Was it?
http://www.forasach.ie/2014/08/07/great-war-ireland-john-bruton-1916/ (http://www.forasach.ie/2014/08/07/great-war-ireland-john-bruton-1916/)
"... However this was not how politicians operated in those days. Honor was deemed more important than international peace and stability, brinkmanship was commonplace, and the tendency was to use force more readily to solve problems than in today's world where war is (or in theory should) be used as a last resort after exhausting the numerous other diplomatic channels that are now available. Therefore if the 1916 Rising was "unnecessary", it was no more "unnecessary" than the Great War or any other conflict of the time."
Sure the Irish public detested the Rising at the time. Its importance has always been openly questioned. Well, since Dev's idyllic image of catholic parochial Ireland died sometime in the 1970s and 1980s.
Quote from: Syferus on August 07, 2014, 09:56:17 PM
Sure the Irish public detested the Rising at the time. Its importance has always been openly questioned. Well, since Dev's idyllic image of catholic parochial Ireland died sometime in the 1970s and 1980s.
lots of West brits / free-staters were happy enough waving union jacks. sure how many creamed themselves when Lizzy visited?
Couldn't bend over far enough.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on August 07, 2014, 08:47:31 PM
Was it?
http://www.forasach.ie/2014/08/07/great-war-ireland-john-bruton-1916/ (http://www.forasach.ie/2014/08/07/great-war-ireland-john-bruton-1916/)
"... However this was not how politicians operated in those days. Honor was deemed more important than international peace and stability, brinkmanship was commonplace, and the tendency was to use force more readily to solve problems than in today's world where war is (or in theory should) be used as a last resort after exhausting the numerous other diplomatic channels that are now available. Therefore if the 1916 Rising was "unnecessary", it was no more "unnecessary" than the Great War or any other conflict of the time."
It probably was at the time.
Until the Brits decided how to respond to it and in hindsight it took on a greater significance.
I'd say Redmond was the same as the rest of them. Expected a quick war with light casualties. There was a faction in Russia that wanted to plough on with the war but as the death toll got out of control and the war became unpopular the Bolsheviks gained the upper hand.
Quote from: Syferus on August 07, 2014, 09:56:17 PM
Sure the Irish public detested the Rising at the time. Its importance has always been openly questioned. Well, since Dev's idyllic image of catholic parochial Ireland died sometime in the 1970s and 1980s.
There is quite a bit of debate on your first sentence. Just because a mob landed on the streets to boo the rebels doesn't mean they had insignificant support.
Quote from: Syferus on August 07, 2014, 09:56:17 PM
Sure the Irish public detested the Rising at the time. Its importance has always been openly questioned. Well, since Dev's idyllic image of catholic parochial Ireland died sometime in the 1970s and 1980s.
Don't usually respond to this sort of nonsense but it seems you have read too much of the Sunday Indo and never read a history book in your life. There is no evidence that the rising was either popular or unpopular - there have been a lot of generalisations based on a couple of minor episodes of jeering at the leaders which took place in areas that would have been more unionist/loyalist leaning.
As for questioning its importance most of the questioning has come from revisionists who have an agenda in playing down it's importance and relevance. Suggest you try and read and understand a bit of history before you pontificate. Spouting opinion on GAA matters is fine but you should confine your ignorance to such matters. Maybe reflect that the 1916 leaders gave their lives for clowns like you.
Was every rising or rebellion in Ireland unnecessary?
Quote from: Mayo Mick on August 07, 2014, 11:37:25 PM
Quote from: Syferus on August 07, 2014, 09:56:17 PM
Sure the Irish public detested the Rising at the time. Its importance has always been openly questioned. Well, since Dev's idyllic image of catholic parochial Ireland died sometime in the 1970s and 1980s.
Don't usually respond to this sort of nonsense but it seems you have read too much of the Sunday Indo and never read a history book in your life. There is no evidence that the rising was either popular or unpopular - there have been a lot of generalisations based on a couple of minor episodes of jeering at the leaders which took place in areas that would have been more unionist/loyalist leaning.
As for questioning its importance most of the questioning has come from revisionists who have an agenda in playing down it's importance and relevance. Suggest you try and read and understand a bit of history before you pontificate. Spouting opinion on GAA matters is fine but you should confine your ignorance to such matters. Maybe reflect that the 1916 leaders gave their lives for clowns like you.
Hi Mick, good to see you're expanding your horizon beyond your wheelhouse of trolling Mayo supporters.
What is our fascination with the bloody side of things only?
Where is the celebration of Catholic Emancipation?
Where is the celebration of the achievements of the Land League?
Leaving aside opinions on 1916, why do we feel (Britain does this to an absurd degree) the need to celebrate war and conflict and we are inclined to ignore the other successes on the road to (in our case) independence.
