Irish Generals planned to attack the six counties.

[Roger]

Sure yous trust no one Roger, as the Poles, Romas and the Phillipino nurses can testify..

Thank you for your valued insight.  Btw, you'll obviously be aware that unionists are KKK, eat Catholic babies, and have hair on the palms of their hand. 

[Roger]

It is odd that you state that in your opinion that such mistrust is merited.

Odd given that that state claimed ownership of this state???

When did the 6 North Eastern Irish Counties become independent? 

Would statelet be a more suitable term for you to cope with?

[Jim_Murphy_74]

Odd given that that state claimed ownership of this state???

I can see how as a unionist you wouldn't agree but why does it also invoke mistrust.  Must someone of a differring viewpoint necessarily engender mistrust?   

I stated that they did not plan to invade or 'not stand by' due to the way they thought NI was governed. They did nothing for nationalists in NI but they still wanted to complete their island and govern it. The security situation that arose (please God that word doesn't instigate offense to the prickly skinned ones here) simply allowed them to rattle sabres and flex their (puny) muscles.

I'd rather be more prickly that you think that the Irish government were looking for an excuse to allow them to "rattle sabres" or that you have a need to comment on our "puny" military muscles.   I suppose it is this "merited" mistrust that assumes that was the reason rather than concern for those nationalists that looked to the southern state for help.

There is no doubt better relations between the states has been developed.  There is no doubt that the ROI is a vastly different state now than it was in 1969.  However, whilst I am in favour of good neighbourly relations and operating for mutual benefit, I wouldn't trust the Republic one bit and feel that that is the general mood within unionism even if constitutionally the Union is secure.

Fair enough, you wouldn't trust the republic one bit but you haven't actually given a reason why you don't.  (apart from the fact that other unionists generally don't).  What is it you fear we are planning behind our lying, forked tongues?

]If another country was given a say in your affairs you'd be pretty much in a lather no matter how nice they were about it.  That's how unionists felt and understandably so.

I don't actually agree that it's all that understandable.   The idea of the irish government having a non-executive involvement in some minor aspects of northern ireland was (to me at least) an eminently reasonable reassurance to the nationalist population that someone would speak up for their interests.  I don't know what alternatives unionist were willing to offer constitutional nationalism protection from the types of injustices that had happened under past governments.  Were there any?  What were there?

Also the irish government is not just any foreign government.  Just like republicans must get over the fact unionism is a result of the shared history of these islands and have to be accomodated (however unpalatable that accomodation is to republicans) also unionist need to get over the fact that nationalists exist (in large numbers) in northern ireland and their relationship with the republic must be accomodated (however unpalatable that accomodation is to unionists).

I'm still not seeing the forked tongues and lies though.....

/Jim.

[Roger]

I can see how as a unionist you wouldn't agree but why does it also invoke mistrust.  Must someone of a differring viewpoint necessarily engender mistrust?

No.  But the government of the Republic is not simply someone with a different view. 

I'd rather be more prickly that you think that the Irish government were looking for an excuse to allow them to "rattle sabres" or that you have a need to comment on our "puny" military muscles.   

Than what? I do not understand what you mean.  The word "arose" was used and was hoped that it did not cause offense.

I suppose it is this "merited" mistrust that assumes that was the reason rather than concern for those nationalists that looked to the southern state for help.

I don't understand your point.

Fair enough, you wouldn't trust the republic one bit but you haven't actually given a reason why you don't.  (apart from the fact that other unionists generally don't).  What is it you fear we are planning behind our lying, forked tongues?

A country founded the way it was, with aggressive policy towards Northern Ireland and to this day an irredentist / imperialistic outlook.  I would not trust the Republic in the internal affairs of Northern Ireland one bit.

I don't actually agree that it's all that understandable.   The idea of the irish government having a non-executive involvement in some minor aspects of northern ireland was (to me at least) an eminently reasonable reassurance to the nationalist population that someone would speak up for their interests.  I don't know what alternatives unionist were willing to offer constitutional nationalism protection from the types of injustices that had happened under past governments.  Were there any?  What were there?

