2006-11-27 23:39:46 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Ya.. he surrendered to the IRA>> now we have political process in NOrthern IReland where the minority ( republicians) have an equal share in power. Do you think the English would let an ethnic minority say for example the Polish or Muslim communtiy have half the power in their governmenrt..
2006-11-27 23:48:17 · answer #1 · answered by rup 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Whatever things Blair may be guilty of "surrendering" to the Provisional IRA was not of them. If you want to find a scapegoat for any "surrender" blame the idiots who decided to put all of those Intelligence specialists and policy makers relating to the Northern Ireland situation in one helicopter known to have problems with its avionics software, and attempted to place the blame on "pilot error." That crash wiped out more of the UK's expertise, gained over the years, in how to combat the IRA, than the IRA ever managed to do on the ground. It was that crash which forced the UK government to work towards a political solution, rather than a purely military one.
While some may feel the situation in Northern Ireland now is not ideal it is better than it was in the 1970s.
2006-11-28 02:34:45 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
No he didn't and nor did the IRA surrender to the British. The situation in N. I. effectively played out to a stalemate. Tony Blair got his decommissioning and the Republicans got their say in how N. I. would be run. You have to remember that N.I. pre 1969 was effectively like S.A. during apartheid. It was a Unionist state for the Protestant people and who cared what happened to the Catholic population.
The peace process was effectively started by Gerry Adams in the mid 80's and has been ongoing to the present day. There has been a lot of give and take throughout but that is the nature of politics.
Bearing in mind the bloody past of my little country the current set-up is much preferable to what has gone before. It is best that both sides govern the country for the good of both sides.
2006-11-28 00:20:55 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
No.
But how would you solve the issues in Ireland, so that most parties were happy with the resolution?
Would you be prepared to see another 200 years of conflict just because you can not compromise?
If there is any solution to the violence does it actually matter if one is seen as weak?
If you answer yes to any of the above you should either move to a trouble spot and start spouting rhetoric, or read your history and know what you are talking about.
2006-11-27 23:52:32 · answer #4 · answered by Alice S 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I would not call it surrender but he gave a lot of concessions to them didnt he? But in the long run, it may have been worth it. at least there is a relative peace over there now and isnt that what the people wanted?
2006-11-27 23:48:07 · answer #5 · answered by fuck off 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No but Bliar would have and in trying to, he destroyed the career of Trimble.
N.I should thank god for Ian Paisley, he has stood the ground on concessions and with Bliar and his cronies trying to undermine and destroy Paisley many times over but the majority of the people in N.I believed Paisley not Bliar.
It has come to be very clear the view and politics of Paisley were correct.
2006-11-28 00:10:46 · answer #6 · answered by ian d 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
White Flag and brown trousers?
No stiff upper lip?
No mate, I missed the surrender.
Maybe you would like it to be true - would you have rather that we massacred all the Catholics then?
Are you a Protestant?
Don't you think reasoning in such terms blocks the way to peace?
2006-11-27 23:48:50 · answer #7 · answered by David R 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
he and Mo Mowlam gave the IRA everything they wanted, he is and she was a disgrace to democray and the rule of law
2006-11-27 23:51:18 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
what ?is there any fighting in Ireland ? NO
So what is your question.?
2006-11-27 23:49:23 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