Martin Sheen proud of uncle's IRA past

[denuseri]

So is Collins a good guy or a bad guy? Was he a freedom fighter? Or a terrorist? I mean isn't that the man and the IRA of that time period too which Mr Sheen was referring? He was quoted as having made his statements during a show about his ancestors history etc right?

[MMI]

So is Collins a good guy or a bad guy? Was he a freedom fighter? Or a terrorist? I mean isn't that the man and the IRA of that time period too which Mr Sheen was referring? He was quoted as having made his statements during a show about his ancestors history etc right?

No doubt about it: he was evil. He was also unlucky enough to be dumped on by his own side, but no sympathy here. Casts a different light on deValera, though!

As for the rest of your posts, can I ask for an extension before responding?

[thir]

Sorry to come in late, but have been away for some weeks, and this is an interesting discussion.

Quote Originally Posted by denuseri
So is Collins a good guy or a bad guy? Was he a freedom fighter? Or a terrorist?


He was a freedom fighter, quite obviously. England had no business being in Ireland.

Some points:

1: I do not see how any country can justify invading another, whether for strategic reasons or because they think said country do not behave as they should.

2: If you do invade, and call said country 'your domain', I do not see how you can complain about having to spend money and soldiers hanging on to it, or to keep it 'orderly'.

3: I do not understand how taking a country makes it yours by moral or divine right or whatever, and any uprising thereafter 'rebels' or 'treason'. It is all about violence, nothing else.

[MMI]

He was also a cowardly assassin, but js makes a much better point.

As to your three points,

(1) If a country fails to act in the face of a perceived strategic imperative, it is likely to be destroyed. But if one country behaves in a way that its larger neighbour disapproves of, that is no justification for invasion (unless that "misbehaviour" constitutes a threat).

In the present case, when has Ireland been invaded for displeasing England by its behaviour? The Tudors? They conquered Ireland to quell a usurpation of the Irish Crown by an Irish Earl (threat), and they restored power to the Irish Parliament which had been assumed by the more powerful Earls and Chiefs. The Plantation of Ulster? Northern Ireland was settled by Scottish and English farmers who were given land taken from the rebellious O'Neils and O'Donnells (threat) in the hope that the new demography would be more amenable to English authority. Cromwell? The Irish were supporting the Royalist cause (threat - ironic that the Irish hate the enemy of England's monarch, whom their ancestors supported and fought and died for)

(2) The presumption being that England has no right "to be there". By that argument, virtually the whole population of the Americas - north and south - have even less right to be there, because they arrived much later. The same goes for Australia and New Zealand. Presumably, if the Aboriginals or Maoris started to foment revolution, you would say that the governments there could not complain about the cost in money or lives spent in maintaining order?

(3) Moral right ... England was invited, and being in control, it was obliged to maintain order; divine right (a) Pope Adrian granted the English Crown suzerainity over Ireland, and (b) the Irish Jacobites upheld the Stuart claim to the "Divine Right of Kings". Michael Collins, for example, was born a British subject, studied in King's College and began his career in London working for important financial institutions. His act of rebelling against the established government cannot be anything other than treason, and using violence against the state invites a violent response, even today in any country you care to name.

[thir]

He was also a cowardly assassin, but js makes a much better point.

I do not know what you are refering to here, but surely the army uses assassins? And drones? And bombs meant for hostile leaders?

As to your three points,

(1) If a country fails to act in the face of a perceived strategic imperative, it is likely to be destroyed.

So, when the Sovjet Union took half of Europe after WW2 to make a buffer zone, they were within their right?

If, theoreticallly speaking, it had been possible for Ireland to invade parts of West England to protect their shores, they would have been within their right?

But if one country behaves in a way that its larger neighbour disapproves of, that is no justification for invasion (unless that "misbehaviour" constitutes a threat).

Example?

In the present case, when has Ireland been invaded for displeasing England by its behaviour?

Another poster made that claim, that is why I included it.

(2) The presumption being that England has no right "to be there". By that argument, virtually the whole population of the Americas - north and south - have even less right to be there, because they arrived much later. The same goes for Australia and New Zealand.

You have to distinguish between military invasion, and immigration. But I see colonization as invasion too.

Presumably, if the Aboriginals or Maoris started to foment revolution, you would say that the governments there could not complain about the cost in money or lives spent in maintaining order?