The government you describe had been prorogued 13 years previously.  Imposing the involvement of the Republic in internal affairs of Northern Ireland was outrageous and the only benefit to NI was improved cross-border security arrangements.  These arrangements never materialized into anything very reasonable given that they should have been in place as of right.

Also the irish government is not just any foreign government.  Just like republicans must get over the fact unionism is a result of the shared history of these islands and have to be accomodated (however unpalatable that accomodation is to republicans) also unionist need to get over the fact that nationalists exist (in large numbers) in northern ireland and their relationship with the republic must be accomodated (however unpalatable that accomodation is to unionists).

The Irish government is a foreign government and to unionists has done nothing but be an aggressive foreign government to NI.  It has a land border with us and therefore there are things that can be done for mutual benefit.  This is not Political accommodation of nationalists or terror supporting organisations.  This is simply common sense. That does not mean they should have a say in internal affairs.  They should not.

I'm still not seeing the forked tongues and lies though.....

I don't expect you to. 

[Lar Naparka]

Roger, I am being curious here and not argumentative in any way.
I wonder if you would consider yourself as a mainstream Unionist or would you feel that you are expressing a minority viewpoint?
My reason for asking you this is that I would completely agree with Jim Murphy and also with Myles back in post #180, and I'd like to know if you could ever see yourself budging from your present position to try and find a compromise with those who think like we do.
In other words, what would you be prepared to accept if a GFA 2  was being discussed?

[Roger]

Roger, I am being curious here and not argumentative in any way.
I wonder if you would consider yourself as a mainstream Unionist or would you feel that you are expressing a minority viewpoint?
My reason for asking you this is that I would completely agree with Jim Murphy and also with Myles back in post #180, and I'd like to know if you could ever see yourself budging from your present position to try and find a compromise with those who think like we do.
In other words, what would you be prepared to accept if a GFA 2  was being discussed?

I think I would be fairly mainstream in unionism but it is a broad church with regard to specific policies. I don't see how post #180 and its observations have any bearing on the GFA.  What happened, happened and different viewpoints are made on it.  As I have said, what matters is the future.  I'm not sure what GFA2 is or would be or even what my observations on the events up to the early 1970s needs budged from.

[Jim_Murphy_74]

No.  But the government of the Republic is not simply someone with a different view.

Correct it is a government with a duty of care towards those people in northern ireland who are entitled to call themselves citzens of it's state.  That is clearly stated in the GFA, an agreement which I understand mainstream unionists accept as the democratic will of the people of northern ireland.  This whether you, other unionists accept it or not, at the very least opens the possibility that the republic's intentions towards northern ireland are motivated by dutiful and altruistic reasons rather than imperialist or irredentist reasons.

Than what? I do not understand what you mean.  The word "arose" was used and was hoped that it did not cause offense.

I don't care about the word arose or other's offense at your interpretation of who started what in 1969.  What I mean is that your need to use the adjective "puny" appears prima facia to be calculated to cause offense.  It is irrelevant to the discussion (unless you believe that a strong irish army would have had more of a right to intervene) so why put it in?

The same puny army gallantly contributed to UN peace missions in the Congo during the 60's when the british army was still knocking the locals around Aden.  But hey...we're the imperialists aren't we?

I don't understand your point.

My point is that you won't open yourself to any possibility other than Lynch and his government greeted the kick-off of the troubles with a gleeful rattle of their sabres and chance to have a cut off the brits.  You should at least accept there is a possibility that the were just as fearful as unionists (or anyone else) and wanted to help those nationalists they felt a duty of care too. 

A country founded the way it was, with aggressive policy towards Northern Ireland and to this day an irredentist / imperialistic outlook.  I would not trust the Republic in the internal affairs of Northern Ireland one bit.

I still haven't read an example of the current governments failings in this light.  How the state was founded has been usurped by many events since.

The government you describe had been prorogued 13 years previously.  Imposing the involvement of the Republic in internal affairs of Northern Ireland was outrageous and the only benefit to NI was improved cross-border security arrangements.  These arrangements never materialized into anything very reasonable given that they should have been in place as of right.

