Troops out now

[N_igma]

All those people dead so Gerry,Martin and the Rev could park their arses in Gov seats and drive around in Gov cars

I'd rather have that than further people being killed.

 

[Deareg]

All those people dead so Gerry,Martin and the Rev could park their arses in Gov seats and drive around in Gov cars

cant believe it after reading some of the shite you posted during another thread, but you actually hit the nail right on the head

 

[Gingerman]

I'd rather have that than further people being killed.

Yes I know,an imperfect peace is better that war

 

[butchersapron]

Where was it ever going to end though? A socialist republic? Of who? The north and south? Or just the areas that the PIRA werre forced to defend in the early days?

 

[Gingerman]

cant believe it after reading some of the shite you posted during another thread

So its shite that i dont belive in vigilantes then

 

[Gingerman]

Where was it ever going to end though? A socialist republic? Of who? The north and south? Or just the areas that the PIRA werre forced to defend in the early days?

Wont be a socialist republic,we like our consumerism too much for that malarkey

 

[Deareg]

Where was it ever going to end though? A socialist republic? Of who? The north and south? Or just the areas that the PIRA werre forced to defend in the early days?

any notion of a socialist republic went out the window when the provos became the dominant force among republicans

 

[Deareg]

So its shite that i dont belive in vigilantes then

we both know their is a little bit more to it than that

 

[butchersapron]

any notion of a socialist republic went out the window when the provos became the dominant force among republicans

Exactly correct.

 

[N_igma]

Where was it ever going to end though? A socialist republic? Of who? The north and south? Or just the areas that the PIRA werre forced to defend in the early days?

Well, to unite both sides in an Irish Socialist Republic.

This is the main mandate here:

http://users.bigpond.net.au/kirwilli/1916/proc.htm

 

[butchersapron]

Well, to unite both sides in an Irish Socialist Republic.

This is the main mandate here:

http://users.bigpond.net.au/kirwilli/1916/proc.htm

That's an aim and that's not a mandate. I asked what was likely.

 

[N_igma]

I asked what was likely.

What was likely if the provos won?

 

[Bob_the_lost]

The British army though was a legitimate army, backed by the state. They weren't supposed to kill civillians, sure, you do expect a few to be killed in the crossfire or whatever. But the very fact that they killed 15 more civillians than terrorists just highlights the monumental fuck ups they were over here.

Out of interest, what are the typical Combatants to non Combatants death ratios like? Somehow i suspect that it's always going to be pretty crap.

[/tangent]

 

[butchersapron]

If they 'won' - what we have now. This is it. This is their victory. There was no other victory possible - the only possible outcomes were utter defeat or top down imposed power sharing (validated by popular vote) with an agreement for possible future change. That's it. That's why we've ended up here. GA and McM were and are well aware of that.

 

[N_igma]

Out of interest, what are the typical Combatants to non Combatants death ratios like? Somehow i suspect that it's always going to be pretty crap.

[/tangent]

1857 civillians.
1667 non-civillians.

 

[N_igma]

If they 'won' - what we have now. This is it. This is their victory. There was no other victory possible - the only possible outcomes were utter defeat or top down imposed power sharing (validated by popular vote) with an agreement for possible future change. That's it. That's why we've ended up here. GA and McM were and are well aware of that.

No it's not a victory. A United Ireland is a victory, what we have now is the best the movement can hope for in the current political state.

 

[Deareg]

If they 'won' - what we have now. This is it. This is their victory. There was no other victory possible - the only possible outcomes were utter defeat or top down imposed power sharing (validated by popular vote) with an agreement for possible future change. That's it. That's why we've ended up here. GA and McM were and are well aware of that.

i dont think that this is the whole story, from the early nineties the provos were riddled with informers and in some areas totally unable to operate, their were rumours back about 90/91 that the new oc for belfast stood just about his whole asu's down and brought in vols from the country to operate until he had trained new vols

 

[butchersapron]

No it's not a victory. A United Ireland is a victory, what we have now is the best the movement can hope for in the current political state.

It's the only victory that the IRA/SF can get in the current conditions - that's exactly what i said. Are you suggesting some sneak IRA attack with your 2000 fighters at a later date? They'll be killed by their past comrades.

What's you scenario re:

'What was likely if the provos won?'

then?

 

[butchersapron]

i dont think that this is the whole story, from the early nineties the provos were riddled with informers and in some areas totally unable to operate, their were rumours back about 90/91 that the new oc for belfast stood just about his whole asu's down and brought in vols from the country to operate until he had trained new vols

Of course, this is how wars are fought, i guess the suggestion is that they couldn't fight anymore? This may well be the case. Which might explain the turn to mainland based spectaculars, but i don't think the state would be in any dounbt as the potential to bring in new recruits *if* it decided for some mad reason to go on the offensive.

Edit: Some good debate for once on this issue!