Well said Mayo Mick. Whatever the revisionists say there's no doubt the Rising ended up being the catalyst for independence for the 26 counties and brave men put their lives on the line. I for one will be grateful to them for that.
Also - while anyone can put there opinions out there why give John Bruton's views any oxygen? What has he ever achieved? A terrible career of failure in politics notably including almost ending the peace process after the first IRA ceasefire with his hand wringing and pandering to unionism. His judgement is one to be taken with a pinch of salt in my view. A pure bottler of the highest order - you'd never see the likes of him standing for anything if it involved a risk.
Quote from: muppet on August 07, 2014, 11:45:06 PM
What is our fascination with the bloody side of things only?
Where is the celebration of Catholic Emancipation?
Where is the celebration of the achievements of the Land League?
Leaving aside opinions on 1916, why do we feel (Britain does this to an absurd degree) the need to celebrate war and conflict and we are inclined to ignore the other successes on the road to (in our case) independence.
Same reason most summer blockbusters are filled with tits and explosions. People are attracted to spectacles. Parnell working his arse off for Home Rule just doesn't make for as exciting a story. That said, his personal life did..
Quote from: muppet on August 07, 2014, 11:45:06 PM
What is our fascination with the bloody side of things only?
Where is the celebration of Catholic Emancipation?
Where is the celebration of the achievements of the Land League?
Leaving aside opinions on 1916, why do we feel (Britain does this to an absurd degree) the need to celebrate war and conflict and we are inclined to ignore the other successes on the road to (in our case) independence.
The Land League / War must be one of the most important yet least celebrated events in Irish history
Quote from: magpie seanie on August 07, 2014, 11:47:56 PM
Well said Mayo Mick. Whatever the revisionists say there's no doubt the Rising ended up being the catalyst for independence for the 26 counties and brave men put their lives on the line. I for one will be grateful to them for that.
Also - while anyone can put there opinions out there why give John Bruton's views any oxygen? What has he ever achieved? A terrible career of failure in politics notably including almost ending the peace process after the first IRA ceasefire with his hand wringing and pandering to unionism. His judgement is one to be taken with a pinch of salt in my view. A pure bottler of the highest order - you'd never see the likes of him standing for anything if it involved a risk.
+1
Quote from: magpie seanie on August 07, 2014, 11:47:56 PM
Also - while anyone can put there opinions out there why give John Bruton's views any oxygen? What has he ever achieved? A terrible career of failure in politics notably including almost ending the peace process after the first IRA ceasefire with his hand wringing and pandering to unionism. His judgement is one to be taken with a pinch of salt in my view. A pure bottler of the highest order - you'd never see the likes of him standing for anything if it involved a risk.
I don't necessarily agree with him or think he was the best taoiseach we've had but I'd have preferred him to remain in power than have his successor.....
Quote from: macdanger2 on August 08, 2014, 12:02:49 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on August 07, 2014, 11:47:56 PM
Also - while anyone can put there opinions out there why give John Bruton's views any oxygen? What has he ever achieved? A terrible career of failure in politics notably including almost ending the peace process after the first IRA ceasefire with his hand wringing and pandering to unionism. His judgement is one to be taken with a pinch of salt in my view. A pure bottler of the highest order - you'd never see the likes of him standing for anything if it involved a risk.
I don't necessarily agree with him or think he was the best taoiseach we've had but I'd have preferred him to remain in power than have his successor.....
Bertie or Michael Noonan?
Bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbertie
(apologies to anyone with a Stutter)
I think he means Bertie and as much as I detest the anorak man I think the peace process clearly puts Ahern ahead of Bruton. God knows how many more people would have been killed in the troubles if Bruton stayed in power for another 10 or so years.
Quote from: magpie seanie on August 08, 2014, 12:38:56 AM
I think he means Bertie and as much as I detest the anorak man I think the peace process clearly puts Ahern ahead of Bruton. God knows how many more people would have been killed in the troubles if Bruton stayed in power for another 10 or so years.
God when you think about our back catalogue of leaders, it is quite depressing.
Quote from: muppet on August 08, 2014, 12:40:39 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on August 08, 2014, 12:38:56 AM
I think he means Bertie and as much as I detest the anorak man I think the peace process clearly puts Ahern ahead of Bruton. God knows how many more people would have been killed in the troubles if Bruton stayed in power for another 10 or so years.
God when you think about our back catalogue of leaders, it is quite depressing.
Very depressing. Not much hope for the future either which is the worst of it.
QuoteHi Mick, good to see you're expanding your horizon beyond your wheelhouse of trolling Mayo supporters.
