brits out' strategy.

I maintain that the GFA was a compromise for republicans - it's only to be expected where opposing sides negotiate, and is something that most people welcome. Adams himself has said it was a compromise - using that very word.

So I can't see how i'm falling for any 'media spin'

sorry, but my answer is still the same. Your view of what was being fought for has been tainted by the hype.
No offense, but irrespective of how long you have been there, you obv just dont know.

I'd mostly agree though with what you say about the GFA. Sure we even voted to get rid of articles 2 and 3 as we have been told that by doing so, it would provide a smoother path towards peace and eventual re-unification. Compromise is easy now that there is peace.
The republicans dont exactly like all (if any) that adams has to say, plus re-unification is still bubbling along, just now in a different way and we also know the terms and tipping points that will enable this eventuality.