Messages

LCohens Quick Step Guide to Contemporary Irish History:

1. Ireland was democratically occupied
2. It was then democratically partitioned along sectarian democratic lines
3. Catholics were democratically discriminated against in voting rights and constituency boundaries were democratically gerrymandered
4. The democratic prohibiting of Catholics from participating in fair elections led to "the failure of the Catholic/Nationalist political leadership" (who ever these Catholic/Nationalist political leaders were) which caused the emergence of the IRA.
5. The IRA ruthlessly murdered thousands of innocent people for no reason whatsoever.
6. Nothing else happened and it was therefor all the IRA's fault.

You do have course know that I have never denied that Ireland was occupied via a plantation and wider military rule. If peolpe's sectarian stance influences their democratic choices then alas dividing a land mass on democratic lines will result in a division on sectarian grounds also.
ically occupied
Have I ever denied that Catholics were discriminated against?

When faced with mis-rule and discrimination I never denied that something had to be done. What I have argued is that there was no excuse for a campaign of murder. The failure of Catholic/Nationalist leadership was to not sustain the peaceful campaign and allowing the provos to put themselves forward as an alternative. I have never blamed Catholic/Nathionalist leadership for the abuses perpetrated by Unionist/Britich rule. I do blame for allowing that void that the provos sought to occupy.


Your 5th point is interesting. And begs the key question -Which IRA murders were worth it and achieved the IRA goals?5. Name names.

As yes Fear ón Srath Bán you should always ignore any contary opinion that contains a typo. Its how one demonstrates maturity and illustratse the integrity of one's argument.

Nally Stand's claims on population movement seem crazed and demented. Others have a good job in exposing that (see above)

Eamonnca1's claim on the governance of Ireland as a single unit are simply not true. He correctly points out that the parliament sat from 1297 until 1800 but he fails to recognise that it not rule Ireland and made little attempt to rule it as a single entity. He makes no mention of the Celtic kings, the brehon law or the english control of the Irish Parliament for most of this time and their use of it as a means of standardisng taxation. Something they failed to do because of the existance of the Celtic Kings and the brehon laws. Ireland definitively was not ruled as a single entity in this period, certainly not from within Ireland. My original point stands.

Rossfan might well be frustrated with the drawing of the border. There was always going to be frustration. My original point was around IRA terror. You will at least accept that the nuances of the border could never justify murder?

Splitting counties was an option. How seriously was it pushed by pro-treatyites/nationalists?

Seafoid's contention that a 6 county state is automatically gerrymandering is nonsense. As pointed out already there has never been a united Ireland and its not obvious that decisions have to me made on unitary all-ireland basis. Its never happened before. It also worth pointing out that there was a pro-union marjority in a 9 county Ulster. If it was a gerrymandered land-grab they could have taken all 9.

Of course there was no 6 county entity mention in earlier Irish history. The creation of NI did not seek its legitimacy in lore or history but in the democratic will of the majority.

Lynchboy makes the same mistake of just presuming that democracy only works on an All-ireland basis.

A majority in the 6 counties wanted to remain in UK. They remained in the UK. I call that democracy.

How any of this justify IRA murders I do not know. Republicans murdered over 2000 people post '69. Which deaths achieved the IRA's stated goals?

The gerrymandering comment is interesting. Was/is the problem the precise line of the border?

The reason it was not 9 counties was twofold:
1) Ther was not a majority (or close to a majority) in Cacan, Monaghan & Donegal seeking to remain in UK
2) The ancient provincial borders were irrelvant. It would have been madness to override democracy to preserve such an historic line in the sand.

In Fermanagh & Tyrone there were sizeable tranches of protestant/unionist people who wished to remain in UK. A lot of those people are still there. Unfortunately some desirable elements have resorted to ugly intimidation over the years that has seen their numbers reduce.

Geographically contained is self-explanatory. Enclaves dotted about the country would not be self contained.

Is Ireland an historic political unit? Really? has it it ever been governed as a single unit?

All current indicators indicate that the numbers in NI will not stack up any time soon. There is also the issue of numbers in the south stacking up simultaneously.

Nobody would argue that that the votes of the ethnic serbians across all of the yogoslavian states (which at a time wanted the former yugoslavia to survive as a single country) should have been used to defeat the nationalist desires of other former yougoslav republics. A more regional approach was required. It would have been madness to use an all ireland vote to enforce a united ireland against a sizeable body of people who formed a majority in a geographically contained area.