The elapse of 13 years was insignificant given the vacum in the interim.  How do you think nationalists fear should have been dealt with (if at all) as an alternative to what they wanted?

The Irish government is a foreign government and to unionists has done nothing but be an aggressive foreign government to NI.  It has a land border with us and therefore there are things that can be done for mutual benefit.  This is not Political accommodation of nationalists or terror supporting organisations.  This is simply common sense. That does not mean they should have a say in internal affairs.  They should not.

It maybe a foreign government in some senses but it not just any kind of foreign government.  If unionists don't accept that  then they don't accept the GFA as far as I am concerned. 

I don't expect you to.

Maybe I do, but maybe they are not all wearing green..............

/Jim.

[lynchbhoy]

Odd given that that state claimed ownership of this state???

I can see how as a unionist you wouldn't agree but why does it also invoke mistrust.  Must someone of a differring viewpoint necessarily engender mistrust?   

I stated that they did not plan to invade or 'not stand by' due to the way they thought NI was governed. They did nothing for nationalists in NI but they still wanted to complete their island and govern it. The security situation that arose (please God that word doesn't instigate offense to the prickly skinned ones here) simply allowed them to rattle sabres and flex their (puny) muscles.

I'd rather be more prickly that you think that the Irish government were looking for an excuse to allow them to "rattle sabres" or that you have a need to comment on our "puny" military muscles.   I suppose it is this "merited" mistrust that assumes that was the reason rather than concern for those nationalists that looked to the southern state for help.

There is no doubt better relations between the states has been developed.  There is no doubt that the ROI is a vastly different state now than it was in 1969.  However, whilst I am in favour of good neighbourly relations and operating for mutual benefit, I wouldn't trust the Republic one bit and feel that that is the general mood within unionism even if constitutionally the Union is secure.

Fair enough, you wouldn't trust the republic one bit but you haven't actually given a reason why you don't.  (apart from the fact that other unionists generally don't).  What is it you fear we are planning behind our lying, forked tongues?

]If another country was given a say in your affairs you'd be pretty much in a lather no matter how nice they were about it.  That's how unionists felt and understandably so.

I don't actually agree that it's all that understandable.   The idea of the irish government having a non-executive involvement in some minor aspects of northern ireland was (to me at least) an eminently reasonable reassurance to the nationalist population that someone would speak up for their interests.  I don't know what alternatives unionist were willing to offer constitutional nationalism protection from the types of injustices that had happened under past governments.  Were there any?  What were there?

Also the irish government is not just any foreign government.  Just like republicans must get over the fact unionism is a result of the shared history of these islands and have to be accomodated (however unpalatable that accomodation is to republicans) also unionist need to get over the fact that nationalists exist (in large numbers) in northern ireland and their relationship with the republic must be accomodated (however unpalatable that accomodation is to unionists).

I'm still not seeing the forked tongues and lies though.....

/Jim.

We might have disagreed in the past Jim, but I have to applaud that post.

In short, there is no merit for what unionism say or pretends to fear from the southern 26 counties, its politicians and its people (esp after half of the unionists went down to dublin to work and get their share of the celtic tiger coffers- after years of 'never will we cross the border !').

roger has implied that because of peoples views on unionists they are right to be afraid etc.
Utter horsesh*t.

As for republicans well I think that apart from th very small mindless minority who are either hell bent on fighting 'someone' or peddling illegal goods/smuggling - then close to 100% of republicans realise and understand that any future Ireland contains unionists, non nationals, 'west brits', communists and whatever else makes up a modern day society.
Most people have come a long way in their acceptance. So I dont see any problem there.
All I see as being a problem is the acceptance of the southern people in wanting the northern contingent being allowed into the full Ireland.

anyhow - as you have pointed out, unionists dont have any particular reason. They like to throw them up and use half baked notions and age old (1916) precedent to attempt to give some kind of rationale to their spoofy claims.
You have smoked this lie out well. Well done.

