P.K. Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 LDV I think you need to look into it a little more. Its the IDF who are using it. White Phos is used for "Quick Smoke" fire missions for which it's use is legal. However on the Larkhill ranges I once saw a target area completely obliterated by a mixture of WP and HE fired together. Nothing would have survived. Now be aware that this is the British Army training here. However WP as an airburst??? Something wrong somewhere, especially as the fuses are horrendously expensive. The IDF also seems to have developed and used DIME munitions (look it up) in Gaza. I would guess in an attempt to limit as far as they can civilian casualties. As Hamas views the deaths of the citizens it's supposed to be protecting as a win/win it deliberately fires rockets from densley populated areas. DIME munitions are the best way of dealing with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 The big problem was that there were also a lot of Irish people in Ulster who came under the rule of Stormont. Partition created a gerrymandered state in the north with a border drawn to create an artificial loyalist - unionist majority. Before the civil rights campaign there was terrible discrimination in the north with respect to housing, the distribution of labour and even in terms of who was allowed to vote in local council elections. Many protestants were not originally opposed to home rule - republicanism had essentially non sectarian roots. IMO it will take another generation before the Loyalist - Unionist traditions become so diluted that they will accept a completely united Ireland within Europe ... but it's happening bit by bit. there is no doubt that this will be the ultimate outcome. Right now the north is doing quite well out of cross border shopping and the cheap £. In a similar way - I don't think that a two state solution will ever work in Israel - Palestine. In the end it will all have to be one country with equal rights for all of them. And the displaced Palestinian people will have to be given their lands back, their grandparents' farms and villages - or some sort of reparations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevie Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 LDV I think you need to look into it a little more. Its the IDF who are using it. White Phos is used for "Quick Smoke" fire missions for which it's use is legal. yes, it's legal as a 'smokescreen' but very much illegal if you drop in on a densely populated civilian area, as the IDF did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Many protestants were not originally opposed to home rule - republicanism had essentially non sectarian roots. IMO it will take another generation before the Loyalist - Unionist traditions become so diluted that they will accept a completely united Ireland within Europe ... but it's happening bit by bit. there is no doubt that this will be the ultimate outcome. Right now the north is doing quite well out of cross border shopping and the cheap £. In a similar way - I don't think that a two state solution will ever work in Israel - Palestine. In the end it will all have to be one country with equal rights for all of them. And the displaced Palestinian people will have to be given their lands back, their grandparents' farms and villages - or some sort of reparations. Yes, but the difficulty was with those Protestants who didn't want Home Rule. Do you really only think it will take one generation? I am surprised. I don't necessarily disagree with it. I would have rather thought it would take a many a few more generations until the vast majority of Protestants become happy with the idea of union with Ireland. I do think union is inevitable. I don't think anymore that it makes sense for the province to become independent as this was only really a loyalist desire. The IDF also seems to have developed and used DIME munitions (look it up) in Gaza. I would guess in an attempt to limit as far as they can civilian casualties. As Hamas views the deaths of the citizens it's supposed to be protecting as a win/win it deliberately fires rockets from densley populated areas. DIME munitions are the best way of dealing with them. Really interesting! Maybe I am being a bit naive but when these weapons are being fired by the Israelis, who is the target? They can't be specifically targeting combatants as they would have fled after making their attacks. I probably need to have a thorough understanding of Israeli tactics. It would be impossible for Israel to offer the Palestinians back their land. And I think it would wrong to do so. It was wrong for the Jews/Israelis to remove the Palestinians off their land but now these lands have homes on them, homes where families have settled and live. It just doesn't seem right to me to force these people off this land after all this time to hand it back to the Palestinians. If it is an agreeable solution for those Israeli families affected that would be great. But I can't see it happening. However, the other alternative, I suppose, is for Israel to endure attacks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Do you really only think it will take one generation? I am surprised. I don't necessarily disagree with it. I would have rather thought it would take a many a few more generations until the vast majority of Protestants become happy with the idea of union with Ireland. I do think union is inevitable. I don't think anymore that it makes sense for the province to become independent as this was only really a loyalist desire. I believe that the political concept of the island of Ireland (as opposed to that merely being a geographical reality) has helped to dilute and defuse (!) opinion on all sides. The political concept of the island of Ireland which now exists in law following the Good Friday Agreement, would have been unthinkable 20 years ago. It's an example of the way in which inclusive language has been carefully crafted into the process of making agreements, the business of 'conflict resolution'. That change cuts both ways. For example, here (BBC) today is Dep First Minister Martin McGuiness speaking about cross border trade. You can see that in many ways Ireland is already effectively behaving almost as a single country in many areas (which would have been unthinkable to Unionists 20 years ago). Equally however - you have the Sinn Fein representative effectively speaking at a political level for all the people of 'Northern Ireland' - but within an all Ireland context. The item is headlined "McGuiness defends border trade". There are so many subtle things going on in that headline which are symptomatic of just how much things have changed. I may not have explained that especially well. IMO there has been a real and significant shift from entrenched positions on both sides. It's tremendously positive and offers hope for Israel - Palestine IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 In many ways I also would rather a single-, rather than a two-state solution to the Israel, Palestine problem. I think that Israel has