As far Nally Stand's questions:
1. The idea that violence was the answer or the only answer to the issues facing the catholic population of NI is crazy. Remember that republicism for a long time abstained from the democratic process and stood outside polling station berating Catholic for voting. Its hard to accept republican justifications of violence based on no access to democracy when they decided themselves to not get invole.

The options of democrary, protest (e.g. the civil rights movement) and exposé (embarass the mis-rule internationally) were the obvious routes to go. But is actually more fundamental than that. You need to be certain that you have exhautsed these options before you resort to killing people. You need to certain that any individual act of vilence will either achieve your political goal or edge you closer. The IRA have never had that justification.

2. The IRA of the trouble's era came into existence due the failure of political leadership in the Catholic/nationalist community. They filled tat gap with their poison. As a young boy the knock my door and the doors in my street trying to get lads involved in murder. I still regard that as child abuse.

3. Warrington happened. It was real. It was terrible. How did it advance the rights of Catholic or the unification of Ireland? Whether it typifies the IRA campaign is irrelvant unless you are are arguing that some IRA bombers were heroes and some were murderers.

I am interpreting your comment of "yes you had it bad, but sorry, you should have just bent over and taken it" as that of an idiot. I lived and live in a republican area. Murdering protestants, mudering police, bombing towns can not be justified. I am not actually required to put forward an alternative (though I have answered your questions above).

If are perpetrating or justifying the violence it is up to to prove that its virtues. You have failed to do so. 

Now lads could you not re-read your posts there and address some of the glaring errors?

The idea that partition was anti-democratic is absurd. There was a clear majority in a geographically contained area against separation from UK. That democratic expression was recognised in the settlement. Democracy at work

An international border was redrawn to reflect democracy suddenly gets called a "false political entity" - grow up. Must Yugoslavia be re-united against the democratic wishes of its people(s)?

The abuses of people brought about by both Democratic majority in NI and the British government are shameful. However they can only be used to justify the creation or actions of the modern provos if the actions of the provos could be said to have addressed those abuses. Explain to me how the bombings in Warrington, Omagh, Coleraine, Portadown (this list can go on and on) relieved the oppression of Catholics or achieved a United Ireland? They didn't and they couldn't. They were murders and attempts at murder and their perpetrators murderers. Somehow I am being told this is hypocrisy and a re-writing of history. Anyone care to explain how? 

Thatcher's contribution to the GFA ia a myth. I have  never argued otherwise.

No person with the intelligence to cut up their own dinner could argue that Thatcher has more irish blood on her hands than say the IRA.

Thatcher kept it going long past its sell by date. Sunningdale for slow learners. It only finished when she left. I agree with Nally Stand on this one .

Helpfully you dont deny that the IRA has more Irish blood on their hands than Thatcher but are you arguing that she compelled them to continue murdering Irish people?

Were the Old IRA just murderers too?

In the war of independence ther were no doubt individual acts of terrorism and criminal murder. There was also a absence of access to any democratic system and any hope that access would be granted.

In the period post partition it was always clear that democracy did not demand a united ireland. Post 1969 it was clear that individual acts if terrorism/murder could not single handedly bring about or alternative edge us towards an united ireland. It was therefore not possible to claim those political ends as justification for acts of murder, rendering them precisely that, acts of murder and their perpetrators murderers

No person with the intelligence to cut up their own dinner could argue that Thatcher has more irish blood on her hands than say the IRA.

Thatcher kept it going long past its sell by date. Sunningdale for slow learners. It only finished when she left. I agree with Nally Stand on this one .

Helpfully you dont deny that the IRA has more Irish blood on their hands than Thatcher but are you arguing that she compelled them to continue murdering Irish people?

No person with the intelligence to cut up their own dinner could argue that Thather has more irish blood on her hands than say the IRA.

Surely everyone who believes is in
a) The Good Friday Agreement
b) The constitution of the Republic of Ireland
c) Democracy
d) The rule of law as accepted in international law

must accept that partition must continue unless and until circumstances change.

On that basis all reasonable people are partitionist and "partitionist" is not a term of abuse.

There are plenty reasons to hate Thatcher but "UK PM stands up to IRA" is not one of them.

I didn't know that so thanks for pointing it out.