[Lar Naparka]

I think I would be fairly mainstream in unionism but it is a broad church with regard to specific policies. I don't see how post #180 and its observations have any bearing on the GFA.  What happened, happened and different viewpoints are made on it.  As I have said, what matters is the future.  I'm not sure what GFA2 is or would be or even what my observations on the events up to the early 1970s needs budged from.

Roger, I accept your sincerity of opinion and that applies to all your posts throughout our discussion but it also means I see problems ahead for Unionism and the future of Northern Ireland.
To me, post 180 described the sequence of event that led up to Burntollet and the happenings that led to The Troubles in detail and with accuracy.
Almost thirty years on, the GFA was designed to bring an end to those troubles, hence my linking both.
Jim Murphy addresses many of the problems I would have with the ongoing Unionist reservations about the terms of the agreement.
Given that you and by implication mainstream Unionism, appear to be still suspicious of the intent of both HMG and the Irish Government and probably everyone else that signed up for the agreement, what if anything could be achieved if all parties sat down again  to renegotiate the original GFA?
Fair enough?

[Roger]

[quote author=Jim_Murphy_74 link=topic=13614.msg638936#msg638936
Correct it is a government with a duty of care towards those people in northern ireland who are entitled to call themselves citzens of it's state.  That is clearly stated in the GFA, an agreement which I understand mainstream unionists accept as the democratic will of the people of northern ireland.  This whether you, other unionists accept it or not, at the very least opens the possibility that the republic's intentions towards northern ireland are motivated by dutiful and altruistic reasons rather than imperialist or irredentist reasons. [/quote]The Republic may have obligations under the Belfast Agreement but that doesn't mean I would trust them.  Do you trust the government in the Republic?? SF also have obligations under the same agreement but there is absolutely nothing that they would say or do that I would trust.

I don't care about the word arose or other's offense at your interpretation of who started what in 1969.  What I mean is that your need to use the adjective "puny" appears prima facia to be calculated to cause offense.  It is irrelevant to the discussion (unless you believe that a strong irish army would have had more of a right to intervene) so why put it in?

The wording wasn't aimed at you (as the post stated).  The use of puny was relevant to the subject as per title of thread but the derisory capability of the Republic's army at the time makes me wonder what they were playing at when drawing up invasion plans and making comments on telly. Sabre rattling at best.  Downright irresponsible and toothless though.

The same puny army gallantly contributed to UN peace missions in the Congo during the 60's when the british army was still knocking the locals around Aden.  But hey...we're the imperialists aren't we?

Very nice but not relevant to the thread or my comments.

My point is that you won't open yourself to any possibility other than Lynch and his government greeted the kick-off of the troubles with a gleeful rattle of their sabres and chance to have a cut off the brits.  You should at least accept there is a possibility that the were just as fearful as unionists (or anyone else) and wanted to help those nationalists they felt a duty of care too. 

I accept the possibility alright but can understand unionist concerns and reactions at the time.

I still haven't read an example of the current governments failings in this light.  How the state was founded has been usurped by many events since.

Like WW2, the troubles, extradition issues, pathetic security arrangements, pan-nationalist front with SF and SDLP etc.  The Republic has never done anything with a duty of care in mind for unionists so I don't think that you can expect unionists to be gullible because people say they are ok to be sure to be sure etc.

The elapse of 13 years was insignificant given the vacum in the interim.  How do you think nationalists fear should have been dealt with (if at all) as an alternative to what they wanted?

In your view maybe but the involvement of the Republic forced on the majority community without consultation was silly and proved to be so.  What would have suited nationalists in 1985 is a longer subject than I have time for at moment.  Sorry.

It maybe a foreign government in some senses but it not just any kind of foreign government.  If unionists don't accept that  then they don't accept the GFA as far as I am concerned. 

Unionists do accept that.  They are fully aware that the ROI is a foreign government with mechanisms for mutual co-operation north/south/east/west.  If nationalists don't accept that the sovereignty of Northern Ireland lies with the UK and that an all-island state can only happen with the consent of the majority of people in Northern Ireland in the first instance then they do not accept the Belfast Agreement. Nationalists don't even be able to accept the name of the place, so your criticism shouldn't be aimed at unionists in the first instance imo.

