Martin Sheen proud of uncle's IRA past

[thir]

t:
I do not know what you are refering to here, but surely the army uses assassins? And drones? And bombs meant for hostile leaders?

MMI
I'm referring to Collins and his "Squad" - highly paid sneak assassins.

t:
And this is different from what armies do - how??

t:
So, when the Sovjet Union took half of Europe after WW2 to make a buffer zone, they were within their right?
If, theoreticallly speaking, it had been possible for Ireland to invade parts of West England to protect their shores, they would have been within their right?

MMI:
Look at it this way. If the Soviets had not created a buffer zone, and the US had invaded Russia, their country would have fallen due entirely to their lack of precaution.

t:
USSR would have fallen anyway, they were in no shape to fight any more, with a ruined country and 20 mill dead. But anyway I simply say that you have no right to invade another country for such reasons.

MMI:
Or look at it this way. West Europe was the USA's buffer zone and had troops stationed all over the western nations, just in case of a Red invasion.

t:
And they had no right to do that either.

D;
Historically speaking, Ireland did invade the western British Isles many times, and it has been confirmed in an earlier post that this was perfectly acceptable at the timer.

t:
Not by me, I do not agree.

MMI:
If Ireland was under threat from a third country, and could protect itself by invading Cornwall (and was strong enough to), do you think it would not?

t:
I do not know, but I think they have no right.

t:
You have to distinguish between military invasion, and immigration. But I see colonization as invasion too.

MMI:
I'm not so sure a distinction is always necessary,

t:
But you do agree that there is a difference between immigrants and an invading army?

MMI:
but the Spanish Conquest was certainly military, the
British-Americans and their USA successors were pretty ruthless against the native indians, and the Australian colonials' treatment of the Aborigines left much to be desired. My point stands: England's authority over Ireland predates the creation of many other countries.

t: What do you mean - the creation of other countries? They weren't really there, until the English took them?
t:
Quote Originally Posted by thir View Post
No country invites invasion

MMI:
In 1169, Dermot MacMurrough invited a force of Norman knights to help him recover the throne of Leinster, which the High King of Ireland had deprived him of. As a result of this action, Dermott swore fealty to the English King and he was restored to his kingship.

t:
Come on! Inviting the enemy for his own ends is not a country inviting someone in.

MMI:
How many car-bombs have the British left in busy Irish shopping streets? How many letter bombs have they posted? How many passenger trains have they blown up? How many doors have they knocked on and shot whoever answered?

t: I do not defend terrorism, no matter who are doing it.

But in general, there seems to be a tendency to think that in a conflict you have to kill like an army would, even if you are not an army, and any way an army kills is just ok, because it is an army.

MMI:
All of those things were done by Irishmen against Irishmen and THAT is the whole of the problem.

t: the jews were doing it all to themselves - ups, must have been thinking of something else.
Anyway I lost track. What do you mean that is the whole of the problem?

t:
What right does any pope have to give away other people's lands?

MMI:
Back in those days, the Pope did have the right. In fact, Argentina's claim to own the Falkland Islands is based upon a Papal edict

t:
But what, IYO, gives the Pope the right to decide who's country is whose?

t:
England took Ireland, and any act of rebellion is the right of any invaded country.

MMI:
An invaded country has the right to resist an invader, agreed, but England did NOT "take" Ireland. Ireland submitted itself to England.

t
It wasn't invaded, it just submitted?

MMI:
And that happened in the 12th century! Thereafter it remained an independent lordship/kingdom until 1800, ruled by a person who also happened to be king of England (like the Isle of Man, for example), and, later, king of Scotland too.

t:
Independant, but ruled by the king of England..?

MMI:
In 1800 Ireland became an integral part of the United Kingdom, exactly the same as Scotland or Wales. Who calls Scotland or Wales an English colony?

t:
Ehm - the Welsh and the Scots? Have you tried to call the Scots or Welsh English by mistake? You only get away with it by way of being an ignorant foreigner and a small female person as well, and to promise that you will never, ever say it again ;-))

MMI:
Neither was Ireland; nor is Northern Ireland a colony now.

t:
Of course Ireland was a colony, so regarded by the rest of the world. But I doubt we can get any further discussing it, we'd only be repeating ourselves.

MMI:
At that time, the Irish Lords took seats in the House of Lords in England, and Irish Parliamentarians sat in the House of Commons, with the same voting rights as everyone else.

t: sorry, at what time?

t:
Just as the other colonies Ireland had so much trouble getting back on its feet economically

MMI:
Economically, Ireland was better off as part of the UK than not.

t:
They were really much better off, and you could teach them some civilisation..

MMI
Britain was responsible for the industrialisation of the North, which, for example, gave birth to the Titanic.

t:
LOL - not a good example!

MMI:
Once the Republic became independent, it became a third world nation,

t:
My! Just like that?

MMI:
and stayed that way until EU euros brought the short-lived Celtic Tiger into being.

t:
Actually the Celtic revival started way long before that, 18something and onwards.

MMI:
Ireland is now paying for its profligacy. But that's not our fault.

t:
Profligate | Define Profligate at Dictionary.com

adjective. 1. utterly and shamelessly immoral or dissipated; thoroughly dissolute. 2. recklessly prodigal or extravagant.

Of course - all their fault.