Good man Teribus.
But , explain to me how it came about that, if Ireland was "of no use to Britain since day one" as you say, they were prepared to go to such extremes to hold on to it ?
You admit to the strategic value of the island ? Just as a base , do I presume you mean? and nothing else ? But what about the inhabitants?
How do you explain how the British Government exploited the natural resources of the island, our woodlands initially and later our mineral deposits, miniscule though they may have been Did they buy them?
Our agricultural produce was regulated purely for the benefit of the British market, so was our textile manufacturing. Our exports, pathetic though they were , were also ordered by Westminister.
Yes it was rather a mean trick to rebel during time of war, it would have been much more like cricket to have waited until another 50 or 60 thousand troops were available to Mr Churchill to send over in 1919.
Britain made most of the rules of war, not the Irish you know.
The principal reason that the greater part of the island was backward was because the British Government made damn sure that it was.
Agricultural yes, why not,for who can fight a freedom campaign with turnips or spuds? Surprise, surprise the Irish did.
Why was the small North East of the island "industrial and highly competitive" ?
Because the British Government wanted it so.
They would not leave the system that guaranteed them , the loyalist people, and only them , power and privilege. They were largely deluded of course but what they had did seem better than what the nationalists had
"Croppys" lie down and be thankful that you have anything at all. When the "Covananters" asserted their preparedness to fight it was nationalists that they had in their sights, not the Government in Westminister who feared a political backlash and allowed them to frolic with German arms agents.
Obviously you still begrudge us the helping hand that we received through EU membership. You would prefer that we were left, as Britain held us for so long, in poverty and without infra-structure through the south of the country. For instance the only decent harbours we had were those used by the British Navy and a few used to export people and food and import soldiers and British Manufactured Goods only.
Yes we got subsidies from Europe, they were a more far seeing and
fairer partner than had ever been, up to recent times. Without them we could not , from so low a base, come quickly up to standard in economy and socially.
Now , at last, we can hold our heads up in Europe, and in Britain , as equals , not subjugated people, and can begin to pay back those who befriended us in our need.
I will not argue with you as to the amount of killings unless you specify the period to which 3,000 dead refers.
The British Army/Police force amounted to over 40,000 armed men in this country at one time but , it too was "fought to a standstill" but by a force that could never arm more than a thousand or so at any one time.
Yes, it is most likely true that 9/11 in the US brought about a seachange in thinking among many strands of violence all over the world but, not everywhere. Why not give credit to those who finally came to a change in thinking and strategies? I'm fairly sure that the PIRA could have found other sources of finance considering the many "terrorist" organisations that there are worldwide. But you musn't assume that the US war on "terrorism" is merely what it seems . It is now expedient where before it simply didn't matter to them , who bombed what, there were no pipelines in the way.
I wish and hope that you are correct about "no return to the 'armed struggle'. That is now a matter for Northern Loyalists. I wonder , do you have as much information on their "armed struggle" as you think you have about the Nationalist one?
Would you bet that protection would be provided by the PSNI if armed thugs attack nationalist homes, can Nationalists be blamed for feeling a little worried, in certain areas, just now?