General Carter to be CDS - Reports breaking

I'm curious as to which part of my post you think are inaccurate - and it's interesting that when I point out the facts, you change the subject.

Bless. You can interpret history how you want. If it makes you feel better then the murdering of British civilians by British soldiers was a glorious chapter in British history.
It was appalling, and I'd be happy for those who murdered to stand trial for it (some did - see Lee Clegg). Same as we tried to prosecute those British soldiers who murdered Iraqi civilians, and successfully prosecuted a British serviceman who murdered an Afghan PW.

Note that this was the 1970s. We weren't just shooting innocent civilians, we were bugging our own politicians and trades unionists, and torturing our own civilians into false confessions (Birmingham Six / Guildford Four). We had political corruption, we had police corruption. Go read up on the West Midlands Serious Crime Squad, or Operation COUNTRYMAN. We were fighting undeclared and quite vicious wars in Oman and Belize. Our country was racist, sexist, and class-conscious to a degree that even the more reactionary among us would find uncomfortable.

It was a different era, and a nasty one at that; but then, the forty and fifty year olds of the time had come from a time when as adults and as servicemen, they had watched forty thousand civilians murdered in London by the Blitz - and untold more in Belgium, France, and Poland. Look up the Nanking Massacre. Guernica was a newspaper headline, not just a painting. And having felt the wind that was sown, those forty and fifty year olds had made damn sure that Germany and Japan reaped the whirlwind. Hamburg, Tokyo, Dresden - even worse than Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

We were only ten years on from the Cuban Missile Crisis - V-force and Thor squadrons reduced (for a short period) to five minutes notice to launch. RAF crews had only just stopped training to drop instant sunshine on downtown Moscow, Minsk, Kiev - and RN bomber crews in the R-boats had only just started. British troops, ready to kill millions.

We weren't alone - the French CRS was busy beating the crap out of protestors, the US National Guard was busy killing students at Kent State, the US police were declaring martial law and killing rioters (the 1968 riots put NI into perspective). Black September, Baader-Meinhof (I can still remember the wanted posters in German supermarkets), the Red Army Faction, Action Directe.

So consider that by any standards of the time, Northern Ireland was incredibly restrained. At least we never had the leaders of PIRA mysteriously able to commit suicide by gun in high-security prisons like the Germans had after Mogadishu...
 
Last edited:
I'm curious as to which part of my post you think are inaccurate - and it's interesting that when I point out the facts, you change the subject.



It was appalling, and I'd be happy for those who murdered to stand trial for it (some did - see Lee Clegg). Same as we tried to prosecute those British soldiers who murdered Iraqi civilians, and successfully prosecuted a British serviceman who murdered an Afghan PW.

Note that this was the 1970s. We weren't just shooting innocent civilians, we were bugging our own politicians and trades unionists, and torturing our own civilians into false confessions (Birmingham Six / Guildford Four). We had political corruption, we had police corruption. Go read up on the West Midlands Serious Crime Squad, or Operation COUNTRYMAN. We were fighting undeclared and quite vicious wars in Oman and Belize. Our country was racist, sexist, and class-conscious to a degree that even the more reactionary among us would find uncomfortable.

It was a different era, and a nasty one at that; but then, the forty and fifty year olds of the time had come from an era when forty thousand civilians had been murdered in London by the Blitz - and untold more in Belgium, France, and Poland. Look up the Nanking Massacre. Guernica was a newspaper headline, not just a painting. And having felt the wind that was sown, those forty and fifty year olds had made damn sure that Germany and Japan reaped the whirlwind. Hamburg, Tokyo, Dresden - still less Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

We were only ten years on from the Cuban Missile Crisis - V-force and Thor squadrons reduced (for a short period) to five minutes notice. RAF crews had only just stopped training to drop instant sunshine on downtown Moscow, Minsk, Kiev - and RN bomber crews in the R-boats had only just started. British troops, ready to kill millions.

