I recited facts. Facts are not capable of interpretation, but only of acceptance or rejection. I admit I did not recite all of the facts, and there are many that can be trotted out to show England did not do all it should have to relieve the suffering of the Irish poor. But I reject completely (save for Cromwell and perhaps the Tudors - who had other considerations to take into account) that England oppressed Ireland. The Irish problems were caused by the Irish themselves and were brought about through their own indifference to the suffering they caused to their own people. I believe the Republic came into being out of the bad bile of people like de Valera, and for no better reason than spite. The Irish Free State would have been as free as Canada is now - that is, completely free, and the Irish were given that status at a time when the IRA were all but defeated. But freedom given freely isn't the same as freedom that people are forced to die for, is it? So the Irish leaders spurned it, and a civil war (not an Anglo/Irish war) resulted.

In your posts, you might not have stated your personal beliefs, but a clear sympathy for the Irish cause comes across - to me at least. You claim that Americans in general support the Irish cause because they see a similarity between Irish effort to gain freedom and the American Revolution: "the underdog trying to do what we ourselves once did," even if their acts of terrorism are "sometimes reprehensible". Now I don't try to hide the fact that I despise Irish terrorists, but even acknowledging that bias, I cannot conceive of an act of terrorism that is not reprehensible!

Is the comparison between America's fight for freedom and Ireland's fair? I think not. America fought for its liberty: the Irish were given it in 1921. Following the bloody civil war - worse than the Anglo/Irish War that preceded it - those that were left formed a republic, but instead of calling it a day, they then turned against Northern Ireland, where the majority of people there chose to remain British. It is the IRA's attempt to force Northern Ireland to join the Republic that brought about the troubles that have rumbled along, financed by crime, Libya, and American dollars, since the 1960's. In other words, what you call the fight for Irish freedom is really an attempt to colonise a part of Britain against the will of the people. Ireland is already free!

Ireland is now the oppressor, not England.

You also claim to have studied the history of the Anglo/Irish question, but, quite apart from not realising Ireland has already achieved its freedom, you seem to have swallowed the myth that Britain is riven with hatred between its constituent parts to support your suggestion that everyone has been mistreated by the English. I can only call that naive.

Lastly, you ask why Ireland has sided with England's enemies? How far back do you want me to go?

Let's ignore the vikings - they hardly seem relevant to the 21st century, even though we are discussing Irish history. England's traditional enemy is France. I do not recall any significant alliance between France and Ireland against England. In fact, Tudor England made sure that Ireland could not be used by the French as a back door into England.

England's next major foe was Spain. As Ireland has always been Catholic, it would be natural for the Irish to support the Spanish Armada. It didn't.

In World War II, Ireland was neutral. The Irish Government was anti-English, but it did not support Germany. Many Irish citizens joined the British Army to fight on our side, but when they went home, the Irish Government put their names on a "List" which was then widely circulated so that those named would not be able to work in any government job. This was known as the Starvation Order (see what I said above about the Irish being the source of their own problems).

So who are the enemies of England that Ireland has always sided with?