@jpgredsox:

You STILL haven't told me why it's OK to kill them for crimes their government might have committed centuries ago but they themselves did not...

By your logic, the Germans killed 6 million of my people--

Is it OK if the Israeli army and I nuke the hell out of Munich? After all, that's where Nazi headquarters was...and if we can bomb people and areas based on past wrongs in Ireland, even though currently the young boys serving there have done no wrong, why not nuke some innocent German soliders?

Their GOVERNMENT did something wrong to my people 70 years ago, so clearly now I am entitled to hurt them, right?

@Putin:

Ah...we meet again--it's been awhile! How have you been? :)

(And incidentally, I ALWAYS like how wehen we meet, even though I'm a registered Democrat, I'm somehow on the Right compared to you...lol.)

"So Obi is even against military targets as targets? Even soldiers are "innocent"?"

...Yes...

Just because they're in the military doesn't automatically make them OK to hit...there has to be...what was that word that was tossed around so much earlier in this discussion...

"JUST CAUSE."

Yes, that--"just cause."

If I, today, for no reason, blow up a truckload of French soldiers...well, the French soldiers haven't done anything to me or my government...

So I have no just cause to blow them up, ergo, NO, it is NOT fair to bomb them, that's rather like kicking someone in the back without any warning or provocation whatsoever.

And I'm FAMILIAR with the UN's law, thank you--I'll actually be arguing that very bylaw as North Korea at an upcoming conference in our masterplan to screw Israel and give the Palestinians their land back (I disagree with that, at least partially, but hey, we drew North Korea, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia, you gotta play the hand yu're dealt.) ;)

Northern Ireland IS legally recognized as part of the UK by the UN.

ERGO, the are NOT under occupation as recognized by the UN, ego, your point about them is null and void (though I'm sure you'll argue otherwise, be my guest, wouldn't have it any other way.)

And I am NOT a hypocrite here in the Britain/Libya example...

BRITAIN is no longer harming the Northern Irish to such a degree that there are secret police and all the trappings of Ghadaffi's government that I opposed and so SUPPORTED Libya then BECAUSE their government had failed AND oppressed them CURRENTLY and IN THE PRESENT...

Show me evidence that England has secret police or are secretly beating Northern Irish citizens and taxing them blind and I'll support your view.

HOWEVER, they do NOT; there are doubtless some isolated incidents, but unless you can uncover the English SS for me, their offenses are in the PAST.

And I'm not interested in harming or blaming people for the past.



After all...to do so would be not only rather illogical, but pretty petty, right?

The British completely destroyed any attempts by Ireland to become a sovereign nation and a developed country. Only after the deaths of combined millions after centuries of British rule did the Irish manage to gain independence. Nevertheless, a United Ireland is still desired, as Northern Ireland is still occupied, yes, occupied. I could give two shits what the useless UN says. North Ireland is under military occupation, and necessary lengths are justifiable to attempt to free N.I. from this occupation. Any soldiers enforcing this hangover, 21st century colonization are certainly military targets. This is not about the English government hurting N.I./Ireland years ago; it is still going on in the occupation of N.I. Thus, your Nazi/Israel argument makes no sense.

Umm, jpg, not to enter this late, but what about the fact that a vast majority of N.I. residents do NOT want to leave the UK, and do not see themselves as occupied? Relevant at all?

So basically it comes down to this: If Obi likes your government, then every agent of your government is "innocent", no matter if they're occupying a foreign country or not, even the soldiers which sign up to be the armed muscle of state policy. If Obi doesn't like your government, then you do not even have the UN recognized right to defend your territorial integrity from terrorists, ala Libya. It all comes down to whether Obi, from on high, likes your government or not. Occupation and annexation is apparently a lesser sin than "oppressing" your people by making them one of the most prosperous and equal in all the developing world. Blatant acts of aggression and colonialism are excused, self-defense is condemned.

And FYI, British police repression of Irish republicans went on as recently as the mid 1990s. Ever heard of the Maze? Ever heard of the hunger strikes? The troubles? Internment?

jpg you still havn't commented on your woeful lack of historical knowledge...