[Roger]

roger has implied that because of peoples views on unionists they are right to be afraid etc.
Utter horsesh*t.

I have implied no such thing. I was referring to you.  You were trying to convince unionists there is nothing to be afraid of.  I just think this is bonkers given that all you ever do is aggressively oppose, ridicule and criticise them with what must surely be seen by many nationalists as an embarrassing level of bigotry and propaganda.

[Jim_Murphy_74]

The Republic may have obligations under the Belfast Agreement but that doesn't mean I would trust them.  Do you trust the government in the Republic?? SF also have obligations under the same agreement but there is absolutely nothing that they would say or do that I would trust.

You state your mistrust was based on their imperialist/irredentists reasons.  I am merely stating that I don't believe that the current government of the republic are involved for such reasons.  I explained what I believe their reasons for this involvement are.  You seem to concur.  It's immaterial who I trust/don't trust.  You maintain is perfectly logical for unionists to mistrust the current governments intentions towards nothern ireland.  I am trying desperately to understand what the logic is?  You talk of forked tongues: is it that you have reason to believe they are paying lip-service to principle of consent in the GFA while secret planning some kind of secret political/military plot on the side?

The wording wasn't aimed at you (as the post stated).  The use of puny was relevant to the subject as per title of thread but the derisory capability of the Republic's army at the time makes me wonder what they were playing at when drawing up invasion plans and making comments on telly. Sabre rattling at best.  Downright irresponsible and toothless though.

You are flip-flopping here now.  Earlier in the thread you said the army's actions (although not Lynch's) were the correct course of action.  I re-iterate that I don't see the relevance of the state of the irish army.  Would their actions be more responsible if they had a strong army.  As for comments on telly, they may have been ill-advised.  However if they were sabre-rattling is a matter of opinion and conjecture.  Many on this thread such as Lar Naparka have given back-up to their opinions to the contrary (events of the time/nature/past behaviour of Lynch.)  Your punchline appears to be that unionists politicians are straight talking whereas the republic variety are snakes.

Very nice but not relevant to the thread or my comments.

Quite relevant when you use derogatory terms about the same army.

I accept the possibility alright but can understand unionist concerns and reactions at the time.

That is the first acknowledgement I have ever read from you.  You seem dismissive of these possibilities in general.

Like WW2, the troubles, extradition issues, pathetic security arrangements, pan-nationalist front with SF and SDLP etc.  The Republic has never done anything with a duty of care in mind for unionists so I don't think that you can expect unionists to be gullible because people say they are ok to be sure to be sure etc.

I don't see the relevance of of the above to the current government.  Although all the above could be discussed in their context. 

In your view maybe but the involvement of the Republic forced on the majority community without consultation was silly and proved to be so.  What would have suited nationalists in 1985 is a longer subject than I have time for at moment.  Sorry.

Hmmm but in the previous sentence you were exercised by what suited unionists right back to WW2??  In my opinion unionist intransgience towards non-violent, democratic nationlism (SDLP for example) forced the hand to go over their heads.  The most british of british and conservative of conservative governments saw fit to give this accomodation.  Ever countenance it was for more reasons than just their untrustworthyness?  Is it a case for unionism that everyone is marching out of step except my Johnny

Unionists do accept that.  They are fully aware that the ROI is a foreign government with mechanisms for mutual co-operation north/south/east/west.  If nationalists don't accept that the sovereignty of Northern Ireland lies with the UK and that an all-island state can only happen with the consent of the majority of people in Northern Ireland in the first instance then they do not accept the Belfast Agreement. Nationalists don't even be able to accept the name of the place, so your criticism shouldn't be aimed at unionists in the first instance imo.

I am not criticising unionists, I am trying to parse and understand your criticisms/fears of the irish government. (criticisms/fears your are representing as those of mainstream unionism).  Your criticisms of nationalism are just a bit of whataboutery in this context.

