Printable View
Agreed but I beleive Bertie/Reynolds would have tried. History shows that Gareth apodted the same stance as Thatcher i.e. Murder is Murder is Murder Crime is Crime is Crime. Neither Bertie/Nor Reynolds would have entered into talks with SF/IRA if this was their stance Ditto Major/BlairQuote:
Originally Posted by klein4
The day may come when Bush has to sit down with AL Qeida
No one said they were murderers, just that they were members of terrorist groups from what I can see.Quote:
Originally Posted by Block G Raptor
That was Garret Fitzgerals political capital at the time. People elected him as Taoiseach knowing his opinion on terrorism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Block G Raptor
It was the state's opinion - didn't matter who was in power.Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
I think the Insinuation of guilt by association is quite obviousQuote:
Originally Posted by Macy
__________________Quote:
Originally Posted by Block G Raptor
I think its worth pointing out that none of the hungerstrikers were serving sentances for murder !
Fair enough. Now I'll point out that to a man they were members of the IRA with the exception of was it Patsy O'Hara or Francis Hughes who were INLA.those lads got to choose the hour and manner of their own passing which is a hell of a lot more than the IRA and the INLA ever gave those who got in their way.
I insinuated nothing. I merely pointed out that nine of them were members of an organisation that claimed it was the legitimate army of this state and was butchering people in your name and mine. (Where the INLA claimed their mandate came from fcuk knows.)
I don't think it's unreasonable to assume -even without googling the topic -that none of them ended up in the H Blocks for shoplifting.
I read ten men dead many years ago but can't remember what the individuals were actually in for but there were many tales of individual adventures while they were on "active service".
Joe McDonald, and four other prisoners where doing 25 years for being in a car with a hand gun in the glove box. all five where charged and sentanced for possesion of a handgun, British Justice:rolleyes:.Sands was serving life for a firebomb attack on a furniture factory(which was carried out at 3am) the others were serving for similar crimes The IRA Leadership at the time made a consious decision at the time not to allow convicted killers on the strike as they knew Thatcher would have a media field day. The most controversial of the ten was Francis Hughes who was serving Life for attempted murder of two soldiers, at one time in the late 70's Hughes was the most wanted man in the six counties. He fought tooth and nail to be allowed on the strike and in spite of better judgement the AC allowed him.
as you can see from my abve post it was actually 8 IRA and 2 INLA memebers not that it matters. Regardless of their political leanings they were all in the same inhuman situation in the Maze
Anyway this is going way off topic ......
Gareth Fitzgerald great politician or total subservant to Britain ?
Im not criticising your posts but you havent really provided any hard evidance to support that assertion bout Fitzgerald. at the very worst he is no more "guilty" of what you are accusing him of than haughey. or if you are to take the argument to its logical conclusion Adams or McGuinneas.
I don't want to drag this off topic but its been shown since that the IRA used those hungerstrikers for its own political gain - its likely they positively encouraged the hunger strikes?
What could Fitzgerald do when only in power for 2-3 years. Huaghey was there for the rest of the time & he didn't intervene either...
I think (IMO) that Haughey put Irelands best interest's before bowing to the mighty empire across the water something that can't be said for fitzgerald (IMO)Quote:
Originally Posted by klein4
People tend to forget that haughey did a lot of good things for Ireland during his tender ie. Job's, Foriegn investment, Roads, Schools it's just a pity he fecked his reputation up by being a greedy B@stard (or more specifically for getting caught being a greedy B@stard) I was quite young during Fitzgerald's term in goverment but I can't remember anything good that he's ever done. I have a real interest in Irish political history and from what I've read (the AIA aside) Fitzgerald was a non-entity (again IMO)
Haughey was in power for basically 2 decades & only came good to some extent near the end. We still had terrible unemployment when he left power. Haughey was a crook but that needs a separate thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Block G Raptor
Back on topic - Fitzgerald was probably too intellectual to be a politician. Might have been a better head of government department or something.
Agreed he just wasn't cut out to deal with the really nasty situation's that arose on this Island during his leadership. unfortuneately history will record that he failed the Irish people on a number of social and economic issue'sQuote:
Originally Posted by pete
that may or may not have been down to him. wrong person at the worst possible time (IMO)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Block G Raptor
You´re entitled to form any opinion that you want but the fact remains that it was when Fitzgearld was in power that the Rep. of Ireland eventually had an official say in decisions taken with regard to the six counties. With regard to social issues his Government provided the people with referendums on abortion and divorce. In doing this he directly took on the most powerful social institution within the state. It may be that the people at the time still towed the church line but at least they got to have their say. Also it is unfair to lay the blame for the economic malaise of the time at his door. The economy had been poorly managed for a long time before he came to power and it was a long time after 1987 before things began to get better. Getting back to the Northern issue, the anglo-irish agreement was an important stepping stone towards further agreements between both governemnts on the future of Northern Ireland and would not have been achieved had your recommendations of dealing with the british governemnt been enacted.
OK back to Fitzgerald. Pleasant enough individual on a personal basis.
However his government presided over the worst economic performance this country had seen ( 1982-1987) since the Famine. I was in College with a young woman who was the person he asked to archive his personal papers when he wrote his autobiography. She finished that job and like almost everyone else EMIGRATED in the late 1980's!
There were 300,000 plus unemployed during his tenure I was one of those for a couple of years. Many of my class from College emigrated and what's more never returned home Celtic Tiger or no Celtic Tiger... that's my two cent worth.
I can't believe I'm going to bat for GF again but...
Come off it. The 1920's? The 1930's? The 1940's? The 1950's?Quote:
Originally Posted by CollegeTillIDie
...so sorting his papers or proof reading or whatever she did for GF should've indemnified her from the socio-economic pressures that everyone else faced? :confused: Hmmm ...maybe if Charlie had been in office he might've looked after her better. Now there was a taoiseach who took care of his buddies;)Quote:
Originally Posted by CollegeTillIDie
No argument there as I was heading for the same boat if you'll pardon the pun. But it's not as if this was a situation unique to Ireland.Quote:
Originally Posted by CollegeTillIDie
Well the National debt did not double in the 1920's , 1930's or 1940's or 1950's ( it did between 1982 and 1987) so yes it was the worst economic performance since the Famine. During those other decades. Unemployment was not as high as there were more places in the USA, Canada Australia and GB to emigrate to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lionel Ritchie
Irish Politicians are expected by the irish electorate, to look after them.
It is known as the Clientelism of Irish Political Culture, and they study this phenomenon academically. And the politicans that don't look after their constituents, tend to lose subsequent elections.
That is how it the system has been expected to work in this country for years. And at it's worst extremes it leads to the sort of things the Tribunals were set up to investigate.
:rolleyes:
Why do you continue to attack Fitzgerald for factors that out of your own mouth so to speak, were utterly beyond his control?Quote:
Originally Posted by CollegeTillIDie
As for national debt ...the country had to borrow to put food on tables, interest rates were sky high and finance was a sellers market.
Your logic is comparable with calling Alan Curbishley a crap manager because Charlton haven't won the premier league in six attempts.
All of which goes to make us the politically clean, safe, non-corrupt beacon of modern developed democracy we are today ...no wait:eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by CollegeTillIDie
You can't look at the 80's in isolation without looking at the legacy left by the FF giveaway Government of 1977.
Whats state was the country in 1982? Not a whole lot worse in 1987 i'm sure?
PeteQuote:
Originally Posted by pete
It was a possibility to get a job in 1982 a long shot but a possibility.
You couldn't get a job for love nor money by 1986!