We weren't alone - the French CRS was busy beating the crap out of protestors, the US National Guard was busy killing students at Kent State, the US police were declaring martial law and killing rioters (the 1968 riots put NI into perspective).

So consider that by any standards of the time, Northern Ireland was incredibly restrained.
I didn’t change the subject I just find it boring rehashing the same old argument.

You claimed Britain won the political war. As has been discussed many times previously that involved letting Martin McGuiness run the country. You may think that’s success. Lots of people don’t.

As I said history is largely subjective. You have one opinion. I have another. Both are shared by other people. Everyone is entitled to an opinion.
 
I didn’t change the subject - you claimed Britain won the political war. As has been discussed many times previously that involved letting Martin McGuiness run the country. You may think that’s success. Lots of people don’t.

As I said history is largely subjective. You have one opinion. I have another. Both are shared by other people. Everyone is entitled to an opinion.
I can agree with all of that; I'd merely suggest the old engineering maxim that "excellence is the enemy of 'good enough'".

The perfect end-state of peace and tranquillity in Northern Ireland and the UK, universal faith in democracy and the rule of law, equality for all regardless of religion or politics, all terrorist organisations disarmed, all terrorists dead or imprisoned for their crimes - do you really believe it was achievable?

And if not, what other tradeoffs would you have suggested in order to achieve everything apart from "all terrorists dead or imprisoned"?
 
Heinrich Lübke - Wikipedia

When the final whistle's blown on conflict, all sorts of accommodations get made.

The bloke above was the 2nd German president and built Peenemunde. Bet he was responsible for more destruction than any of McGuiness's mainland bombing campaigns
 
I'm curious as to which part of my post you think are inaccurate - and it's interesting that when I point out the facts, you change the subject.



It was appalling, and I'd be happy for those who murdered to stand trial for it (some did - see Lee Clegg). Same as we tried to prosecute those British soldiers who murdered Iraqi civilians, and successfully prosecuted a British serviceman who murdered an Afghan PW.

Note that this was the 1970s. We weren't just shooting innocent civilians, we were bugging our own politicians and trades unionists, and torturing our own civilians into false confessions (Birmingham Six / Guildford Four). We had political corruption, we had police corruption. Go read up on the West Midlands Serious Crime Squad, or Operation COUNTRYMAN. We were fighting undeclared and quite vicious wars in Oman and Belize. Our country was racist, sexist, and class-conscious to a degree that even the more reactionary among us would find uncomfortable.

It was a different era, and a nasty one at that; but then, the forty and fifty year olds of the time had come from a time when as adults and as servicemen, they had watched forty thousand civilians murdered in London by the Blitz - and untold more in Belgium, France, and Poland. Look up the Nanking Massacre. Guernica was a newspaper headline, not just a painting. And having felt the wind that was sown, those forty and fifty year olds had made damn sure that Germany and Japan reaped the whirlwind. Hamburg, Tokyo, Dresden - even worse than Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

We were only ten years on from the Cuban Missile Crisis - V-force and Thor squadrons reduced (for a short period) to five minutes notice to launch. RAF crews had only just stopped training to drop instant sunshine on downtown Moscow, Minsk, Kiev - and RN bomber crews in the R-boats had only just started. British troops, ready to kill millions.

We weren't alone - the French CRS was busy beating the crap out of protestors, the US National Guard was busy killing students at Kent State, the US police were declaring martial law and killing rioters (the 1968 riots put NI into perspective). Black September, Baader-Meinhof (I can still remember the wanted posters in German supermarkets), the Red Army Faction, Action Directe.

So consider that by any standards of the time, Northern Ireland was incredibly restrained. At least we never had the leaders of PIRA mysteriously able to commit suicide by gun in high-security prisons like the Germans had after Mogadishu...
Sigh. Happy days.
 
You claimed Britain won the political war. As has been discussed many times previously that involved letting Martin McGuiness run the country. You may think that’s success. Lots of people don’t.
Are you for real? McGuinness didn’t “run the country”. He was Deputy First Minister in the Province’s Assembly. With a pedant hat on, NI is not, never has been and never will be a country.

