Re: OT : The Irish Problem

In article <tCT7e.1024808$Xk.958215@pd7tw3no>,
"James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote:

> Sorry, but you've done this before. The above is a much too simplistic
> observation, from an 'Anglo' perspective. So Oliver Cromwell did his
> thing at Drogheda and elsewhere in the name of religion, and one of your
> previous comments was, "So Ollie was bad. Irish get over it".
>
> That's parallel to saying "Jews, so there was a Holocaust, get over it".
>
> Religion if you like - but the 'southern' Irish supported their legal
> king, James II, (who had converted back to catholicism), as opposed to
> the usurping son-in-law King Billie. (Bearing in mind Ollie had
> encouraged Scots to settle in the North).

Interest that you would talk about the 'legal king' of the Irish.

(Leaving aside the fact that most Irish never supported the concept of
British rule -- from Pearse to Murphy and before there are centuries and
centuries of strong opposition to the British.)

In some previous OT discussions (read Iraq) you have seemed to espouse
the idea that people should not be enslaved by military means.  How do
you reconcile that with the idea that the King of England was the 'legal
king' only because of his overwhelming force of arms with the idea and
never by the consent of the governed.

Are you now placing yourself in the 'might makes right' camp?