Yes, I would.

(3) Moral right ... England was invited,

No country invites invasion

and being in control, it was obliged to maintain order;

Complaining bitterly about it too, and using excessive force, but yes

divine right (a) Pope Adrian granted the English Crown suzerainity over Ireland, and (b) the Irish Jacobites upheld the Stuart claim to the "Divine Right of Kings". Michael Collins, for example, was born a British subject, studied in King's College and began his career in London working for important financial institutions. His act of rebelling against the established government cannot be anything other than treason, and using violence against the state invites a violent response, even today in any country you care to name.

Nonsense. What right does any pope have to give away other people's lands? They did it in South Africa and Asia as well. It is just another way to say 'we take the right'.

England took Ireland, and any act of rebellion is the right of any invaded country. Ireland was a colony for so many years, that does not mean they do not have the right for independance, just as for example India and many African states.

Just as the other colonies Ireland had so much trouble getting back on its feet economically.

[MMI]

I do not know what you are refering to here, but surely the army uses assassins? And drones? And bombs meant for hostile leaders?

I'm referring to Collins and his "Squad" - highly paid sneak assassins.

So, when the Sovjet Union took half of Europe after WW2 to make a buffer zone, they were within their right?

If, theoreticallly speaking, it had been possible for Ireland to invade parts of West England to protect their shores, they would have been within their right?

Look at it this way. If the Soviets had not created a buffer zone, and the US had invaded Russia, their country would have fallen due entirely to their lack of precaution.

Or look at it this way. West Europe was the USA's buffer zone and had troops stationed all over the western nations, just in case of a Red invasion.

Historically speaking, Ireland did invade the western British Isles many times, and it has been confirmed in an earlier post that this was perfectly acceptable at the timer.

If Ireland was under threat from a third country, and could protect itself by invading Cornwall (and was strong enough to), do you think it would not?

Another poster made that claim [that England had not invaded Ireland], that is why I included it.

So, tell me, when did those English invasions occur?

You have to distinguish between military invasion, and immigration. But I see colonization as invasion too.

I'm not so sure a distinction is always necessary, but the Spanish Conquest was certainly military, the British-Americans and their USA successors were pretty ruthless against the native indians, and the Australian colonials' treatment of the Aborigines left much to be desired. My point stands: England's authority over Ireland predates the creation of many other countries.

No country invites invasion

In 1169, Dermot MacMurrough invited a force of Norman knights to help him recover the throne of Leinster, which the High King of Ireland had deprived him of. As a result of this action, Dermott swore fealty to the English King and he was restored to his kingship.

[Britain] Complaining bitterly about [its obligation to maintain order in Ireland] too, and using excessive force

Correction: the Irish complaints about England are far more bitter than the English complaints about keeping them from killing each other. Excessive force? How many car-bombs have the British left in busy Irish shopping streets? How many letter bombs have they posted? How many passenger trains have they blown up? How many doors have they knocked on and shot whoever answered? All of those things were done by Irishmen against Irishmen and THAT is the whole of the problem.

What right does any pope have to give away other people's lands?

Back in those days, the Pope did have the right. In fact, Argentina's claim to own the Falkland Islands is based upon a Papal edict

England took Ireland, and any act of rebellion is the right of any invaded country.

An invaded country has the right to resist an invader, agreed, but England did NOT "take" Ireland. Ireland submitted itself to England. And that happened in the 12th century! Thereafter it remained an independent lordship/kingdom until 1800, ruled by a person who also happened to be king of England (like the Isle of Man, for example), and, later, king of Scotland too. In 1800 Ireland became an integral part of the United Kingdom, exactly the same as Scotland or Wales. Who calls Scotland or Wales an English colony? Neither was Ireland; nor is Northern Ireland a colony now. At that time, the Irish Lords took seats in the House of Lords in England, and Irish Parliamentarians sat in the House of Commons, with the same voting rights as everyone else.

Just as the other colonies Ireland had so much trouble getting back on its feet economically

Economically, Ireland was better off as part of the UK than not. Britain was responsible for the industrialisation of the North, which, for example, gave birth to the Titanic. Once the Republic became independent, it became a third world nation, and stayed that way until EU euros brought the short-lived Celtic Tiger into being. Ireland is now paying for its profligacy. But that's not our fault.