Wulfyn

Well as the sandbox seems a little bleak of late with all the bad stuff that's going on I thought I'd hit a cheery note.

Despite a couple recent glitches the Ulster Unionists and Sinn Fein have agreed to power sharing in the Northern Ireland Assembly. A deal brokered by Tony Blair and Bertie Ahern has seen Paisley (DUP) and McGuiness (SF) agreed to take the shadow first and deputy first ministerial posistions respectively.

So, what does this mean? Well a hell of a lot actually.

The IRA might not be top of anyone's terrorism list anymore, and have certainly not had an attack as devastating as those of 9/11, but you could be sure that if they had a weapon as powerful as someone willing to die in an attack that they would have. Just do a google search on IRA bombings and you will see a long series of bombings throughout the last 4 decades. The only reason that the death tolls were not higher is that in the 90's especially many of the bombings came with a warning, allowing the areas to be evacuated. And beyond the direct attacks in England there are a long list of murders or double murders in "eye for an eye" revenge killings in Northern Ireland itself, not only by the IRA but also the anti-IRA Loyalist forces.

Despite having undergone a large troop withdrawl from Northern Ireland since the Good Friday Agreement, the British Army still have as many troops posted to Northern Ireland as they have in Iraq.


Despite nearly 10 years of negotiations, ceasefires, and agreements (initiated by the late Mo Mowlam) one question still remained and that was whether the DUP and SF could get along on a personal level. Now it seems like they are prepared to, and hopefully this will cement two less terrorist groups in the world.

__________________

El_Gringo_Grande

I don't know alot about this situation but...

Did this happen because one side or the other had better forces or because the sides finally decided to talk?

__________________
Sen. John McCain (AZ) For President '08
---
I’m not racists, I have republican friends. Radio show host.
- "The essence of tyranny is the denial of complexity". -Jacob Burkhardt
- "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" - Emerson
- "People should not be afraid of it's government, government should be afraid of it's People." - Line from V for Vendetta
- If software were as unreliable as economic theory, there wouldn't be a plane made of anything other than paper that could get off the ground. Jim Fawcette

CingularDuality

I think that you know enough about this situation for that question to be rhetorical, and that leads to my question: What compromises do you think that the western world should offer to islamic terrorists in order to broker peace?

__________________

Become a supporting member! -- Shop at the Tactical Market!

Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

Wulfyn

I think the main factor was that the negotiators started to take the terrorists seriously. I fully understand the concept that you do not negotiate with terrorists because it makes you appear weak to future terrorists, but I think the one thing that makes terrorist groups really angry is when they think that they are not being listened to.

Yeah I know - it's pretty hard to give anyone that is prepared to kill innocent people to the level they have any respect at all, but the problem is that if you keep pushing so will they, and that gets you nowhere. It was always clear that Sinn Fein (the political wing of the IRA) was calling the shots, and in fact people like Gerry Adams and Martin McGuiness were at least in part responsible for the killings and bombings. And now they hold power.

This was the main compromise that was made.

__________________

Grunt 70

I'd love to see some of our EU chaps chime in on this...

__________________
|TG-X| Grunt


"When force is necessary, it must be applied boldly, decisively, and completely. But one must know the limitations of force; one must know when to blend force with maneuver" - Leon Trotsky

Rincewind

The IRA never lacked men willing to die in attacks for their cause. Nor did the Unionists. It just wasn't a tactic on either side to have your men die in suicide bombings (just in SAF conflicts). And even with that option available (its first modern use in 1981 probably made them very aware of the tactic), I don't believe it was part of their philosophy of terrorism.

If you're not up to speed and want to educate yourself on the conflicts history, there really is not a quicker (and more even handed) place to look than on wikipedia. Look up The Trouble, IRA, PIRA, Unionist, etc.

It does look like after 10 years of promises, there may be real progress towards ending violence and animosity. To paraphrase someone wiser than me, "The best way to destroy an enemy is to make him a friend."

__________________
~~ Veritas simplex oratio est ~~
No matter how far a wizard goes, he will always come back for his hat. --T. Pratchett

<---- You know you're getting old when you rely on your forum meta-data to remind you how old you are.

Required Reading for all TG sandboxers

leejo

Really? To paraphrase someone more brutal than me "say hello to my little friend!"

Wait. That's a quote. Damn!

El_Gringo_Grande

First, thanks for the answer Wulfyn.


Now.
Actually, I don't. All I know is that the IRA bombed British places and that it has something to do with religion. And U2 was sympathetic to one side or the other... probably the IRA's.

And I am probably wrong about all that.

It was a sincere question.

But to answer your question.. None. Not a one.

