the war is officially over

today it was decreed that all arms of the IRA had been decomissioned. every accountable, handgun, rifle, mortar, missle, grenade and bomb put beyond use and destroyed. the ira as a violent organistion is over. also the criminality of the ira has also ended since it's statement in june.

this means that the terrorism and war from the ira is now once and for all done. 30 years of violence and a 100 year fight for independance ended today. witnessed and verified.

and the unionist response? well ignore the fact that they just broke their cease fire and had a bit of a riot last week. they said it wasn't good enough and were not prepared to do the same and disarm.

but now the rest of the peace process will start. the removal of symbols and coats of arms, the watch towers, the ruc and maybe the parliament will reopen.

but today the war with the ira ended.

Too bad. I was rather hoping that Ireland would eventually become independent.

Then again, I can't say I would have liked the IRA, as such, to be the ones to head that new government. Yeah... getting rid of the IRA is a good thing. And they used to have such lovely ideals.

I honestly don't understand the political ramifications of any of this at all, but I'm glad the fighting's over. It had been ravaging that region for far too long.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Man

I honestly don't understand the political ramifications of any of this at all, but I'm glad the fighting's over. It had been ravaging that region for far too long.

---

Yeah what the last to crappers said. :D Go America!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by udsuna

Too bad. I was rather hoping that Ireland would eventually become independent.

---

The IRA murdered thousands of innocents - "too bad" is hardly how I'd describe their disarmament.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by udsuna

Too bad. I was rather hoping that Ireland would eventually become independent.

---

The IRA murdered thousands of innocents - "too bad" is hardly how I'd describe their disarmament.

---

Thank you.

As you can probably see from other threads, I'm far from convinced by this. Hopeful, but not convinced. Nevertheless, thirty years of bending over backwards to accomodate terrorists isn't a proud mark in Britain's pages.

Edit: I could name another war which has been officially over for some time now, but which people are only too happy to point out the violence in the region continues. Of course, rather than place the blame on the people doing the killing-and-maiming bit, they're probably going to blame Blair for not making enough concessions.

Or Bush. Bush is a good condidate for blame.

Hmm... I prefer to think that Britain's strategies (regarding the IRA) have been fairly solid, considering the circumstances. Not overbearingly violent and oppressive, since that'd inevitably harm the innocent more than the guilty, and pursuing a peaceful solution - even where it called for compromise. But even though peace was the ultimate goal, they weren't afraid to use force where it was needed. A combination of brain and brawn, perhaps.

Quote:

---

Of course, rather than place the blame on the people doing the killing-and-maiming bit, they're probably going to blame Blair for not making enough concessions.

Or Bush. Bush is a good condidate for blame.

---

I'd have to disagree on this point, since the latest round of military action in Iraq was instigated by outside forces, with the first civilian deaths of the war coming from "our" bombs. Now, of course, the situation's different - the presence of coalition forces in Iraq is essential to the rebuilding and stabilising of the country, and this'll naturally require a 'hard line' against those who're trying to further the cycles of violence. However, even though there's still a lot of hostility there, overwhelming military force cannot prevail - since it'll only divide, injure and provoke the innocent populations whose wellbeing is meant to be one of the primary objectives.

or Britain could just pull out of Northern Ireland like they pulled out of the rest of their colonial holdings. Why are the Irish any less deserving of freedom than Indians, or South Africans, or Americans?

Britian is still the head of state for 18 nations, 2 of which are suspended.

Agus sin é... buiochas le Dia.

If they don't want to be under british control then they should have that right. All it takes is them not paying taxes and stuff like that. Then when big bad britian comes knock tell them to smurf off...or something like that :erm: Worked for America a long time ago ;_;

It's not as simple as that, over the years Britain populated Ireland with loyalist Scottish clans who are now here for many generations and rightfully citizens. The trouble is they still don't class themselves as Irish.

This massive step by the IRA was still not enough for unionism, as I suspected...whatyagonna do.

In regards to the IRA killing thousands of innocents, this is true in some respects, but they share that mantel with Loyalism & Britrish forces.

Now with the IRA done with violence it would probably be the right time for me to get my citizenship there :D When my Dad gets around to getting it then so will I(Grandfather was from Ireland)...or so I have been told :shifty:

britain had no choice but to negotiate with the ira after the mull of kintyre crash.

they lost all their intelligence in one go and suddenly had no defence against the ira. with that crash they effectively lost control and had no options left.and the ira compromised and have constantly stuck to the deal. once the good friday agreement was signed they dropped in actions. when disarmament was called for they did. and it was veified and checked. when the end to criminality was called for that too seems to have been done.

when it comes down to it they have been pretty good on their word. unlike the unionists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eestlinc

or Britain could just pull out of Northern Ireland like they pulled out of the rest of their colonial holdings. Why are the Irish any less deserving of freedom than Indians, or South Africans, or Americans?