 

[Deareg]

Of course, this is how wars are fought, i guess the suggestion is that they couldn't fight anymore? This may well be the case. Which might explain the turn to mainland based spectaculars, but i don't think the state would be in any dounbt as the potential to bring in new recruits *if* it decided for some mad reason to go on the offensive.

Edit: Some good debate for once on this issue!

i dont know if they could go back now even if they wanted to, nobody wants it any more, it would be very dificult to rally the people behind them again, i have heard that the eec and multi nationals were also putting pressure on the brits to find some kind of solution their were rumours that big japanese and saudis were talking of dis-investing from britain, if this is true that would also explain why the british government put so much time and effort into finding a solution

 

[chainsaw cat]

I am certainly not defending PIRA, INLA, the UDF, etc, many of whom, but not all, were little more than gangsters, etc, just pointing out that the army was a brutal occupying force, (particualarly the black ops, etc) I have heard a fair few personal stories about their behaviour, also, i was never sent there but some of my er, fellow squaddies were just 'itching to get at the 'taigs'

I'm proud to say that my modest contribution when suaddying was to be instrumental in jailing 1 Pira, 1 INLA and 1 UVF nut job.


All released early of course but hey, at least they were inside for a bit.

I don't recognise the picture you paint. Brutal occupying force? How can you occupy your own country?

 

[Bob_the_lost]

1857 civillians.
1667 non-civillians.

That's not quite what i asked is it?

WWII was about 2 Civilians to every soldier killed.
Korean war i can't find good numbers but it's about 1:1
Suez had around 650 Egyptian casualties but i can't find a breakdown of the numbers.

Or in other words, civilians almost always get killed in equal or greater numbers than combatants (as far as i can see). As such you can't really say that the British army was doing a crap job by looking at the numbers alone (other reasons are possible).

 

[Deareg]

I'm proud to say that my modest contribution when suaddying was to be instrumental in jailing 1 Pira, 1 INLA and 1 UVF nut job.


All released early of course but hey, at least they were inside for a bit.

I don't recognise the picture you paint. Brutal occupying force? How can you occupy your own country?

not as early as ian thane, clegg, wright or fischer though

 

[butchersapron]

I'm proud to say that my modest contribution when suaddying was to be instrumental in jailing 1 Pira, 1 INLA and 1 UVF nut job.


All released early of course but hey, at least they were inside for a bit.

I don't recognise the picture you paint. Brutal occupying force? How can you occupy your own country?

You can act like an occupying force easily enough. Most occupying forces have large compenents of locals to a) get shot b) provide info.

 

[butchersapron]

That's not quite what i asked is it?

WWII was about 2 Civilians to every soldier killed.
Korean war i can't find good numbers but it's about 1:1
Suez had around 650 Egyptian casualties but i can't find a breakdown of the numbers.

Or in other words, civilians almost always get killed in equal or greater numbers than combatants (as far as i can see). As such you can't really say that the British army was doing a crap job by looking at the numbers alone (other reasons are possible).

In the few cases that you looked up and that bear little comparisaon to Northen Ireland post-69, yes correct.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

In the few cases that you looked up and that bear little comparisaon to Northen Ireland post-69, yes correct.

True, they're more conventional conflicts, if you can think of (and get numbers for) insurgency action then i'd like to see them. I don't know which are closest.

ETA?
Tamil tigers?
Iraq?

 

[butchersapron]

I don't know, but i wouldn't try and then draw conclusions from the few unfitting examples that i could find.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

I don't know, but i wouldn't try and then draw conclusions from the few unfitting examples that i could find.

Because the situations aren't comparable and because the raw numbers alone don't tell enough about the situation? That would make sense.

But it's what N_Igma has done earlier. Thrown away the situation and looked at one bit of data alone, if the train of logic they follow is allowed there then it's fair to do the same to other conflicts and compare numbers.

 

[butchersapron]

True enough. Nice rescue.

 

[Fullyplumped]

i have heard that the eec and multi nationals were also putting pressure on the brits to find some kind of solution their were rumours that big japanese and saudis were talking of dis-investing from britain, if this is true that would also explain why the british government put so much time and effort into finding a solution

Oh good. "I have heard that...." and "there were rumours that...."

Would you be risking your kneecaps if you were to tell us when, where and from whom you heard these things?

Can you point us in the direction of anyone credible who had also heard these things, and who was passing on these "rumours"?

It's quite a good story, you see, and would be of considerable historical interest to many people, if true. If true it would certainly put a new light on why "big japanese and saudis" make investment decisions.


By the way - and this is something that has been preying on my mind for some time - see when people off the internet talk about "rumours"? I get this image of the impression of the rumourer whispering quietly into the ear of the rumouree, hand hiding their mouth, and looking furtively around. Probably also wearing a trenchcoat and trilby, under a glowing gas streetlamp at night, where it has recently been raining. Thank you for listening.