|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 335 days) Posts: 438 From: Tempe, Az. Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: A measured look at a difficult situation | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Hence, I assume the American war of independence was illegal and unjust, yes? Well it was certainly illegal and would have been found unjust as well except for England agreeing to end the conflict and accept US independence.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
That is apparently your opinion, it is not history's opinion from all I know about it, not that I'm claiming to know a lot. As long as he is in the role of legitimate authority his actions were the legal enactment of justice. What then? Are you saying he came as the military avenger of the Protestants against murdering hordes and he won? That's very possibly a legitimate argument for him too.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Inactive Member
|
Are you saying he came as the military avenger of the Protestants against murdering hordes and he won? That's a legitimate argument for him too.
He was acting on behalf of the CommonWealth government and he obviously won. Considering that he also attacked Protestant royalists in his conquest of Ireland, I'm not sure if it can be said he was simply acting as an avenger for Protestants.
As long as he is in the role of legitimate authority his actions were the legal enactment of justice.
Why was English authority legitimate in Ireland? When the Gaelic legal system had never been revoked by the public?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Inactive Member |
Oh, no worries, I know that, just trying an analogy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
According to Wikipedia the Irish Rebellion was against the English authority that was there. As it says, they were living "under English rule." It is also presented as a war between Catholics and Protestants.
Irish Rebellion of 1641 - Wikipedia
The Irish Rebellion of 1641 (Irish: ir Amach 1641) began as an attempted coup d'tat by Irish Catholic gentry, who tried to seize control of the English administration in Ireland to force concessions for the Catholics living under English rule. The coup failed and the rebellion developed into an ethnic conflict between native Irish Catholics on one side, and English and Scottish Protestant settlers on the other. This began a conflict known as the Irish Confederate Wars Ctromwell would have been acting for the English administration that was alreaqdy there. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Inactive Member |
Ctromwell would have been acting for the English administration that was alreaqdy there
English administration only directly existed in towns such as Trim and Dublin, where English colonists had lived since the coming of the Normans. I am aware that they were "under English rule", as England had effectively broken the power of native rulers in 1609. What I am asking is why does acting on behalf of a foreign imposed legal system give him authority?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Obviously because they WERE in authority.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Inactive Member |
Obviously because they WERE in authority.
Okay, so then in the American War of Independence, the British were the legal side acting in the name of justice?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
In the Revolutionary War the US declared its independence in writing but it didn't take any military action, that was initiated by the British, who I suppose could have claimed they were simply quelling an illegal rebellion. If they'd won that would have been how it was seen, but it was war and the US won. I suppose if the Irish Rebellion had succeeded and Cromwell was driven out of Ireland then you could say Ireland won the war and the English would have been ousted which was the uintent of the Rebellion in the first place. That doesn't change the fact that Cromwell's action was perfectly legal, and in fact he won and they didn't so there you have it.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Inactive Member |
So the legality and justice of actions is determined by who wins in armed conflict. Fair enough if you think that, but it's very circular isn't it? He was fully justified in attacking Ireland because he won? Did his righteousness and justice exist in an indeterminate state prior to his victory or was it always just because the future is preordained?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
So the legality and justice of actions is determined by who wins in armed conflict. Fair enough if you think that, but it's very circular isn't it? He was fully justified in attacking Ireland because he won? Did his righteousness and justice exist in an indeterminate state prior to his victory or was it always just because the future is preordained? No he wasn't justified because he won, he was justified in invading Ireland because he did so under the legitimate authority of the English administration there as I already said. I haven't said anything different than that. But since you brought up the American Revolution I considered that it could have become a war that the Irish won against England. That wouldn't have made Cromwell's actions any less legitimate but the winner of the war now has the authority it took away from the opponent. The English invasion of America was also just by the same standard I suppose, but the authority changed hands at the end because the US won. Ireland didn't win, English authority remained. I think you have an argument with history.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Inactive Member |
he was justified in invading Ireland because he did so under the legitimate authority of the English administration
This is the real question:Why was the English administrations authority legitimate? Saying they "were in authority" is not an answer. I am not asking whether they factual were in power, I am asking why their authority was legitimate in Ireland? Ireland didn't win, English authority remained. I think you have an argument with history.
Faith, as somebody born and raised in Ireland, I am aware of the fact that Ireland didn't win and that English authority remained. That is not what I am arguing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
In the Revolutionary War the US declared its independence in writing but it didn't take any military action, that was initiated by the British
Please explain how you get to this determination. The British faced an illegal, armed militia.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
The English invasion of America was also just by the same standard I suppose, but the authority changed hands at the end because the US won. Ireland didn't win, English authority remained. I think you have an argument with history. In short, despite denying having said so, your answer is that winner is ultimately justified.Je Suis Charlie Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Heathen Member (Idle past 1283 days) Posts: 1067 From: Brizzle Joined:
|
So, the religious aspect was not as prominent a determining factor in the earlier stages,
It was prominent. Catholic emancipation was a big movement in Ireland aimed at removing the restrictions placed by the British Government on Catholics.Things like allowing catholics to sit in Westminster (UK parliament) which had been disallowed for 100 years, allowing Catholics to own property (which as only landowners were allowed to vote, was instrumental in giving Catholics Voting rights also).http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_emancipation. But moving forward to the conflict in NORTHERN Ireland, this is largely born out of a deal that Michael Collins did with the british Government, drawig a boundary between north and south and allowing for partial withdrawal from the island of Ireland. that fight has been about "The Cause", i.e. the vision of a United Ireland. The religious divide has been a crutch to fuel the violence "In the name of" nationalism/unionism.Michael Collins (Irish leader) - Wikipedia religion as a more acceptable excuse for sectarian violence?
I guess religion provided "targets" for the paramilitaries, and true, the nationalist/unionist divide is split roughly along religious lines.
primarily the targets the IRA chose had some sort of value, which could include military, police or criminal.
this is generally true. now there were instances when civilians were DELIBERATELY targeted, but, by and large the IRA were known for calling in Bomb warnings under the name "Pat O Neill" and generally, when they targeted public places, there was time to evacuate.However, notable exceptions include the Warrington Bombings Warrington bombings - Wikipedia the birmingham pub bombings Birmingham pub bombings - Wikipedia here's a fairly comprehensive list of the bombings from both sides over the years. List of bombings during the Troubles - Wikipedia The IRA did have a habit of targetting people supporting the security forces, be thay cleaners, trades men or even pizza delivery people working at/delivering to police/army/british government. The loyalist paramilitaries tended to be more indiscriminate in their attacks and would simply kill any catholic who ended up in the wrong place at the wrong time. It seems that had the peaceful protests been allowed, the violence could have been averted,
A big turning point was the Civil rights march in Derry in 1972 when the British government sent in the paratroopers to a peaceful demonstration and killed 13 civilians. It became known as "Bloody Sunday"Bloody Sunday (1972) - Wikipedia This has been widely documented/investigated and there was an inquiry a few years back Was the idea of being connected with that type of terrorism a big push toward this decommissioning?
I don't think so, as the decommissioning process was going on long before 9/11.Dates were set for May/June/July 2001, these dates passed for various reasons. Decommissioning in Northern Ireland - Wikipedia
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024