---

Because the people of Northern Ireland actually want to remain British.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eestlinc

or Britain could just pull out of Northern Ireland like they pulled out of the rest of their colonial holdings. Why are the Irish any less deserving of freedom than Indians, or South Africans, or Americans?

---

Because the people of Northern Ireland actually want to remain British.

---

Sweet little half-truth there. Half of the population do, the half that colonised here from Scotland & England.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cuchulainn

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eestlinc

or Britain could just pull out of Northern Ireland like they pulled out of the rest of their colonial holdings. Why are the Irish any less deserving of freedom than Indians, or South Africans, or Americans?

---

Because the people of Northern Ireland actually want to remain British.

---

Sweet little half-truth there. Half of the population do, the half that colonised here from Scotland & England.

---

First, the Irish side of my family has lived in the North for longer than we can trace with any certainty. Most of them have absolutely no desire to see a united Ireland.

Second, the logical conclusion of that argument is that only the first people who existed have valid claim to any land. And we all come from the same place. Ergo, the argument is nullified. Unless you want to actually find some Neolithic cavemen and ask them what they think, of course. Edit: Sorry, not Neolithic, Mesolithic cavemen were the ones who went over there first.

Finally, it's not like this mass emigration happened a decade ago. There is a certain point (Though I confess very hard to define and one which changes depending on many circumstances) where a person (Or at least a family line) stops being wherever they emigrated from, and become wherever they emigrated to.

So here's the two elections which should take place;

In Northern Ireland, among residents of Northern Ireland, whether or not they wish to join the Republic of Ireland.

In the Republic, whether or not they wish to admit Northern Ireland to be part of the nation.

If that works out in a way people don't like, then both sides should open their borders to the other so that people can choose to live in whichever side they prefer. It's an imperfect and flawed solution, but at least it means anyone stranded in a nation they dislike or don't wish to live in can easily move to what one presumes to be their preferred destination (Which, by the by, ought to be the case everywhere in my opinion.).

I am not entering into another forum tennis match where reply meets reply with neither side waivering, which is why I did respond to your other post on another topic. All I will say is that the people who consider tghemselves Irish want a united Ireland, those who smite the word don't. This breaks down to the Scottish & English settlers over a period over 400 years. The Celtic settlers embedded themselves long before that.

The problem with Unionists is that they fear losing their identity if they say they're Irish, and thus their allegiance to the Crown. This brings up the problem and dilemma of, if you are not Irish, don't want to be labeled as Irish, why are you in Ireland and want a equal say? I am well aware of the Unionist suspicions and fears, and understand much of them, but they need to lose the fear of change. Without that we will still be shooting eachother. I, along with a lot of people, have lost friends & family. I have also seen & done things which I'm not proud of and do not wish on anyone. This country needs to lose it's festering hate and festering mistrust in order to move anywhere.

The only thing I object to in what you say is that you blanket your claims to the whole population. Not ALL of our residents want to remain British, not ALL of our residents think the IRA are still active. Some do, most accept, while more could have been done to PROVE it, that more WASN'T done to try and save face.

I Love my country and still hope for a united Ireland, I just thank God we can all try peacefully now.

The next move is the Unionist/Loyalist one. I'm not expecting much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cuchulainn

The problem with Unionists is that they fear losing their identity if they say they're Irish, and thus their allegiance to the Crown. This brings up the problem and dilemma of, if you are not Irish, don't want to be labeled as Irish, why are you in Ireland and want a equal say? I am well aware of the Unionist suspicions and fears, and understand much of them, but they need to lose the fear of change. Without that we will still be shooting eachother. I, along with a lot of people, have lost friends & family. I have also seen & done things which I'm not proud of and do not wish on anyone. This country needs to lose it's festering hate and festering mistrust in order to move anywhere.

---

Perhaps they view being Irish as something different, though? To use a stereotypical parallel, some people consider being American to be loyal to the President and supporting the troops. Whereas some people consider being American to be ready to voice dissent and to try constantly to change the system. But I agree, the country does need to try and move on. I know many people on the Northern side of the border who are unecessarily distrustful and make various assumptions which are usually untrue.

Quote:

---

The only thing I object to in what you say is that you blanket your claims to the whole population. Not ALL of our residents want to remain British, not ALL of our residents think the IRA are still active. Some do, most accept, while more could have been done to PROVE it, that more WASN'T done to try and save face.

---

That's entirely fair and I apologise for giving that impression/any time I may have overtly made such claims. It was unfair and I got dragged into the heat of the debate.