actually reasonably treated its Arab minorities - other than a disgraceful, racist land law recently brought it. They have full democratic rights etc. If a new secular state could be created granting right of return to all Palestinians and Jews, with unified democratic rights for all, a single undivided capital in Jerusalem and a strong secular basis I believe it would be far better than the two theocracies that de facto exist in the region. The critical factor is having an impartial state which both sides would trust. That is still partly illusiory in Northern Ireland, but is an order of magnitude better than a generation or so ago - could such an idea work in the Middle East? Unfortunately I doubt it - Edward Said was in favour, but even a voice as authoritative as his was drowned out in the fervour of both sides to create their respective nation states. That nationalism is also massively religiously based which makes for an uncompromising mix. Will Israel be able to compromise its Greater Israel ideal enough to leave a viable state for Palestine. Will Palestine accept this compromise - which will no doubt involve annexation of parts of the occupied territories. The risk of a failed state being created which becomes increasingly unstable isn't impossible - and the Greater Israel fanatics will have a vested interest in allowing this so they can "step" in to create the "God Ordained" land. It doesn't make for a hopeful two state solution does it. Though of course you can easily create a similar nightmare solution for a single state descending into civil war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman2 Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 In many ways I also would rather a single-, rather than a two-state solution to the Israel, Palestine problem. im sure they will consider your opinions before deciding china.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Manxman2, don't you aspire for things? I would rather that Zimbabwe and China was democratic, that Tibet had genuine autonomy ... and yes that the Middle East was more secular - I realize my opinions aren't worth a candle, but I still have them - and am willing to say why. And why not - hey! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman2 Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 I would rather that Zimbabwe and China was democratic, that Tibet had genuine autonomy your a busy boy. fucking mandela aint got jack on you.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Partition created a gerrymandered state in the north with a border drawn to create an artificial loyalist - unionist majority. Pongo - does that point have any relevence - or do you think teleologically there is some reason that the Island of Ireland should be a single political unit - why? I believe states are based on the choices of a community and if one community is unwilling to be absorbed into another community there is no reason why they can't form their own. Doing that is often a violent nasty process with forced migration and shifting borders, and so makes my talk of communities very simplistic, but basically the Unionist community moved and shifted, as did the Nationalist one, until viable communities and borders were created. That partition left huge fissures which are not yet solved, but IF both communities were happy enough to remain as separate states - then well and good. Them choosing voluntarilary to unite is also not an issue. One nationalist dream will die - either the dream of a united Ireland, or the dream of a unionist enclave. Either dream is an imagined community, and I question the idea that one is more legitimate than the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman2 Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 your a well written bloke china and you have my respect .. now will you take some time out on the world stage please .. and sort out the bloody iron pier saga please.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 I think that Israel has actually reasonably treated its Arab minorities - other than a disgraceful, racist land law recently brought it. They have full democratic rights etc. Though the Arabs afre understandably fixated of the issue of Israelis taking their land. I do wonder what the Palestinians do hope to achieve from attacking Israel. Terrorism is not going to yield many concessions if successful. Is it just Hamas who are making these recent attacks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 That partition left huge fissures which are not yet solved, but IF both communities were happy enough to remain as separate states - then well and good. Them choosing voluntarilary to unite is also not an issue. One nationalist dream will die - either the dream of a united Ireland, or the dream of a unionist enclave. Either dream is an imagined community, and I question the idea that one is more legitimate than the other. I was thinking about this before, I personally think the dream of a united Ireland will no longer be a dream in the sense of representing some wondrous goal. No doubt, naitonalist identities will still have relevance and continuity for a long while. In that way I think it probable that there will always be a desire to unite with the south. I think the 'Protestant' dreams of unionism began to die some decades ago. However, loyalism would seem to a much stronger sentiment and is what will pose a real impediment to Irish nationalist ambitions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magneto Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 I think that Israel has actually reasonably treated its Arab minorities - other than a disgraceful, racist land law recently brought it. They have full democratic rights etc. I do wonder what the Palestinians do hope to achieve from attacking Israel. Terrorism is not going to yield many concessions if successful. Is it just Hamas who are making these recent attacks? Can I suggest you start by looking up the following Ben Gurion Lohamei Herut Israel (Stern gang) Haganah Zionism Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 Partition created a gerrymandered state in the north with a border drawn to create an artificial loyalist - unionist majority. Pongo - does that point have any relevence - or do you think teleologically there is some reason that the Island of Ireland should be a single political unit - why? Well I think that they are moving into a much more inclusive future in which these are historic facts rather than current issues. And I think that the relative success of that peace process offers a tremendous example. But, yes, I do think that the gerrymandering was historically very relevant (in the context of politically defining the borders of a state which was repressive and discriminatory in terms of civil and political rights, housing and employment). Even if it truly had been about self determination of the people (ie allowing an opt out of independence) then the northern state would have been geographically much smaller from the start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.