However I don't understand the logic of the position. They publish a paper and a website and they said at the outset that they would update their paper regularly but their own website less regularly. This seems ridiculous

I shall now cease to read their website.

The answer to my own question is obviously a definitive NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Any chance that the Gaelic Life people could update their website with a leaderboard?

Presumably if you don't believe the conspiracy theories (that the junta were entrapped into the war) then the war was not unavoidable. I'm not sure anbody credible believes that the british demilitarised the Falklands in order to entice an ontherwise peaceable right wing brutal junta with severe domestic issues to invade and the troops to turn right around and travel back across the world and win a war in time for an election. I think the idea that the election was called early to capitalise on her new found popularity (ultimately disasterous for the british people) is a lot more plausable.

By the time the Argentine forces had taken over Port Stanley, then military confrontation was perhaps pretty much unavoidable by that point (or perhaps even by the time they landed on the islands) as we were dealing with two hardcases here. However it isn't discredited that steps in diplomacy, which had been happening between the two governments for a few years prior, were likely not exhausted before an invasion took place. Up until that time the UK government not only reduced the amount of armed personnel on the islands, the British Nationality Act of 1981 also tightened the rights of Falklands residents to claiming the right of abode or to settle in the UK without showing due connection (though this didn't just affect them but also many others in what are now British Overseas Territories).

So we are agreed that at the time of the declaration of War that Britain had no option.

Your point that it was avoidable at an earlier stage is interesting. I can't prove that efforts at diplomacy were exhausted but to lend authority to your argument do you have any evidence that the Argie Junta were or would have yielded to diplomacy. I'm not aware of any evidence and on that basis it hard to accept that your point has any legs.

What was the Thatcher/Reagan relationship like at that time? We know what it was like later but back then was it strong enough?

Since Ronald Regan came into office about 18 months prior, one would assume that a decent rapport had been built up especially as both would share many points of ideology. Arguably Thatcher was even more forceful on some foreign policy matters than Regan was.

I'm not aware of any any evidence that Reagan and Thatcher hit it off from the off. In fact Reagan (for his own unpleasant reasons) was against UK's action in the Falklands. Thatcher embarrassed him into changing his mind. His impression of her from that moment is recognised as the key point in triggering their subsequent close political relationship.
Your original point hinges on the close relationship between the 2 individuals being used toprevent the war. That relationship did not exist at the time and consequently your argument is baseless.

A significant body of credible comemtators would point to the Argies true motives - a distracting attack against a foreign enemy. Debt foreclosue by that same enemy as a means of preventing an attack on that enemy is interesting. Have a strange feeling the argies would have launched their attack with greater ugency in that scenario.

Of course the Argentine Junta invaded as a distraction tacit against poor governance by them which resulted in being very unpopular with the Argentine public, so decided to play the ubernationalist card and invade the Falklands - which ended up as an "epic fail" and they were tossed out soon after. The thing about any attempt at debt foreclosure is that while it might have not stopped enough for an initial invasion, it would clearly not last as no money would be available to keep a meaningful occupation ongoing beyond the short term. It's also worth remembering that the then EEC countries were generally supportive of the UK as well with imposing economic sanctions on Argentina - though in Ireland's case they weakened their support to the UK after the Belgrano sinking.

SO we agree that the Argies were the agressors and Uk had broad and growing international support at the time of the invasion.

She pretty much smashed the Munroe Doctrine dead by the finish.

It doubtful whether the original british occupation of the Falklands was a breach of the convention. The decision to re-militarise it in 1982 certainly was not a breach. How could it have been?

The original taking of the islands probably wasn't even though it was done after the doctrine declaration. As to 1982, that depends if in your view that the Argentine invasion seen the islands as being Argentine or not. The international political climate at the time concerning the Cold War meant such conflict worried the USA and they themselves tried to help broker a peace deal before siding with the British.

You seem a lot less certain that the Doctrine was breached and have failed to point out any evidence that it was breached. It mot a matter of "depending on your point of view." For your agrument to hold water you need to point out that it was was a breach of the doctrine because ...... (and insert some evidence).

In the end many British lives (leaving aside any Argentine ones - they should be left in the hands of their Junta really) were lost either though a naive overseas territory policy or a deliberate bit of international grandstanding. And for many British soldiers who fought to expel the Argentine forces, they later ended up being regarded as "the enemy within".

Naive? Explain how Britain could have ignored the islander' pleas?