My horizon is considerably expanded and if you spent more time educating yourself and living in the real world you might have views formed on some intelligent basis rather than throwing out soundbites to make you sound grown up.
As for marking other important aspects of Irish History I agree that there are many other important achievements (and failures) that could be better commemorated. However over the years I have been to many lectures, workshops etc on various areas of our history so there is plenty out there if you are interested.
On 1916 it is of course very appropriate that it is now in the limelight as we approach the 100 years anniversary. And while some some questioning of it's necessity is valid it is also a fact that many of the revisionist historians and commentators - Dudley Edwards, Foster, John A Murphy, Myers, Harris etc have very open agendas which calls into question their objectivity. Unfortunately the publicity given to them especially by the Sindo means that impressionable lads like Syferus swallow their take and spew it out thinking it is "cool" and "modern"
Take my advice Syf and go back to extolling your under age teams - something you might know a bit about (or at least not be found out on)
Albert Reynolds was underrated IMHO.
Quote from: Mayo Mick on August 07, 2014, 11:37:25 PM
Quote from: Syferus on August 07, 2014, 09:56:17 PM
Sure the Irish public detested the Rising at the time. Its importance has always been openly questioned. Well, since Dev's idyllic image of catholic parochial Ireland died sometime in the 1970s and 1980s.
Don't usually respond to this sort of nonsense but it seems you have read too much of the Sunday Indo and never read a history book in your life. There is no evidence that the rising was either popular or unpopular - there have been a lot of generalisations based on a couple of minor episodes of jeering at the leaders which took place in areas that would have been more unionist/loyalist leaning.
As for questioning its importance most of the questioning has come from revisionists who have an agenda in playing down it's importance and relevance. Suggest you try and read and understand a bit of history before you pontificate. Spouting opinion on GAA matters is fine but you should confine your ignorance to such matters. Maybe reflect that the 1916 leaders gave their lives for clowns like you.
Would he not have been born?
Quote from: ONeill on August 08, 2014, 01:19:48 AM
Quote from: Mayo Mick on August 07, 2014, 11:37:25 PM
Quote from: Syferus on August 07, 2014, 09:56:17 PM
Sure the Irish public detested the Rising at the time. Its importance has always been openly questioned. Well, since Dev's idyllic image of catholic parochial Ireland died sometime in the 1970s and 1980s.
Don't usually respond to this sort of nonsense but it seems you have read too much of the Sunday Indo and never read a history book in your life. There is no evidence that the rising was either popular or unpopular - there have been a lot of generalisations based on a couple of minor episodes of jeering at the leaders which took place in areas that would have been more unionist/loyalist leaning.
As for questioning its importance most of the questioning has come from revisionists who have an agenda in playing down it's importance and relevance. Suggest you try and read and understand a bit of history before you pontificate. Spouting opinion on GAA matters is fine but you should confine your ignorance to such matters. Maybe reflect that the 1916 leaders gave their lives for clowns like you.
Would he not have been born?
My DOB according to Facebook is 1914, as it happens.
Quote from: Syferus on August 08, 2014, 01:29:57 AM
Quote from: ONeill on August 08, 2014, 01:19:48 AM
Quote from: Mayo Mick on August 07, 2014, 11:37:25 PM
Quote from: Syferus on August 07, 2014, 09:56:17 PM
Sure the Irish public detested the Rising at the time. Its importance has always been openly questioned. Well, since Dev's idyllic image of catholic parochial Ireland died sometime in the 1970s and 1980s.
Don't usually respond to this sort of nonsense but it seems you have read too much of the Sunday Indo and never read a history book in your life. There is no evidence that the rising was either popular or unpopular - there have been a lot of generalisations based on a couple of minor episodes of jeering at the leaders which took place in areas that would have been more unionist/loyalist leaning.
As for questioning its importance most of the questioning has come from revisionists who have an agenda in playing down it's importance and relevance. Suggest you try and read and understand a bit of history before you pontificate. Spouting opinion on GAA matters is fine but you should confine your ignorance to such matters. Maybe reflect that the 1916 leaders gave their lives for clowns like you.
Would he not have been born?
My DOB according to Facebook is 1914, as it happens.
You must be one of Einstein's travelling twins: http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/Twins (http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/Twins)
Is there part of the quote missing? From what I read he's only saying the rising was no more unnecessary than any other conflict:
Therefore if the 1916 Rising was "unnecessary", it was no more "unnecessary" than the Great War or any other conflict of the time."
That's not a quote from Bruton, it's a quote from the article. I should have been clearer about that. The article mostly disagrees with him.
Oh, ok; makes more sense to me now.
John Bruton would say that.
Quote from: muppet on August 07, 2014, 11:45:06 PM
What is our fascination with the bloody side of things only?
