Dear Pericles
it is not difficult to find enemies and allies within a conflict itself. For us here, out of the Irish situation, we can only observe and try to assess on the basis of fairness who is more "right" than the other.

A law which would prevent property being inherited by a Catholic wife of a deceased Protestant man should make us all feel grieved for her sake.

Such a law, would go back to the outcome of Cromwellian battles, where the 'Rule of England' was decisivly established, but I doubt Cromwell himself would have supported such a law, more likely from opportunistic nominal Anglican absentee landowners. (land which they received as a result of oppression and dispossession of the Irish)

Most fair minded people know a duck when they see one.. u know..quack_feathers etc. So, laws which afflict people unfairly are easily identifiable.
Such a law would be the prevention of Aboriginal people in Australia from voting. Or.. laws which push them around from this place to that for the sake of 'mining' or development or some other 'white blokes' master plan.

I hope this answers the key question.

No Boaz, it still will not do.

Taking sides from a distance, and with an incomplete understanding of the issues, is a recipe for disaster.

>>it is not difficult to find enemies and allies within a conflict itself. For us here, out of the Irish situation, we can only observe and try to assess on the basis of fairness who is more "right" than the other.<<

And how do you measure "right" in this situation? Was it more "right" for the IRA to enlist the support of Germany in 1916, than it was "right" for the Black and Tans to conduct their own form of warfare against the IRA? Similarly, was it more "right" for the US to support the Taliban in Afghanistan in the 1980s, than it was "right" for them to try to obliterate them in 2002?

The example you use as a measure of rightness in the Irish situation is also questionable.

>>A law which would prevent property being inherited by a Catholic wife of a deceased Protestant man should make us all feel grieved for her sake.<<

You will need to explain this - are you suggesting that this law exists, or did you invent it for the purposes of your argument?

>>So, laws which afflict people unfairly are easily identifiable<<

Not, I'm afraid, as easily as you might expect. Does the law that states that a people may choose their form of government through a fair and free election, afflict people unfairly, or is it a right that we should all hold to be a cornerstone of civilization?

Have another think about this question from my last post.

"When both sides have legitimate grievances, why do you see it necessary that disinterested outsiders get involved by picking a team to support? What value does it add, and how does it equate with your mantra of loving thy neighbour?"

Pericles, I wasn't trying to suggest that it is a completely analogous situation to Iraq - far from it. What I was suggesting was that Britain stayed the course in Ireland and it would appear that a resolution has at last been reached. There were plenty who said that they should have pulled out.

The question then was - are there lessons for us and Iraq? I'm not sure that there are, but it is a question worth posing.

I'm probably half-way between you and BD. I think the IRA was a response to largely modern pressures, but it builds on a sub-stratum which actually goes back to William the Conqueror.

I'm wondering whether part of the reason that NI has settled down is that Ireland itself has become quite wealthy. When everyone is poor and looking for someone else to blame, perhaps it is easy to commit acts of violence. Maybe part of a viable Iraq strategy is to try to accelerate economic growth in those parts of the country that are most peaceful, irrespective of whether they are Shia, Sunni Arab or Sunni Kurd?