British troops withdraw from Northern Ireland

[Connemara]

As of August 1st, 2007, the British Army's Operation Banner is completed. Operation Banner is the codename of the 38 year occupation of Northern Ireland. Watchtowers and security centers have been demolished, the troop garrison in the Occupied Six Counties is now at 5,000, and the Royal Irish Regiment (borne out of a terrorist organization....never quite shed its roots) has been stood down. Most are calling it the end of an era, the end of the Troubles. Technically, it is the end of the longest operation in the British Army's history. The best we can do is hope that the North of Ireland we see in the future won't be all about bloodshed, hatred, and a tortured existence. A story about it: http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/uls...cle2814702.ece

 

[Connemara]

Damnit. Can someone move this to CE?

 

[zjpj83]

Why do you, and many others, continue to fail to understand what an "occupation" is? An occupation occurs after a military action by a foreign power when that foreign military maintains political control over the region. If there is a local authority other than the military, then there is no occupation. Despite what many would have you believe, and the way the term is thrown around these days, presence in a country does not = occupation. Whatever the presence in Northern Ireland was, it was not an occupation. I know it sounds nice to say. But it just isn't true.

 

[Connemara]

Originally Posted by zjpj83

Why do you, and many others, continue to fail to understand what an "occupation" is? An occupation occurs after a military action by a foreign power when that foreign military maintains political control over the region. If there is a local authority other than the military, then there is no occupation. Despite what many would have you believe, and the way the term is thrown around these days, presence in a country does not = occupation. Whatever the presence in Northern Ireland was, it was not an occupation. I know it sounds nice to say. But it just isn't true.

Well, the British have been occupying Ireland for hundreds of years and Northern Ireland since about 1921. Against the will of the people, mind you.

 

[zjpj83]

Originally Posted by Connemara

Well, the British have been occupying Ireland for hundreds of years and Northern Ireland since about 1921. Against the will of the people, mind you.

Re-read my post. You don't know what "occupying" means.

Northern Ireland has representation in the House of Commons, the House of Lords, the European Parliament, and, of course, the Northern Ireland Assembly, not to mention the district councils.

 

[saint]

Originally Posted by Connemara

Well, the British have been occupying Ireland for hundreds of years and Northern Ireland since about 1921. Against the will of the people, mind you.

One could make the same assertion about this country, at least as far as the hundreds of years part goes. I don't see you, or anyone else for that matter, volunteering to return to their family's country of origin.

 

[sjmin209]

Originally Posted by zjpj83

Why do you, and many others, continue to fail to understand what an "occupation" is? An occupation occurs after a military action by a foreign power when that foreign military maintains political control over the region. If there is a local authority other than the military, then there is no occupation.
Unless, of course, the military establishes the "local authority" to rule in its name, and/or when that "local authority" depends upon the foreign military to maintain its "authority."

Originally Posted by zjpj83

Despite what many would have you believe, and the way the term is thrown around these days, presence in a country does not = occupation. Whatever the presence in Northern Ireland was, it was not an occupation. I know it sounds nice to say. But it just isn't true.
What, then, would you call it, zjpj? Seems to me if you're going to get all hot under the button down about a term being misapplied, you could at least propose what you believe to be a more accurate alternative.

 

[seanchai]

Originally Posted by zjpj83

Re-read my post. You don't know what "occupying" means.

Northern Ireland has representation in the House of Commons, the House of Lords, the European Parliament, and, of course, the Northern Ireland Assembly, not to mention the district councils.

NOT TO MENTION during the 1800s the whole island was overrepresented at Westminster, with an Irishman's vote being technically worth more than a Londoner's.

Not an occupation if they were invited there!

 

[Connemara]

Originally Posted by zjpj83

Re-read my post. You don't know what "occupying" means.

Northern Ireland has representation in the House of Commons, the House of Lords, the European Parliament, and, of course, the Northern Ireland Assembly, not to mention the district councils.

The British are occupying a portion of the Irish Republic, established by Dail Eireann in 1919. That's it, case closed.

 

[Manton]

Originally Posted by Connemara

The British are occupying a portion of the Irish Republic, established by Dail Eireann in 1919. That's it, case closed.

Case closed. Except for the events of 1921-22, and the clear will of the majority of the people living in those six counties over the last 85 years. So, case open.

You are a fool. Go there and join a militia and die like the brave insurgent you only wish you were. Until then, you'll just be another bar room IRA-wannabe Yank, with a blood alcohol level higher than the most stereotypical Irish drunk, singing "Danny Boy" and dreaming of the homeland you have never ever bothered to visit. Every decent Irishman I know -- north and south -- holds Internet warriors like you in utter contempt. Oh, and the shortest, oldest and most out of shape of all of them could kick your ass.

 

[GreyFlannelMan]

Originally Posted by Connemara

The British are occupying a portion of the Irish Republic, established by Dail Eireann in 1919. That's it, case closed.

The most idealistic are those who don't have to live with the realities of the situation.

 

[sjmin209]

Originally Posted by seanchai

Not an occupation if they were invited there!
By this logic, the Soviets never occupied Afghanistan, the Nazis never occupied Czechoslovakia, etc.

 

[Manton]

Originally Posted by sjmin209

By this logic, the Soviets never occupied Afghanistan, the Nazis never occupied Czechoslovakia, etc.

The Soviets invaded Afghanistan. The Nazis took Czechoslovakia in a two stage process of intimidation, massed armies, and political skullduggery. Try again.

 

[sjmin209]

Originally Posted by Manton

The Soviets invaded Afghanistan. The Nazis took Czechoslovakia in a two stage process of intimidation, massed armies, and political skullduggery. Try again.

Of course both of them invaded. But it's also true that both of them used an invitation (from elements in Taraki's government in the Breznev's case, from the Nazi-sponsored Sudeten minority in Hitler's case) as a pretext for their invasions. I was merely pointing out that one cannot say absolutely, as seanchai did, that "there was no occupation if they were invited there," as occupying forces almost always claim to have been invited in.

 

[Manton]

Using puppets (Afghanistan) or phony aggreived ethnic minorites with guns to their head (Nazis) really is not the same as the 800 year old problem of Ireland. Conne likes to think it is simple. Through the bottom of a shot glass, perhaps it appears so.