Declan, 1169 far precedes the British empire. To suggest the Normans are the equivalent of the modern British empire of the 19th century is an absurd, but an idiotic argument often used to shore up the "we've been fighting like this for centuries so both sides are at fault" arguments of Brit apologists. The medieval history of Britain and Ireland has some bearing on the contemporary Troubles, but certainly nothing like what Brit apologists are suggesting. The true conflict is rooted in 19th century British colonial imperialism, in the formation of the United Kingdom, of the "Great Britain and Ireland" historic era. Not the feudal fighting of medieval times.

And Teribus, your claims of "fact" reflect the opposite tendency to Declan. From the latter half of the 19th century onward, the world conquered by the better equipped and much more savage armies of the European empires has been racked with violent conflicts in once colonial territories and countries, as various peoples engaged in armed struggles, often between warring groups within their own societies, to gain independence. Sometimes this has meant independence from their European colonial oppressors, sometimes it has meant fighting for independence from the warlords put in place by the European conquerors before they withdrew their colonial governments and armies before withdrawing.

To suggest that these violent conflicts where one group within a country wishes to pledge allegiance to the British crown means that the people of those societies actually wanted British intervention in their affairs is a blind attempt to manipulate the historic facts. There have been, in every former colony, organized factions who have forged alliances with the colonial oppressors in a blatant attempt to gain power over another faction within their colony, in order to seize power in the political vacuum left when the colonial government and army withdraws it's forces.

To suggest that is the equivalent of "inviting the British empire into their nation" is just as much hogwash as the suggestion that because one Irish faction attempted to create an alliance with the Normans to gain the upper hand in Ireland proves that the Irish really wanted to be conquered by the English. It is all smoke and mirrors, which denies the reality that very few former colonies have gained independence and stability in the wake of the colonial powers pulling out.

The violence which ensues in the wake of European and American colonial governments and armies pulling out of a region ARE the history of the 20th century. Ireland has been no different in that regard, and to suggest that "both sides are at fault" for that is ridiculous. It isn't Ireland's "fault" that they were conquered and pacified by the English army, and forced into a political "union" with their conquerors in the 19th century. Ireland, like many other countries conquered and pacified by European colonial powers in the 19th century, fought back. THAT is the fact of the matter. Just like many other countries/territories have fought back. And continue to do so, as is the case in West Bank and Gaza right now.

Next I suppose you'll be claiming the British don't have anything to do with the war in the Middle East, and the French didn't have anything to do with the Vietnam War.