Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
["Date: 21 Jan 07 - 05:06 AM

Excellent post Don.
I would only quible on two points.

1 "British troops became involved in the latest troubles was not by invasion, but at the insistence of the predominantly protestant loyalist majority"

I would have said that they came to protect the Catholic people from that majority protestant population, especially from the B Specials.
The reason that they had to stay after that was sorted out, was to counter the insurgency of the PIRA."]


No Keith, it had little to do with protecting catholics, in the first instance, that came somewhat later. The first move was suspension of the Stormont parliament, and a demand by loyalists that its operations be taken over by the British government. As soon as British soldiers arrived, they became targets for both sides. All the rest followed from that.

I am disappointed to see that a fairly productive discussion has again descended into another Of these boring wrangles about who did what, with which, and to whom. This is precisely what I meant when I referred to picking at old wounds.

This thread was supposed to be about the perception of a similarity between USA in Iraq, and Britain in Northern Ireland.

On that subject, my American friends, not a valid excuse for two reasons

1. Apples and Oranges! Totally different conditions.

2. If a five year old in trouble said to you "Well Charlie did it too", you would not accept that as a reasonable justification.

I suspect that financial support for muslim groups in the US from British Muslims would elicit some pretty angry demands from the state department that we stop them forthwith, but I don't think the state department ever attempted to prevent the PIRA being armed by US donation.

Perhaps if we all agreed to stop trying to have our cake and eat it??

Don T.