Thanks for the response, Brendy. I too am glad the guns are silent, and don't envy the unfortunate situation you have obviously lived with for a long while.

True, the agreement did not mention a token gesture or a February date. It just seemed to me that it would have been wise and politically expedient, under last week's conditions, for the IRA to have made such a move. I think it would have made them look good, reinforced the notion of their sincerity (which the cease-fire has indeed demonstrated), and perhaps taken some ill wind out of the Unionists' sails, precluding the "veto". And I'm just talking about STARTING decommissioning, as there's plenty of time between now and the end of May to work out further progress.

From my vantage point, the rather hard stance the IRA has taken on this issue has the appearance of intransigence, which seems contrary to the overall spirit I believe most see, or want to see, in the implementation of the agreement. Given the "it's like pulling teeth" nature of getting all the involved parties to cooperate, I don't think this was a good time to make an unyielding stand on that particular issue. What was accomplished by it? I'm not saying it can't be justified, but I feel it wasn't the best course to choose at this juncture.

On the heartening side, the guns are still silent, as you say, and there is still discussion. No one said it would be easy. I'm sure we all still fervently hope this process will wend its way towards a lasting peace.