If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#171
|
|||
|
|||
|
#172
|
|||
|
|||
"vince" wrote:
| "Brett" wrote in message ... | "vince" wrote: | | Fred J. McCall wrote in message n | | : | | :However Ireland has been occupied and held since 1172 or there | abouts the | | :south release in the 1920's | | | | I think that's wrong. I didn't think they actually took over | Ireland | | until Liz I. | | | | | | The Military occupation of Ireland began under Strongbow and Henry II | | The Treaty of Windsor in 1175 recognized the military conquest. | | | | | | http://www.rte.ie/culture/millennia/history/0711.html | | From your link: "Before Henry VIII came to power in 1509 the English had | little influence over Ireland. Henry feared that foreign or domestic | enemies would use Ireland as a base for attacking him." | | Apples and oranges. No, your comment implied total control since the 12th Century, your reference says otherwise. |
#173
|
|||
|
|||
"ZZBunker" wrote in message
om... Jim Watt wrote in message . .. On 4 Aug 2003 18:08:45 -0700, (ZZBunker) wrote: The original lease was a hundred years. Since then, it's been extended. Since Cuba is desparately in need of US tourism money far more than it's need of Gitmo or UN money. I thought it was illegal for US citizens to go there at present. It's hardly illegal, since the Navy has a base there. And the CIA is known to frequent many places in the Carribean. And the State Department, who are US Citizens hopefully, can do pretty much whatever they want to, with foreign relations. And the International Olympics Officials are there constantly. It's not illigal to travel to Cuba, it's illigal to do buisniss with Cuba or Cuban companies. - You can travel there, but while you're there you can't spend any money. So it's effectivly illigal for turist travel. Note there is a procedure to get exceptions to the rule and food and medice can be sold to Cuba. Plus you can send a small $500(?) amount of money to your relatives in cuba each year. Fidel does not bank the rent cheque for your occupied territory (or so he said on television, I have no personal knowledge of his finances) I don't bank US Government Checks either. That's sorta like investing in Money Markets. Which is even sillier than investing in an Ivy League Education. You missed the English/American transaltion there. "Bank check" = "Cash check" Money is sitting in an escrow account some where. [trim] |
#174
|
|||
|
|||
"Jim Watt" wrote in message
... On 5 Aug 2003 17:33:08 -0700, (ZZBunker) wrote: Jim Watt wrote in message . .. On 4 Aug 2003 18:08:45 -0700, (ZZBunker) wrote: The original lease was a hundred years. Since then, it's been extended. Since Cuba is desparately in need of US tourism money far more than it's need of Gitmo or UN money. I thought it was illegal for US citizens to go there at present. It's hardly illegal, CNN report otherwise: "On President George W. Bush's orders, the Treasury Department has begun an energetic campaign to track down and punish Americans who defy U.S. travel restrictions to the communist-run island, the only country in the world off-limits to most Americans." http://www.cnn.com/2001/TRAVEL/NEWS/....us.travelban/ You missed the important paragraph from that article: "Since May, hundreds of Americans who didn't even have their passports stamped have received these notices, with fines that can go as high as $50,000. The law forbids unauthorized Americans from spending money there, effectively preventing them from traveling. Critics say that's a violation of the First and Fifth amendments, which guarantee freedom of expression and other individual rights. " [trim] So now it's an "individual right" to defy economic sanctions? |
#175
|
|||
|
|||
In message , Jim writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message ... Hey, Britain is still in the grip of William's invaders of 1066, and there are plenty of Viking occupiers still lording it over their serfs. And don't even get me _started_ about those Roman carpetbaggers. How many generations of resident family do you need, before you can call where you were born "home"? So long as they are held against their will by force of arms... Can I ask for a donation for the Iceni Liberation Front, then? -- When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite. W S Churchill Paul J. Adam |
#176
|
|||
|
|||
"Brett" wrote in message ...
