Should the Queen Have apologised to the Irish?

[thir]

[QUOTE=IAN 2411;927312}
Taking people off the street because they dared to steal and knee-capping them, [For all those that don’t know, knee-capping is being tied to a chair and having a electric drill pushed through your knee-cap while awake.
[/quote]

If memory serves, after the independence some of these people turned didn't wan tto let go of the arms and turned a kind of gangsters. I do not know if that is right - but so it is said.

The modern trend for the IRA whether Real/Provisional is to go out to Libya or the Middle East and train Al-Qeada. Will Obama apologise for the bombing of Iraq, killing all those civilians in the name of WOMD, that never existed except in the warped minds of Bush/Blair?

If it healed anything, would not be a bad idea.

I am with you on that one denu, I suppose while the Queen is in the mood for apologising she might as well include, India, Africa, Australia, the West Indies, and others in the old British Empire.

They are owed!

Just one other point I would like to mention and that is I am not anti Irish but i am bitter, and you could not pay me enough to holiday there. It is no good stating the history of Ireland, if you are not going to state the intelligence that was gathered and passed out to the forces on the ground and the Brits on the mainland.
Be well IAN 2411

Come again?

[IAN 2411]

Come again?

I have a lot of Irish freinds in the UK, I give them the same respect that i give everyone. The Country? I am sorry but it gives me the creeps. I never like looking over my shoulder and I dont think I could help myself.

Be well IAN 2411

[IAN 2411]

If memory serves, after the independence some of these people turned didn't wan tto let go of the arms and turned a kind of gangsters. I do not know if that is right - but so it is said.

It is a fact that the IRA just cannot get that Shit out of their system.. If you are born to be a killer and torturer then most probably you will die still doing it.

Be well IAN 2411

[MMI]

See comments below:-

'Legal' is actually one of those very interesting words. What makes something legal?
Because the lawmakers say so. What makes the lawmakers legal? Because they say so.

No argument there

Was the Norman invasion of Ireland legal? And if so, what made it so

Debatable. The Norman "invasion" was by invitation, but the person who issued the invitation was a dispossessed king.

Well, an English pope declared it legal for Henry the Second to invade Ireland, to convert it from the Celtic church to Roman catholic. Does that make it legal?

Except Henry II didn't bother: he dropped the idea completely.

The other kings, and queen Elisabeth, simply wanted it. They were the (legal?) rulers but not over Ireland, so what made it legal? We stole it ourselves, so now it is ours?

The thing about kings and queens is that they often reign over more than one kingdom at the same time. Here, English monarchs were also Lords or Kings/Queen of Ireland: they did not want Ireland - they already had it. They didn't steal Ireland, they ruled it with an independent Parliament (initially and latterly) with the consent of the aristocracy and the clans ... except when individual aristocrats and chiefs fell out of favour, they rebelled in the name of the Irish.

America - was already occupied. Was it legal for the settlers to take it from the Indians? Was it legal for the Britsh to simply declare it theirs? With what right?

Was it illegal to settle America?

How long does it take for something to have lasted long enough to make it legal, by force of habit?
Or is it legal by consensus?
By force and arms?

All of those things. Here are a few dates:

1241 - English Parliament formed
1297 - Irish Parliament formed
1788 - Federal government of USA founded
1849 - Danish Rigsdagen formed
1937 - Oireachtas of the Republic of Ireland formed
1953 - Danish Folketing established (out of Rigsdagen)

I don't think there's any doubt as to the legitimacy of Danish laws, is there?

Thomas Jefferson said, "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed." I see no reason to disagree (although I deny that withdrawal of consent justifies rebellion).

Law and order was what they had, more so than many countries. Violence and disorder is what you get when your force yourself on another culture and change it with violence.

For reasons already given, I disagree that the Irish brehon laws made Ireland a civilised country: Early Irish Law concerned itself with how a man might improve his status, and how much he might have to pay for killing or wounding someone - which varied according to the status of the victim. I believe the early Danes had similar systems before they were Christianised.

Brehon law had no judges or courts: it was pronounced by the local chief or wise man who would interpret it as he saw fit; and it would be enforced by the people affected - the mob.

The Irish were always violent. Clan feuds were routine and frequently bloody. When not fighting among themselves, the early Irish would raid South West England (cf Tristan & Iseult), Wales (whence came St Patrick), Isle of Man and Scotland (or Pictland - which they colonised by creating Dal Riada and progressively eliminated or absorbed the native Picts).

I don't think anyone has shown me where England "forced" itself on the Irish