"Umm, jpg, not to enter this late, but what about the fact that a vast majority of N.I. residents do NOT want to leave the UK, and do not see themselves as occupied? Relevant at all?"

I'm sure the ethnically cleansed territory of North Cyprus doesn't want to return to Cypriot rule. After all, they got rid of the Greeks and sold the unoccupied houses to Turkish settlers. Good analogy. And the settlers of the West Bank don't want to return to Palestinian rule. And the settlers of South Africa didn't want to return to black majority rule. The settlers of Malvinas didn't want to return to Argentinian rule. And on and on and on.

@semck83 Wow really? A vast majority? Yeah, right. AT MOST 50-50 split decision.
@Santa What have I said that's inaccurate? I believe that the British takeover of Ireland in the 1500s set up the brutal methods they used on Native Americans, just like the Spanish experience in the Azores set the Spanish up.

Uh huh. Thing is, Putin, last time anything vaguely analogous to what you're talking about happened in NI was centuries ago.

"Umm, jpg, not to enter this late, but what about the fact that a vast majority of N.I. residents do NOT want to leave the UK, and do not see themselves as occupied? Relevant at all?"

THANK YOU!!!

See, this is why its DIVIDED, jpgredsox...

Ireland has a state, and Northern Ireland wanted to stay in the UK.

YOU call it brainwashing...

Funny--some of the best Irish authors and thinkers of the 209th century--including James Joyce--thought tht while a freer Ireland was needed, the connection to the UK was economically and politically to their benefit...

Hence the reason some stayed and some left.



But go on and argue about people as if they all are of one mind.

(Talk about brainwashed lemmings...)

Ok, no. This is ridiculous. Joyce DID NOT AT ALL BELIEVE THE BRITISH PRESENCE WAS ACCEPTABLE. Have you read Dubliners? There are two things Joyce believed were holding ireland back: roman Catholic church, and the British. he makes so many negative allusions to the british throughout.

@jpg, http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/belfast-telegraph-exclusive-poll-on-united-ireland-14721124.html

Now I'll admit that 55% is not the vast majority I claimed (sorry), but it's well over 50%, and it's certainly enough to refute your claims of "occupation." Moreover, these are not recent transplants (like the Palestinians). These are the people who have lived there for centuries.

*Correction: "like the Palestinians" should read "like the Israelis." I did not mean to start a huge debate. :-P

"Uh huh. Thing is, Putin, last time anything vaguely analogous to what you're talking about happened in NI was centuries ago."

Er...what? Irish were driven from their homes on a large scale as recently as 1969. Bombay Street anyone? I wish one of the 'historians' around here would correct others about their history.

What planet are people on that they think the problems of northern Ireland all occurred centuries ago and now it's all sunshine and bunnies?

perhaps If I had any clue about modern Irish history. Unlike some computer chair marxists around here I try to stay out of conversations I don't have knowledge about. And you can take the quotations of of historian I have the degree to prove it.

Garbage. The British and the unionists work to ensure the polls are fraudulent. Ulster should really be 9 counties, not 6, but the British rigged it to ensure a majority. And I think the brutality and discrimination the Irish have suffered at the hands of imperialism more than justifies that the land should be theirs.

He and WB Yetas also worried about the economic situation without the British, however.

And he DEFINITELY wasn't as anti-British, black-and-white asn you so desperately want to make him out to be...

For one thing, he wasn't on board with the movement by some Irish nationists to make Gaelic the national language again--

Which is understandable, given that since he wrote all his great works in ENGLISH, he'd be quite out of an audience and job if that were to occur.

;)

And he and Yeats BOTH portray past revolutionaries as heroes--Yeats' "Spring 1913" comes to mind--but both realize that there's a middle ground between nationalism and occupation in full...

Hence Yeats' poem "No Second Troy"--both writing about his lover that he could never get on with--comparing her to Helen of Troy--while reminding his audience that, just as the glroious Troy of the past is gone forever, and to ressurect it and expect it to be perfect as before would be folly, the same would be true of a wholly-British-free IReland.