/Jim

[lynchbhoy]

roger has implied that because of peoples views on unionists they are right to be afraid etc.
Utter horsesh*t.

I have implied no such thing. I was referring to you.  You were trying to convince unionists there is nothing to be afraid of.  I just think this is bonkers given that all you ever do is aggressively oppose, ridicule and criticise them with what must surely be seen by many nationalists as an embarrassing level of bigotry and propaganda.

so you and unionists/loyalists like you are actually just in fear of being called names and being disliked !

Far from convincing unionsts there is nothing tobe afraid of from a nationalist/Irish perspective
you still have as yet (from reading your last post above to Jim) not given one single bone fide instance of where nioniss/loyalists have a reason to be fearful, let alone any reason why they were 'in fear' of Lynch et al in 1969.
Was this the same fear that made them wreak havoc, oppression, persecution, violent terror an the apartheid type system on nationalists - was it that theyfeared something might happen them if they didnt!

this kind of rationalistaion by you and other unionists/loyalists is comical.

You state you are in fear of something but there has been nothing ever said regarding the safety , rights or status in the eventual reunified republic. It is a sham of an act and a ostrich-like pretence that you folks keep up.
Give Jim and Lar their answers if you wont do so with me. Tell them what actual fears are manifested as. What is it - other than people on the internet or some horrible fenians called you (or 'might' call you names !)

[Roger]

Roger, I accept your sincerity of opinion and that applies to all your posts throughout our discussion but it also means I see problems ahead for Unionism and the future of Northern Ireland.
To me, post 180 described the sequence of event that led up to Burntollet and the happenings that led to The Troubles in detail and with accuracy.
Almost thirty years on, the GFA was designed to bring an end to those troubles, hence my linking both.
Jim Murphy addresses many of the problems I would have with the ongoing Unionist reservations about the terms of the agreement.

I just don't think blame, opinions etc for what happened in the 60s and 70s has a big bearing on what happens now.  Equality of opportunity and the rule of law are completely different now and set up to be so. What can law abiding citizens see so wrong with that?  Sure some policies will be disagreed on but there will be more that is agreed on by all imo. 

Given that you and by implication mainstream Unionism, appear to be still suspicious of the intent of both HMG and the Irish Government and probably everyone else that signed up for the agreement, what if anything could be achieved if all parties sat down again  to renegotiate the original GFA?
Fair enough?

I think there needs to be a bedding in period for the current institutions and for a generation to grow older. The lack of trust within NI of themmuns (both ways) is unbelievable but it is merited imo. I have no time for SF because of the terrorism and even their tactics to this day are deplorable. Totally untrustworthy.  They are the lowest of the low for me and always will be.  Maybe a future generation of unionists will find them as a party more acceptable, I don't know, but their current Politicians are abhorrent to me and many others. That said, unionists have to work with them as they represent the majority of nationalists and this acknowledged and accepted by the majority of unionists however unpalatable it is.  But don't ask me or many other unionists to trust them.  It just won't happen.  The ROI government's role is accepted to but they are treated with suspicion and there is no love for them.  My view is that unionists should not let them away with operating here without being in on top of them ie no boycotting stuff just because they are about.  I would watch them like a hawk and ensure that unionists get a fair hearing and have representatives to argue their case. There are areas of benefit to all on this island through mutual co-operation and that is where unionists should be too.

In future years the arrangements needs to be redesigned.  I don't believe the current situation is workable as there is no opposition to the government in NI. In democracy that just doesn't work imo.  The daily constitutional Politics needs to end and socio-economic Politics needs to take hold as this place needs to sort itself out.  That being the case then a democratic government could be elected with an opposition and let the constitutional issue sort itself out if a referendum was called.  Unfortunately since the Politics are still so tribal and consistently pursuing silly stuff like Irish Act, Maze Development, Ulster Scots etc.  This stuff takes up so much time following party policies in a rainbow government that the important stuff gets low priority.  Unfortunately it needs to bed in for the benefit in the long run (and it is right to do so) but I'd personally prefer Direct Rule from Whitehall in the meantime.  If that is anti-GFA then so be it.  The reasons I voted against the agreement and I (and I believe the majority of unionists would too) would do so again hindsight are now now irrelevant but leave a bitter taste and mistrust.

