on 16/10/01 6:52 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Rob Ettridge wrote: > > "To say that the 'British' should pull out of 'Northern Ireland' is an over > simplification." > > I certainly agree, and do not believe there are many (on a percentage basis) > in the US who hold that view. > > " As I think Colin said, one of the main problems is that > most of the population of Northern Ireland consider themselves British." > > I am not close enough to the feelings of the Northern Irish to evaluate the > nuances of that statement, but are you implying that the Protestant > (majority) generally does and the Catholic (minority) generally does not ? > > "The British Government consists of democratically elected MPs from all > sides of the conflicts, and we are all one country." > > I understand the 'democratically elected" part, but I do not fully understand > the 'all sides of the conflict' part. Could you please elaborate ? > > > " I honestly, honestly, honestly don't mean this to be a British vs US thing, > and I know that this is glib and an oversimplification but as a tenuous > example: to say that the 'British' should leave Northern Ireland makes as > much sense as saying that 'Americans' should leave Alaska or pull out of > Hawaii" > > If it is glib and an oversimplification, they why use it as an example ? My > very very limited understanding of Irish/British history is that the Irish > prior to 1800 were under British rule, but hated it. Around that time, there > was a rebellion, the British answer to which was to make Ireland part of > Britain (although Catholics were not given the right to hold office until 30 > years later). After WW1, when the Irish declared their independence, fighting > and negotiation led to southern Ireland becoming a dominion, with Northern > Ireland remaining part of the UK (presumably because most of NI was > Protestant). The end result being that, over a 120 year period, part of > Ireland became more independent of Great Britain while the other part became > more dependent (i.e., part of) Great Britain. I am sure it is more > complicated than that. However, the history is far removed from that of > Alaska and Hawaii, territories which applied for statehood and were accepted > as part of the US willfully, with no ongoing secessionist movement. > > Please note that I am a "mutt-American" - I have so many different roots I > am a man without a proper adjective. I have no particular emotional or vested > interest in the Irish situation. That said, my general view is that if one is > to engage in the terrors of war (where all is fair, in reality, in the end), > then one must have a strong and just cause. As of now, I am pretty far from > persuaded that the IRA has sufficient cause for its actions. > > On a different but related note, I am fully persuaded that the radical > Arab/Muslim terrorists do not have such strong and just cause for their > actions. I do not care if they disagree. They declared war, and clear > thinking Americans know we must and will defend ourselves against that terror. > > Finally, once again the evils committed along the lines of (if not directly > in the name of) organized religions are among the modern world's greatest. > That is one of my reasons for having walked away from organized religion - > net/net, they turn out to be divisive rather than unifying forces, IMO. > Catholic versus Protestant, Muslim versus Jew, Muslim vesus Hindu, Muslim > versus Christian, Christian versus Jew, Sunni vesus Shiite, etc. How sad.
Don't forget though, Divisive left/right politics killed 200 million people in the 20th century far more than all religions have done in the history of mankind... R