You apparently have enough knowledge to browbeat someone about the timeline of Irish history vis-a-vis the Indian wars.

@jpg, Yes, Ulster used to be 9 counties, not 6, and these 6 split off, because these 6 didn't want to leave....
and what's wrong with that? Why should they be forced to leave?
@putin, I think the point is that you have to solve the problem you have today. It's not just to start shipping these people off overseas because their great great great ... great grandparents may have been interlopers. They're natives now. Nor is it fair to ignore their opinion, as though they somehow don't count. That's the kind of planet I live on.

"...that she would of late
Have taught to ignorant men most violent ways,
Or hurled the little streets upon the great,
Had they but courage equal to desire? 5
What could have made her PEACEFUL with a mind..."

*Emphasis added to peaceful"

Just as Helen allowed and spurred men to fight a war they should never have fought--they could have had Troy seperate PEACEFULLY, you see...



You like things in such black-and-white, right-and-wrong terms, I must wonder how much actual life experience you have here...

I don't have much, admittedly...

But I have ENOUGH to know the world doesn't work in the clean-cut way you'd like ti to morally

Im sorry, Is Irish history in 1600 Modern Irish history in Marxist Historiography? I studied Early American history, including the colonization process which included the colonization of ireland in the 16th and 17th centuries. My knowledge ceases after American Independence.

You people seem to love the English "majority" in N.I. That "majority" was brought about by massacres, enslavement, starvation, and forced relocation. How you can possibly justify that the British government, which oppressed the people of ALL of Ireland----not just the current-day Ireland, but Northern Ireland, ought to stay retain control on a certain section of Ireland is absurd. The British ruled over all of Ireland, it's just that the Ulster plantation was centered in a particular area of the island and when Irish independence became clear the British government wanted to maintain a foothold on the island to continue their imperialism after World War I.

So a minority enclave has the right to veto the will of the rest of the island because they happen to have the good fortune of having a powerful state sponsor and have been the beneficiaries of centuries of continued favoritism and discrimination in their favor.

I'm not in favor of "shipping people overseas", nor is anybody else advocating the kind of cleansing that put the privileged minority in their position. The solution being offered is a transfer of sovereignty.

@Putin, whether it's a majority or minority enclave, of course, depends how you draw lines. Why does the will of the rest of Ireland extend to that portion of it that doesn't want to leave? Why not draw lines instead and view them as two? Does every land mass have to be viewed as a whole politically? These may be easy questions in your frivolous worldview, but I don't think they are in real life.

Frankly Northern Ireland is an ugly reminder of the worst of British history and culture. Let Ireland have it, save a boatload of money and call it a day.

Hey, jpgredsox...

This thread was ORIGINALLY about a bomb-plotting terrorist you were upset being gunned down for, well, being a bomb-plotting terrorist--but on American soil, damnit, adn that automatically means we shouldn't kill him, no matter what he's plotting!--right?

Did you just decide to go off on an Irish Nationalism tangent and forget?

@SC:

What if the Northern Irish want to stay in the UK?

(I'm not saying they do, but if they do...are we going to tell them they must either stay where they are and not be in the UK or else leave their homes to stay in?)

Yeah that's the problem, SC -- they do. You can no more say "Let Ireland have Northern Ireland" than you can say "Let Holland have New York" (sad to say). They're citizens of a country and have certain rights.

(Note to New Yorkers: I'M JOKING).

To any English posters here, may I ask a real, honest, not-charged--gasp!--question?

Why not allow Scotland, Wales, and all of Ireland sovereignty, and form the UK as a sort of EU collection of these four?

That way they have sovereignty and the logic and stength of the UK would seem to stay intact...?

Again, I'm not the most knowledgable about UK politics, so I don't know if that's just totally absurd...but if the Germans and French can form the EU together, why can't teh English, Scots, Welsh, and Irish get along well enough to form the UK in this way?