One, as I pointed out above, the islanders themselves where mostly not full British citizens. Two, it could be argued that the Argentines did not and had no known plans to target civilian residents on the islands and had assurances been given by the Junta to not harm or expel them then international pressure would be maintained to ensure a more peaceful resolution but ultimately this crossed the point of no return. Third, there had been a continuing policy of decolonisation of many territories from former European powers at the time, and indeed this was one of the tactics that the Argentines tried to play on (clandestine radio broadcasts from them tried to give this impression). But the Argentine line of thinking and democratic wishes couldn't work together for obvious reasons.

Bizarre line of argument. An invasion by a foreign agressor taht promises not to harm civillians could never have been ignored. Firstly did any credible body believe the promise not to harm civilians on a long term basis. Surely the human rights record of the junta utterly explodes that line of argument. Secondly it would have remained and illegal and hostile occupation which can not be tolerated under international law. The pleas of the Islanders includes their pleas not to be subject to Argentian control (harmless or otherwise).
Which European countried de-colonised a foreign territory where the domocratic will was for them to stay?

Agree. And lets be clear I would rather she and the argentinian junta had never came to power

Well two wrongs certainly don't make a right.

Good cliché but its relevance here and to any point I've made escapes me.

No fan of thatcher or her works but some of the nonsense on here is dispicable and grossly ill-informed particularly on the Falklands. By all means hall her name and reputation over he coals for the Belgrano but anybody who thinks she had a choice not to go to war or that the argentinian conduct was anything less than illegal and disgusting suffers from some form of idiocy

The Falklands War was certainly avoidable, and if you believe in the conspiracies surrounding it then the Conservative government of the time was engineering the Argentines to take the bait by withdrawing most of the UK armed forces from the islands in the early 80's. Thatcher's government at the time was unpopular as her monetarist economic strategy (initially started under the previous Callaghan Labour government - Thatcher just ramped it up a bit more) was not showing signs of improving the British economy and the SDP/Liberal alliance was surging ahead in opinion polls - the war ended up giving Thatcher a major rub and ensured her victory in the general election the following year. But as mentioned earlier, it was avoidable - one in that had the military presence not been scaled down it could have provided an effective deterrent to the Junta in the first place

Presumably if you don't believe the conspiracy theories (that the junta were entrapped into the war) then the war was not unavoidable. I'm not sure anbody credible believes that the british demilitarised the Falklands in order to entice an ontherwise peaceable right wing brutal junta with severe domestic issues to invade and the troops to turn right around and travel back across the world and win a war in time for an election. I think the idea that the election was called early to capitalise on her new found popularity (ultimately disasterous for the british people) is a lot more plausable.

also much of Argentina's debt was to the governments of the USA and UK. When you think about the relationship she had with Ronald Regan, if both countries had decided to tell the Argentines that they were calling their debt in then the Junta wouldn't have had any money to finance an invasion outside of the gimmick of landing on South Georgia.

What was the Thatcher/Reagan relationship like at that time? We know what it was like later but back then was it strong enough?
A significant body of credible comemtators would point to the Argies true motives - a distracting attack against a foreign enemy. Debt foreclosue by that same enemy as a means of preventing an attack on that enemy is interesting. Have a strange feeling the argies would have launched their attack with greater ugency in that scenario.

She pretty much smashed the Munroe Doctrine dead by the finish.

It doubtful whether the original british occupation of the Falklands was a breach of the convention. The decision to re-militarise it in 1982 certainly was not a breach. How could it have been?

In the end many British lives (leaving aside any Argentine ones - they should be left in the hands of their Junta really) were lost either though a naive overseas territory policy or a deliberate bit of international grandstanding. And for many British soldiers who fought to expel the Argentine forces, they later ended up being regarded as "the enemy within".

Naive? Explain how Britain could have ignored the islander' pleas?

Without the Falklands war happening Thatcher would very likely have been either a one-term PM with a historical profile of ineptitude, or leading a minority government after the next election depending on support & concessions with the SDP & Liberals.

Agree. And lets be clear I would rather she and the argentinian junta had never came to power

No fan of thatcher or her works but some of the nonsense on here is dispicable and grossly ill-informed particularly on the Falklands. By all means hall her name and reputation over he coals for the Belgrano but anybody who thinks she had a choice not to go to war or that the argentinian conduct was anything less than illegal and disgusting suffers from some form of idiocy