McGuiness was legitimately elected as an MLA and held his ministerial appointment as a result of the assembly’s appointments system which uses the de Hondt method. All absolutely correct and a far cry from the routine gerrymandering of Derry Council elections to keep majority Catholics out.

Whatever his involvement with terrorism and roles or connections with PIRA, he was never charged with or convicted of any crime that would prevent him from standing for election (his only convictions were in Dublin). We can all draw our conclusions about his conduct, but the fact is he was innocent in law.

There were and are many things wrong with the GFA and subsequent agreements but McGuinesses service in government isn’t one of them. In fact it’s the opposite; a clear demonstration that the campaign was successful.
 
Are you for real? McGuinness didn’t “run the country”. He was Deputy First Minister in the Province’s Assembly. With a pedant hat on, NI is not, never has been and never will be a country.

McGuiness was legitimately elected as an MLA and held his ministerial appointment as a result of the assembly’s appointments system which uses the de Hondt method. All absolutely correct and a far cry from the routine gerrymandering of Derry Council elections to keep majority Catholics out.

Whatever his involvement with terrorism and roles or connections with PIRA, he was never charged with or convicted of any crime that would prevent him from standing for election (his only convictions were in Dublin). We can all draw our conclusions about his conduct, but the fact is he was innocent in law.

There were and are many things wrong with the GFA and subsequent agreements but McGuinesses service in government isn’t one of them. In fact it’s the opposite; a clear demonstration that the campaign was successful.
Ok David Brent - if you say so.
 
Intelligent debate isn’t your forte is it?

It was you that postulated that McGuinness’ involvement in government was wrong. You’ve yet to give us the benefit of insight as to why.
I have stated repeatedly on this thread that I’m not interested in another argument with another old man who thinks that they won a glorious victory.

You are entitled to your opinion and I’m entitled to think the debacle is a stain on British history. You aren’t going to persuade me and I’m not going to persuade you.

Haven’t you got a fascinating conversation to have with JohnG about Prince 2 or something?
 
I have stated repeatedly on this thread that I’m not interested in another argument with another old man who thinks that they won a glorious victory.

You are entitled to your opinion and I’m entitled to think the debacle is a stain on British history.
And Iraq and Afghanistan weren't!?
 
I have stated repeatedly on this thread that I’m not interested in another argument with another old man who thinks that they won a glorious victory
So why do you keep sniping from the sidelines with ad hominem comments? I can only conclude that, at best, you lack any debating you are a rather pathetic troll....

BTW I’m neither old nor do I think I took part in a glorious victory. I have, however, spent a good deal of time on business in modern NI; plenty enough to conclude that it’s moved on a very long way from its troubled past. Those who served on Op Banner played a significant part in setting the conditions for that to occur.
 
So why do you keep sniping from the sidelines with ad hominem comments? I can only conclude that, at best, you lack any debating you are a rather pathetic troll....

BTW I’m neither old nor do I think I took part in a glorious victory. I have, however, spent a good deal of time on business in modern NI; plenty enough to conclude that it’s moved on a very long way from its troubled past. Those who served on Op Banner played a significant part in setting the conditions for that to occur.
You started with the ad hominems - as is your modus operandi.

I’m afraid you are very old mate. You are in your 50s. Partly why you have a ridiculously dated viewpoint. Probably explains your view of NI.
 
Last edited:
You started with the ad hominems - as is your modus operandi.
Nope. I asked you if you were for real when you stated that “letting” McGuinness “run the country” wasn’t a victory. All I did was point out the democratic legitimacy of his election.

Your David Brent response was immediately ad hominem and everything else you have since posted is in similar vein. The sad thing is you’d probably have something useful to add if you weren’t so far up your own Arrse.
 