Where is the celebration of Catholic Emancipation?
Where is the celebration of the achievements of the Land League?
Leaving aside opinions on 1916, why do we feel (Britain does this to an absurd degree) the need to celebrate war and conflict and we are inclined to ignore the other successes on the road to (in our case) independence.
By "in our case", I assume you mean in the case of just a part of the nation?
John Unionist can go and shite. Along with the brother 'Ballygowan' Bruton.
Who can ever forget his multiple orgasms when Price Charles was here on the first official royal visit since 1911 in, what, 1994 or so. "Best day of my life" I think he was heard to slabber.
One cannot accurately speculate how events would have turned out had there been no Rising but the fact that the British Establishment ignored the wishes of the people in 1918 says enough for me. So-called 'Southern' Ireland (which existed for 1/2 hour or so officially) may have been granted something more in the 1960s but by then we would have probably have lost the will to be independent and be like Scotland now - afraid to leave Westminster's tit.
Churchill forecast in the mid 30s that another war was coming and he was against to the 'Treaty Ports' reverting to the Free State in 1938. But he wasn't in power so he had to suck it up. How different would Ireland be had we been fully involved in WW2 - having the shite bombed out of Dublin and the west coast ports and cities like Galway and Limerick. How many lives lost there? Would our participation have shortened the war? Doubt it.
So Bruton should climb back into his fur lined hole and remain there.
The term 'West Brit' was coined for people like John Bruton. Whether you regard it as an insult or a compliment, he obviously has very pro-British sentiments. My opinion is that John Bruton would much prefer Ireland to be a commonwealth country, independently governed, but with the Queen as nominal head of state. A Canada or Australia lite.
Quote from: Shamrock Shore on August 08, 2014, 10:04:52 AM
John Unionist can go and shite.
Who can ever forget his multiple orgasms when Price Charles was here on the first official royal visit since 1911 in, what, 1994 or so. "Best day of my life" I think he was heard to slabber.
+1.
That was so embarrassing.
He also damn near effd up the Peace Process. Thank God Bertie and Blair came along when they did and got things back on track.
If they had only been assassinated then they'd be heroes now instead of two tainted scumbags.
As for 1916 - it would have been unnecessary if the Brits had implemented the Home Rule Act that they just passed instead of postponing it.
However they didn't and the rest is History.
If it hadn't happened we'd probably have got 2 Welsh type Home Rule thingys - 1 for all Ulster and one for the other 3 Provinces.
The Nazis would probably have invaded Ireland in 1940 and a large part of WW2 would have been fought across our Country with massive destruction and loss of life.
John Bruton would probably be now Lord Dunboyne and Syferus would be waving a Union Jack every time one of their so called majesties came to visit.
Quote from: Nally Stand on August 08, 2014, 09:35:52 AM
Quote from: muppet on August 07, 2014, 11:45:06 PM
What is our fascination with the bloody side of things only?
Where is the celebration of Catholic Emancipation?
Where is the celebration of the achievements of the Land League?
Leaving aside opinions on 1916, why do we feel (Britain does this to an absurd degree) the need to celebrate war and conflict and we are inclined to ignore the other successes on the road to (in our case) independence.
By "in our case", I assume you mean in the case of just a part of the nation?
Not really. The Brits celebrate all their glorious victories in war, but none of those wars were to achieve (partial) independence, which is different to 'our case'.
This is quite confusing to me, as if you believe that Ireland should be 32 counties, and I do, then why would you celebrate 1916 or even 1921? Conversely Bruton, of all people, appears quite happy with partition and should be the one celebrating.
The volunteers of 1916 were genuine volunteers. They fought to free a small country from the rule of an imperial oppressor.
The "volunteers" of World War I were paid mercenaries.
World War I was an utterly pointless conflict of imperial arrogance and hubris. Commemoration of those who died without recognising that those who died were sacrificed for nothing by selfish elites is simply glorification of war for war's sake.
There is no comparison. Those who fought in the Easter Rising fought for a noble cause. There was nothing noble about World War I and the world is still living with its disastrous historical consequences.
What differences are there in Burton meeting the Queen of England or McGuinness or any other leader including An Taoiseach? It doesn't matter what period of history this took place; all tarred with the one brush.
West Brit would summarise 95% leader of every political party in Ireland.
Quote from: rrhf on August 08, 2014, 06:54:05 AM
John Britain would say that.
Fixed that for you, rrhf.
Quote from: theticklemister on August 08, 2014, 03:47:10 PM
What differences are there in Burton meeting the Queen of England or McGuinness or any other leader including An Taoiseach?.
Bruton (not Burton) was climbing up Charlie Windsor's behind and leppin about like mad while McG was meeting in a formal setting in his role as Joint FM.