Let's wind Bert up, shall we ?

finneys13 · 10-22-2007, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sir Bert Preast:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by finneys13:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by Sir Bert Preast:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by finneys13:
No, Sinn Féin wasn't Marxist at all, quite conservative really apart from wanting a Republic, but the majority where happy with dominion status, something Westminister would never have given by pure political means, even if the vast majority of the island wanted it.

What was the 3rd home rule bill about then? </BLOCKQUOTE>

Was passed in 1912, postponed to 1914 because of the House of Lords being old farts, it was very light in powers to Dublin, something like the Welsh Assembly really, not what the Home Rule MPs wanted ot the people at large.

Ireland was about to have a Civil War as a small minority in the NE didn't want Home Rule, the British Army almost mutinied because of it, and then some ostrich was shot by Archie Duke, which Westminister used as an excuse to postpone Home Rule again. </BLOCKQUOTE>

The north did want home rule - just not under Dublin. If the Irish had waited until after WW1 they would probably have got independence without all the unpleasantness. Typical gingers.

How is it every time we go to war with France the Scots stab us in the back, and every time we go to war with Germany the Irish stab us in the back. It's really quite unfair. </BLOCKQUOTE>

The British were never going to give us independence, even after the IRA war we only got dominion status.

The Northern Unionists didn't want Home Rule originally, but the idea grew on them when they realised that the South was getting it.

DJ · 10-22-2007, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sir Bert Preast:
That's what we did in GW1. Saddam got ****ed over and came out crowing about his great victory.

He got a bloody nose, but was esteemed to be too important a stabilizing factor in the region to be kicked out. Given such encouragement, it's no wonder he picked up where he left off...

Quote:

But it needed a war, which rather shoots your theory down.

That's a circle-theory if I've ever seen one. You declare war, then declare it's needed to avoid something evil that would cost a lot of lives or something?

Sir Bert Preast · 10-22-2007, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kizzak:

Former Spanish Prime Minister José Maria Aznar

Go on?

Retro · 10-22-2007, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by finneys13:
They tried to limit themselves to military targets, but of course civilians died as 'collateral damage'.

Well, is that a generally accepted view - or is it the view of an apologist?

If we're talking in historical terms, the irish rising would have simply been called a rebellion and those involved would be rebels. If they attacked the power bases of the British in Ireland (regardless of civilian casualties) then I'd be more inclined to regard them as rebels.

Once the IRA began targetting civilians in Britain and Ireland, they became terrorists.

Kizzak · 10-22-2007, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sir Bert Preast:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by Kizzak:

Former Spanish Prime Minister José Maria Aznar

Go on? </BLOCKQUOTE>

Or you could just google it

Quote:

Saddam Hussein offered to step down and go into exile one month before the invasion of Iraq, it was claimed last night.

Fearing defeat, Saddam was prepared to go peacefully in return for £500million ($1billion).

The extraordinary offer was revealed yesterday in a transcript of talks in February 2003 between George Bush and the then Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar at the President's Texas ranch.

The White House refused to comment on the report last night.

....

However, according to the tapes, one month before he launched the invasion Mr Bush appeared convinced that Saddam was serious about going into exile.

"The Egyptians are speaking to Saddam Hussein," said Mr Bush.

"It seems he's indicated he would be prepared to go into exile if he's allowed to take $1billion and all the information he wants about weapons of mass destruction."

Asked by the Spanish premier whether Saddam - who was executed in December last year - could really leave, the President replied: "Yes, that possibility exists. Or he might even be assassinated."

But he added that whatever happened: "We'll be in Baghdad by the end of March."

Mr Bush went on to refer optimistically to the rebuilding or Iraq.

The transcript - which was published yesterday in the Spanish newspaper El Pais - was said to have been recorded by a diplomat at the meeting in Crawford, Texas, on February 22, 2003.

Mr Bush was dismissive of the then French President Jacques Chirac, saying he "thinks he's Mr Arab".

Referring to his relationship with Downing Street, he said: "I don't mind being the bad cop if Blair is the good cop."

The President added: "Saddam won't change and he'll keep on playing games.

"The time has come to get rid of him. That's the way it is."

Sir Bert Preast · 10-22-2007, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by finneys13:

The British were never going to give us independence, even after the IRA war we only got dominion status.

The Northern Unionists didn't want Home Rule originally, but the idea grew on them when they realised that the South was getting it.

Dominion status was the way things were at that time, tbf. You could be independent of course, like Belgium. But you kept getting invaded and bossed about anyway.

I do believe that the Irish intention was not to kill British civilians btw, just a little ethnic cleansing at worst. But I'm not convinced they weren't marxists. They were socialists and as we all know socialist = lying marxist.

finneys13 · 10-22-2007, 06:10 PM

Generally accepted view really, the British through the Black and Tans targeted civilians more as they couldn't find the IRA members, as they were shielded by the populace.

'You can always find a needle in a haystack, but try to find a piece of hay in a haystack'

Sir Bert Preast · 10-22-2007, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DJ:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by Sir Bert Preast:
That's what we did in GW1. Saddam got ****ed over and came out crowing about his great victory.

He got a bloody nose, but was esteemed to be too important a stabilizing factor in the region to be kicked out. Given such encouragement, it's no wonder he picked up where he left off...

Quote:

But it needed a war, which rather shoots your theory down.

That's a circle-theory if I've ever seen one. You declare war, then declare it's needed to avoid something evil that would cost a lot of lives or something? </BLOCKQUOTE>

Like sanctions?

Saddam was seen as a stabilising influence? Who the **** thought that?

TheCranker · 10-22-2007, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Retro:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by finneys13:
They tried to limit themselves to military targets, but of course civilians died as 'collateral damage'.

Well, is that a generally accepted view - or is it the view of an apologist?

If we're talking in historical terms, the irish rising would have simply been called a rebellion and those involved would be rebels. If they attacked the power bases of the British in Ireland (regardless of civilian casualties) then I'd be more inclined to regard them as rebels.

Once the IRA began targetting civilians in Britain and Ireland, they became terrorists. </BLOCKQUOTE>

Do the ends justify the means?

DJ · 10-22-2007, 06:12 PM

Re: the IRA. Isn't there a huge breaking point somewhere?

Before, they were respectable and more of a political movement than anything else.

Hard to see how they can be labeled 'terrorists' by kicking out a foreign army occupying their country, tbh. (talking about the republic here, not Ulster)

My g/fs family were all members, until the Provisionals started their violence, after which they all tore up their membership cards.

Ireland takes pride in never having started a war on anyone, including the former colonizer.

And they provided those invaluable weather data for the invasion of Normandy of course.

Let's wind Bert up, shall we ?

Grab a beer, sit back and relax.

Let's wind Bert up, shall we ?