Caecilius

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
There were and are many things wrong with the GFA and subsequent agreements but McGuinesses service in government isn’t one of them. In fact it’s the opposite; a clear demonstration that the campaign was successful.
I couldn't disagree more. He was head of a terrorist organisation and we allowed him to negotiate rather than arrest him so we could create a power sharing arrangement that then let him become joint head of the devolved administration. That's the power sharing agreement that had two extreme, terrorist linked parties in power for the last decade and has now collapsed.

I don't think NI was a total failure but equally it wasn't exactly an unequivocal success. Remember it was essentially an internal policing action that took nearly 40 years and huge compromises to solve.
 
It depends on your metric for success. We deployed hastily, made things infinitely worse in the early years and then spent the remainder of the 36 years trying to get back from that.
Almost as if we used BANNER as a blueprint for HERRICK, if you tweak the numbers, which we did lose no matter how upset people get when it's pointed out.

If you're on one of the last HERRICKs and still hearing "What does success look like?" I got the impression that the answer didn't matter as we were walking away regardless and pinning our hopes on ANAOA where I would hear the self same question on a later tour.
 

Caecilius

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Almost as if we used BANNER as a blueprint for HERRICK, if you tweak the numbers, which we did lose no matter how upset people get when it's pointed out.

If you're on one of the last HERRICKs and still hearing "What does success look like?" I got the impression that the answer didn't matter as we were walking away regardless and pinning our hopes on ANAOA where I would hear the self same question on a later tour.
This is where it gets interesting. If a negotiated settlement and ongoing violence was an acceptable form of success for an internal policing action after 40 years, why is the same not acceptable for Afghanistan?

You may think we lost HERRICK, but as far as I can tell the Afghan conflict is ongoing so it's probably a little bit early to declare it a faliure just yet.
 
I couldn't disagree more. He was head of a terrorist organisation and we allowed him to negotiate rather than arrest him so we could create a power sharing arrangement that then let him become joint head of the devolved administration.
Part of me wants to agree with you.

But my fundamental point is that McGuiness was democratically elected. He didn’t become “joint head of the devolved administration” as a result of “a power sharing agreement”. He became Deputy First Minister as a result of the democratic processes of the Northern Ireland Assembly, specifically the use of the de Hondt method to asign executive appointments. The power sharing agreement was about making the Assembly that the electorate had delivered work as a coalition government, no more.

McGuiness may well have been a PIRA leader in the 70s but he was never arrested for, let alone found guilty of terrorist offences. He was, therefore, innocent, free to stand for office and free to hold office. I’m not qualified to take a view on whether t
 

jrwlynch

LE
Book Reviewer
I couldn't disagree more. He was head of a terrorist organisation and we allowed him to negotiate rather than arrest him so we could create a power sharing arrangement that then let him become joint head of the devolved administration. That's the power sharing agreement that had two extreme, terrorist linked parties in power for the last decade and has now collapsed.

I don't think NI was a total failure but equally it wasn't exactly an unequivocal success. Remember it was essentially an internal policing action that took nearly 40 years and huge compromises to solve.
There's no such thing as an achievable "unequivocal success" in these situations. Israel was run for years by Prime Ministers who'd organised terror attacks on the British (Ben-Gurion and Begin). In South Africa, Nelson Mandela went from convicted (not merely alleged) terrorist to President, revered Father of the Nation, and winner of the Nobel Peace Prize and the Presidential Medal of Freedom (and yet the place didn't really fall apart until he was gone...)

While the thought of Adams and McGuinness' tarred heads grinning down at the passing traffic from atop pikes on London Bridge is a pleasing one, the glory of the "unequivocal success" we didn't achieve has to be weighed against what "serious failure" actually looks like: which is not "the leaders of the other side being at liberty and sharing power", but rather looks like the Balkans, or the Congo, or Burma, or Syria...

I'd also say that while the power sharing agreement is currently broken, that's not being accompanied by families being burned out of homes, politicians being shot or blown up, or rampaging mobs going house-to-house killing anyone from the "wrong" side; which, in historical terms, is about as good as we can get.
 

Latest Threads

Top