I'll take that lightly, Brendy! :-)

Larry, I'd certainly agree with you - there's problems need to be solved. However, those problems can only be solved through talking, not through a return to violence - that goes for all sides: Army, Loyalist and Republican. Violence hasn't won anyone anything. I'd certainly agree with the hard-arm government during the 60s, 70s and 80s - the British mainland had a good number of protests disrupted by violent police response. The question is whether times have changed. I'd say they have - Thatcher would never have talked to Gerry Adams, but John Major was willing to take the chance, to start the peace process. The thing is, Blair's government is highly driven by opinion polls - it makes them lightweights, but does occasionally have some uses - and the opinion over here is that we want this over with. Politically, he'd not get away with restarting hostilities, and even through various bombings and attempted bombings, there's been the will to stick to the peace instead of being provoked by the extremists.

As far as her argument goes, that the peace talks are designed to undermine Republicanism - hmm. Certainly, the very word "Republican" has problems if the Republic won't take them!

The trouble is, the politics of Bernadette McAlesky and of Ian Paisley are the politics of extremism. She believes that if she has to share power with the Unionists, she's lost. He believes that if he has to share power with the Republicans, he's lost. But they're both talking about the same area of land! The battle over the last 30 years has been for who gets absolute control, and the moral to be drawn is that absolute control can't happen - both sides have to compromise. The Israelis and Palestinians have the same problem - both want absolute control over Jerusalem, and aren't prepared to share in it.

As for the "marching in the wrong direction", I guess I'm wrong. Anyone can say it. But no-one can insist that the ppl change direction - all you can do is let them see the consequences, and change their minds later. As an example, Prohibition in the US was voted in by a large majority, and was voted out later by a large majority! If Bush proves to be as much a nutter as he seems, the US will vote him out in 4 years time, and learn from it. The ppl may make mistakes or change their minds, sure, but that's democracy. One person saying "I know best" is called a dictatorship (unless it's called a monarchy! :-), and whilst it may be a benign dictatorship, it's still dictatorship.

Grab.