"vince" wrote: | "Brett" wrote in message ... | "vince" wrote: | | Fred J. McCall wrote in message n | | : | | :However Ireland has been occupied and held since 1172 or there abouts the | | :south release in the 1920's | | | | I think that's wrong. I didn't think they actually took over Ireland | | until Liz I. | | | | | | The Military occupation of Ireland began under Strongbow and Henry II | | The Treaty of Windsor in 1175 recognized the military conquest. | | | | | | http://www.rte.ie/culture/millennia/history/0711.html | | From your link: "Before Henry VIII came to power in 1509 the English had | little influence over Ireland. Henry feared that foreign or domestic | enemies would use Ireland as a base for attacking him." | | Apples and oranges. No, your comment implied total control since the 12th Century, your reference says otherwise. My coomment was "The Military occupation of Ireland began under Strongbow and Henry II" Tehat is undoubtedly correct. As ain the war of the roses in England, the central power (the king) had to deal with regional powers ( the barons) htis truggle was a fact of British hsitory throughout the plantagenate era. Ireland, lke amny other areas was caught up in htis game among competing anglo norman warlords. Vince |
#177
|
|||
|
|||
Jim Watt wrote in message . ..
On 5 Aug 2003 17:33:08 -0700, (ZZBunker) wrote: Jim Watt wrote in message . .. On 4 Aug 2003 18:08:45 -0700, (ZZBunker) wrote: The original lease was a hundred years. Since then, it's been extended. Since Cuba is desparately in need of US tourism money far more than it's need of Gitmo or UN money. I thought it was illegal for US citizens to go there at present. It's hardly illegal, CNN report otherwise: "On President George W. Bush's orders, the Treasury Department has begun an energetic campaign to track down and punish Americans who defy U.S. travel restrictions to the communist-run island, the only country in the world off-limits to most Americans." That's nice. But if CNN or BBC actually had an employee with IQ 80, it would be better. http://www.cnn.com/2001/TRAVEL/NEWS/....us.travelban/ Checked my memberships and suggestions that I joined that organisation are baseless. Unless they are affilliated to the IARU or you are bombing the British Legion I'm safe. We've ceased bombing everywhere for the moment, until we can find a really neato target like Bin Laden to bomb. But of us don't care if they're baseless, since they're obviously not Cruise-Bomb less, or Reinforced-Cement less. As for paying $100 dollars for a visa to visit your country, I don't think so. Cuba sounds more interesting, but not the concentration camp. That's good to know. Since we have to keep reminding you British that we don't *have* a country. Perhaps thats why you are illegally occupying other people's although the CIA do list the USA as a country: The *CIA* would have to list it as a country, since the CIA is run by the *Pentagon*, not the US. http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/...k/geos/us.html We have 50 States. Britian has a country, but it doesn't have bears, lobsters, or bear rifles. I still believe that the reason America invaded was an acute shortage of baths. Many of your bathrooms are without and Dubya missunderstood the word ba'ath. Of course our bathrooms are without. Since we got bathrooms on the *Moon*, and Britain's only got bathrooms in France, and some other political wastelands like Stalingrad, Berln, and Baghdad. PS: its spelt Britain and its in a better state. |
#179
|
|||
|
|||
|
#180
|
|||
|
|||
"Brett" wrote in message ...