[Roger]

You state your mistrust was based on their imperialist/irredentists reasons.  I am merely stating that I don't believe that the current government of the republic are involved for such reasons.  I explained what I believe their reasons for this involvement are.  You seem to concur.  It's immaterial who I trust/don't trust.  You maintain is perfectly logical for unionists to mistrust the current governments intentions towards nothern ireland.  I am trying desperately to understand what the logic is?  You talk of forked tongues: is it that you have reason to believe they are paying lip-service to principle of consent in the GFA while secret planning some kind of secret political/military plot on the side?

As per previous posts, the ROI government has a track record of being anti-unionist and also a bunch of liars.  If that is not the case then it certainly the perception with merit in my view. Do you not see a track record of lies and deceipt in ROI governments? I don't see how you expect unionists to be so trustworthy just because the current crop say their intentions are benign. The current crop have been demonstrates as up to their ears in all sorts of double dealing which doesn't stand for a very good character reference.

You are flip-flopping here now.  Earlier in the thread you said the army's actions (although not Lynch's) were the correct course of action.  I re-iterate that I don't see the relevance of the state of the irish army.  Would their actions be more responsible if they had a strong army.  As for comments on telly, they may have been ill-advised.  However if they were sabre-rattling is a matter of opinion and conjecture.  Many on this thread such as Lar Naparka have given back-up to their opinions to the contrary (events of the time/nature/past behaviour of Lynch.)  Your punchline appears to be that unionists politicians are straight talking whereas the republic variety are snakes.

Don't know what it means but liking the word "flip-flopping". I see the relevance of the state of the ROI army because if they had no capability, what were they up to?  Why draw up plans that couldn't be delivered?  Why go on air if standing by was all that could be done?

Quite relevant when you use derogatory terms about the same army.

I'm trying to stick to the thread title here and you want to talk about the UN.  The report on this showed that the ROI army was poorly equipped to deal with the situation.  If puny muscles is offensive then so be it but there's not intent Jim.

That is the first acknowledgement I have ever read from you.  You seem dismissive of these possibilities in general.

Hang on.  I have been observing a time when I wasn't born or at least was very young.  I didn't vote for any of the unionists then and have never had any of this so-called apartheid system which benefited me and kept themmuns down. I have stated this clearly that I understand where unionists were coming from whether right or wrong is open to debate.  I also stated that this debate is of little value now for the future given that there is so much division on the issue and it is such a flammable subject.

Hmmm but in the previous sentence you were exercised by what suited unionists right back to WW2??  In my opinion unionist intransgience towards non-violent, democratic nationlism (SDLP for example) forced the hand to go over their heads.  The most british of british and conservative of conservative governments saw fit to give this accomodation.  Ever countenance it was for more reasons than just their untrustworthyness?  Is it a case for unionism that everyone is marching out of step except my Johnny

Ok, tell me one thing that unionists could point to that the ROI has done for their benefit that wouldn't be against everything they stand for?  Tell me what this duty of care by the Republican state has ever done for them even though they are supposedly citizens of this state where they weren't born or want to join?  Why would a unionists in 1985 ever want a foreign government involved in their affairs against their will? Tell me what the Republic's response would have been like if UK had a say in the affairs of the Republic because the minority there feel they are British and got a rotten time from the majority?  Maybe Turkey should have a say in Germany?  How about Morocco in France? Tell me of any country around the globe would have welcomed that in the same situation?

I am not criticising unionists, I am trying to parse and understand your criticisms/fears of the irish government. (criticisms/fears your are representing as those of mainstream unionism).  Your criticisms of nationalism are just a bit of whataboutery in this context.

Only slightly fair point about whataboutery because unionists have to be joined at the hip with nationalists yet you want them to trust nationalists yet won't see the faults there as relevant that cause mistrust.