A couple of years ago, a friend of mine was landing at Heathrow Airport on July 4. We made a T-shirt just for the occasion, that read, "222 years and counting, you right bastards!" Just a little Yankee joke, but we liked it.
The reason I mention this is that 2/11 saw the English government suspend the Northern Irish authority.
As an American, my sympathies are (naturally, in my opinion) behind anyone wishing to shake off British colonial rule. Be that as it may, the situation in Belfast is a sticky one. A couple of issues I'd like to ask about:
* Being that this is a "peace process", what do we call the state of conflict?
* The British assert that the IRA will not accommodate positive terms to eliminate their armed campaign. The IRA says the British have refused "reasonable" offers. Furthermore, if the goal of the "peace process" is to eliminate the IRA's armed campaign, what motivates the recent (1995-98) British demand that the IRA "cease its armed campaign and decommission its weapons" before being invited to join the "process"? Did they really think they could negotiate a peace without including one of the primary players?
* Why does the continuation of the "process" seem to rest on whether or not the IRA will decommission its weapons and thus render the process itself unnecessary?
* Do Americans, or any other former British subjects that separated on combative terms, owe any sentiment toward the revolution (I use that word in a loose sense; I expect revolutions to be swifter and more organized)?
These questions really make it hard to accept what's taking place. I don't care that they're originally killing each other over God and money--I'm more curious about what separates this situation from others which have preceded it, and others which have come since.
After all, the United States has supported other uprisings ... started them, even ... over less. If I asked these questions in the 19th century, I would wonder how the US could sit by and watch its former tyrant-mistress whip all of Ireland into desperation. But that's past, now, and we seem to have a model for a phenomenon that has wracked American culture throughout its post-Columbian age: If they're revolting, they're expressing their concerns wrong; if they're not revolting, it's obviously not important enough to make any changes.
So I'm wondering ... Regardless of where one's political affiliations lie in this conflict, doesn't the whole thing just seem wrong?
It's hard ... I can't morally agree with a terror campaign. Then again, that's already my objection to British activity in the province.
But nobody, there or throughout the world, really wants this thing to blow up again. And, being American, my philosophical sympathies often fall with the revolutionaries (see note above on terror campaigns). But I'd prefer it done without bombs, and I'm curious why it seems this siutation can't be resolved without the major players pushing one another to the breaking point. After all, isn't the war about victory, and the negotiations about compromise and settlement?
Wow. Look at me ramble on. Thanx for puttin' up with it.
thanx,
Tiassa
------------------
The whole business with the fossilized dinosaur eggs was a joke the paleontologists haven't seen yet. (Good Omens, Gaiman & Pratchett)
The reason I mention this is that 2/11 saw the English government suspend the Northern Irish authority.
As an American, my sympathies are (naturally, in my opinion) behind anyone wishing to shake off British colonial rule. Be that as it may, the situation in Belfast is a sticky one. A couple of issues I'd like to ask about:
* Being that this is a "peace process", what do we call the state of conflict?
* The British assert that the IRA will not accommodate positive terms to eliminate their armed campaign. The IRA says the British have refused "reasonable" offers. Furthermore, if the goal of the "peace process" is to eliminate the IRA's armed campaign, what motivates the recent (1995-98) British demand that the IRA "cease its armed campaign and decommission its weapons" before being invited to join the "process"? Did they really think they could negotiate a peace without including one of the primary players?
* Why does the continuation of the "process" seem to rest on whether or not the IRA will decommission its weapons and thus render the process itself unnecessary?
* Do Americans, or any other former British subjects that separated on combative terms, owe any sentiment toward the revolution (I use that word in a loose sense; I expect revolutions to be swifter and more organized)?
These questions really make it hard to accept what's taking place. I don't care that they're originally killing each other over God and money--I'm more curious about what separates this situation from others which have preceded it, and others which have come since.
After all, the United States has supported other uprisings ... started them, even ... over less. If I asked these questions in the 19th century, I would wonder how the US could sit by and watch its former tyrant-mistress whip all of Ireland into desperation. But that's past, now, and we seem to have a model for a phenomenon that has wracked American culture throughout its post-Columbian age: If they're revolting, they're expressing their concerns wrong; if they're not revolting, it's obviously not important enough to make any changes.
So I'm wondering ... Regardless of where one's political affiliations lie in this conflict, doesn't the whole thing just seem wrong?
It's hard ... I can't morally agree with a terror campaign. Then again, that's already my objection to British activity in the province.
But nobody, there or throughout the world, really wants this thing to blow up again. And, being American, my philosophical sympathies often fall with the revolutionaries (see note above on terror campaigns). But I'd prefer it done without bombs, and I'm curious why it seems this siutation can't be resolved without the major players pushing one another to the breaking point. After all, isn't the war about victory, and the negotiations about compromise and settlement?
Wow. Look at me ramble on. Thanx for puttin' up with it.
thanx,
Tiassa
------------------
The whole business with the fossilized dinosaur eggs was a joke the paleontologists haven't seen yet. (Good Omens, Gaiman & Pratchett)