Well, get out of Iraq as soon as possible but I thought going in their was a mistake to begin with. But now that we are there we have to stay and be involved in some way for the foreseeable future.

As I have said many times we should not be so dependent on the resources that come from that region. If we where more independent we could approach the other problems there (like Israel) with a much more practical and objective mindset. And quite frankly I don't think there are any compromises that would satisfy ALL the terrorists other than complete conversion to Islam. And they can stick that where ever they want.

But even if we where 100% self reliant for our energy needs I would still want America to be involved in the region. I think America can be a positive force in the region and we can help the people obtain a democratic government.

__________________
Sen. John McCain (AZ) For President '08
---
I’m not racists, I have republican friends. Radio show host.
- "The essence of tyranny is the denial of complexity". -Jacob Burkhardt
- "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" - Emerson
- "People should not be afraid of it's government, government should be afraid of it's People." - Line from V for Vendetta
- If software were as unreliable as economic theory, there wouldn't be a plane made of anything other than paper that could get off the ground. Jim Fawcette

icky

I hope that at some point in the future everyone can look back at that conflict and say "There was lots of bad blood back then but now it is a note in the history books."

__________________
Peace through fear... since 1947!

sculls

As a Irishman, I am all for the peace process i think we have had enough killing and bombing on both sides, and i think its a good thing that were moving towards the northern assembly and automity for the north.
But saying that i know that Sinn Fein want a united ireland and so do many of the people in the republic, and i am ready to welcome the unionists in to the republic, i know that the unionists would not at all be into the idea of a united ireland but maybe in time we can learn to get along. You can bet the british government feel that the north is a major thorn in their side and would rather not have to deal with some thing that was started a long time a go.
You can say the troubles are about religon since the catholics(IRA/sinn fein) and the prodestants (Dup, Loyalists) but history shows that some of the greatest irish statesmen were prodestants Charles Stewart Parnell been one example.
So for me personally its more about the land, the land that was taken from us and never given back and how the British used Ireland as fodder for her wars and classed the Irish as lessser citizens, Churchill even thought in his madness that the majority of the Irish wanted to remain in the UK even though this of course is completely untrue .
I could go one about this for quite a long time but i wont bore yous all to death.

Steeler

*cough* Two fewer terrorists.

__________________

sculls

oh yeah this sums up our history pretty good...... ***Warning: Language*** http://www.langerland.com/content/view/37/59/

leejo

This is funny, but needs a warning for language.

ABRA

I just have a quick thing to say about this from a policy perspective. No effort at integrating a militant opposition into a political process is ever about converting them all. They're not Pokemon, you don't have to catch them all. All you have to do is integrate a segment of the society into the process that is powerful enough to subjugate the rest of the opposition. Once an allied faction ascends to power in a society like Iraq, policing the rest of the opposition is as much their problem as it is yours. And they will be better at it than you on a cultural level. If you can sufficiently empower them militarily to keep the last uncompromising terrorists in line within their borders, then the problem is largely alleviated through their efforts and not your own (and you can return your military to confronting state-level enemies like Korea rather than intrastate level enemies like some sort of international FBI).

So the compromise only really has to be satisfactory to whichever segment is able to rule with your support. The rest can go to hell and will be delivered there by their fellow countrymen who you have integrated into the political process through your compromise.

This has been the containment policy of radicals since the first ancient empires. It was ours in propping up countless regimes opposed to communism. We no longer had to fight communists since the agitators were busy infighting in their own countries. This is what can contain Islamic radical terrorists as well. Keep them paralysed by fighting for their survival within their native countries against their own regimes and they will be unable to mount any kind of attack our way. Who cares at that point if they are still dead set on converting whoever to whatever.

__________________
Xbox Live Gamertag: TG ABRA
live.xbox.com/member/TG ABRA
Friend me!

Wulfyn

Actually for me this is the most important point as well, and it is proof that you just cannot go about 'setting the world to rights'. Telling people where they can and cannot live is not a good idea, whether it is in the case of imperial expansionism (such as with the British in Ireland) or as a means to try and settle a region (such as the creation of Israel).

I had a friend at university who's family are Palestinian. His great grandfather was quite a rich man owning a lot of property before the second world war. Afterwards it was all siezed from him as it was on land that would be in Israel. And yet again we see violence over land division.

I just hope that the western forces don't make the same mistake in Iraq of Afghanistan, by trying to divide the country up and force people to live in a certain way. It may seem to solve the problem short term, but I am convinced it will just rear up again in the future.


Whereas I would concede that both sides had people that were prepared to risk their lives for their cause, I still maintain that this is different to a deliberate suicide attack, which is what I meant in my passage that you quoted.

__________________