"vince" wrote: | "Brett" wrote in message ... | "vince" wrote: | | "Brett" wrote in message ... | | "vince" wrote: | | | Fred J. McCall wrote in message n | | | : | | | :However Ireland has been occupied and held since 1172 or there abouts the | | | :south release in the 1920's | | | | | | I think that's wrong. I didn't think they actually took over Ireland | | | until Liz I. | | | | | | | | | The Military occupation of Ireland began under Strongbow and Henry II | | | The Treaty of Windsor in 1175 recognized the military conquest. | | | | | | | | | http://www.rte.ie/culture/millennia/history/0711.html | | | | From your link: "Before Henry VIII came to power in 1509 the English had | | little influence over Ireland. Henry feared that foreign or domestic | | enemies would use Ireland as a base for attacking him." | | | | Apples and oranges. | | No, your comment implied total control since the 12th Century, your | reference says otherwise. | | My coomment was "The Military occupation of Ireland began under | Strongbow and Henry II" Tehat is undoubtedly correct. What part of "Before Henry VIII came to power in 1509 the English had LITTLE INFLUENCE over Ireland" do you find difficult to understand. A military occupation in the 12th Century does not imply that the control was absolute or that the occupation was continuous for three centuries. If you had bothered reading the rest of the history you presented as evidence you would have found that a good number of the Irish appeared to enjoy being part of the struggle for power in the British Isles and a occupation British Army didn't spend three centuries putting down the natives. you clearl do not understand either the statement or Irish History. In the 12th- 15c century "England" had relatively little influence. That is becasue the military occupation was by anglo normans, but only nominally in favor of England as opposed to themselves. it was occupation by "English" but only nominally by England. As teh BBC puts it This is when the trouble became big trouble. For Diarmait promptly went shopping for mercenaries among the nastiest and greediest possible bunch of knights. These were the Anglo-Normans who, around the 1160s, seemed to be on the losing end of the war against the Welsh princes of Gwynedd. They had lost castles, land and peasants. They were in an ugly mood and they were looking for somewhere to recoup their losses. Enter Diarmait. Spread the word, the likes of Robert fitzStephen and Richard fitzGilbert de Clare (known to his friends, and especially to his many enemies, as 'Strongbow') must have said: 'Forget about Wales; forget about those unpleasantnesses in the mountains and valleys. Come west young knights. Ireland will be a piece of cake. It's said that the natives are primitive. But the pastures are green. So what are you waiting for?'. Within a year Diarmait had his throne back in Dublin. But he also now had an army of Anglo-Normans who weren't about to go away now that the job was done. In fact, from the beginning, Diarmait had known this. He not only expected but wanted the likes of Strongbow to stick around, lest his old enemies get ideas of booting him out again. Robert fitzStephen was quite right when he told his followers that Diarmait 'loves our race; he is encouraging our race to come here and has decided to settle them in this island and give them permanent roots...'. And Diarmait even went to the trouble of marrying his daughter to Strongbow to make sure that the alliance had staying power. Their agreement spelled out that if none of Diarmait's sons survived (and one had been blinded, another been taken hostage, another was illegitimate), then Strongbow could even inherit the throne of Leinster himself! 'The Irish kings did homage to Henry as they would to any High King...' At which point Henry II suddenly sat up and took notice of what was going on in the west. He had meant to use Diarmait's appeal to get a foothold in Ireland. What he had inadvertently created was a monster: a colony of Anglo-Normans, who answered to exactly the kind of jumped-up superbaron Henry was busy sitting on in every other part of his enormous empire. http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/state/n...asion_03.shtml "The English identity which the settlers voiced with growing stridency in the fourteenth century had older roots. The initial incursions into Ireland had been by marcher knights and other freelances from south Wales hired by Diarmait MacMurchadha, the King of Leinster. However, the rapid intervention of Henry II ensured that from 1171, the main beneficiaries of the conquests were men associated with the royal court and military household, some of whom retained estates in England and Wales. However unruly they might be in the Irish regions, they held their lands from the crown and saw themselves as the king's subjects. Royal power was sufficient to prevent the conquests from developing into an unregulated scramble and to ensure that Ireland remained politically tied to England." http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/state/n...eland_03.shtml So the bottom line was that it was a military occupation, not a poltical fusion until much later. As a resutl "england" had little influence but the occupiers were unquestionably Anglo Normans Vince |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
YANK CHILD ABUSERS :: another reason to kill americans abroad ??? | suckthis.com | Naval Aviation | 12 | August 7th 03 06:56 AM |
YANK CHILD ABUSERS | TMOliver | Naval Aviation | 19 | July 24th 03 06:59 PM |