Obiagu1:

First of all, you should remove benefits and support you gave as the reason South Korea developed. South Korea did not receive any special support. Most countries received foreign aid and many are still getting it till date. South Koreans developed because they challenged themselves using Japan as their guide. Everything they did was their effort.
What greater 'aid' would petroleum be for South Koreans if they have it in abundance like Nigeria?

When you talk about homogeneous society they have, then you have a point. That gave them peace and no one was trying to hinder other regions with different ethnicity because they didn't want to be left behind. This is the more reason Nigeria should divide or at least become a confederation with autonomous regions.

Lesser population? That's a clear disadvantage. Most great nations have large populations.

Religion? Yes that contributed. Another reason we should go our ways because religious intolerance will not stop.

When you say we are younger, then you are trying desperately to justify our backwardness. Yes we are slightly younger but by 1962, both countries had the same GDP.

Foreign aid is not the nametag in this aspect. I'll comeback to this..
Now saying that South Korea "used Japan as their guide" is exactly why I gave that brief preamble about Korea and Japan mutually being US allies. Make sure you read that preamble first oooo.
Now why didn't North Korea develop like South Korea? Please answer this, abeg oooo.
South Korea is technologically advanced country, while agriculture still accounts for a high percentage of the Nigerian labour force. Hence if you say that in 1962 we had equal GDP, then don't forget this: Nigeria is blessed with natural resources while South Korea can boast of so not so much. And also Nigeria's agricultural sector was booming, cocoa sells blessed us well, among many other products. Then ask yourself this: what then accounted for South Korea's GDP to be equivalent to that of Nigeria? because technological advancement hadn't gotten to the extent where it was very profitable, and even Japan's Sony didn't experience that much good fortune until the 70s. And you claim Japan guided South Korea, so what can you say?
The answer is simple: manufacturing!
Clothes, cars, etc....

Nigeria! Is there still hope?

abubaka101:
Foreign aid is not the nametag in this aspect. I'll comeback to this..
Now saying that South Korea "used Japan as their guide" is exactly why I gave that brief preamble about Korea and Japan mutually being US allies. Make sure you read that preamble first oooo.
Now why didn't North Korea develop like South Korea? Please answer this, abeg oooo.
South Korea is technologically advanced country, while agriculture still accounts for a high percentage of the Nigerian labour force. Hence if you say that in 1962 we had equal GDP, then don't forget this: Nigeria is blessed with natural resources while South Korea can boast of so not so much. And also Nigeria's agricultural sector was booming, cocoa sells blessed us well, among many other products. Then ask yourself this: what then accounted for South Korea's GDP to be equivalent to that of Nigeria? because technological advancement hadn't gotten to the extent where it was very profitable, and even Japan's Sony didn't experience that much good fortune until the 70s. And you claim Japan guided South Korea, so what can you say?
The answer is simple: manufacturing!
Clothes, cars, etc....

I'll try to be as terse as possible.

North Korea, like China, didn't develop because they were communist states that lacked technology originally hence not much incentive for ambition, the key for industrial development.

Japan was already making automobile in 1904, so that tells you their level in technology. World War II will also tell you their level in the world.

You asked, what accounted for South Koreans GDP per capita. (By the way, who told you that 'technological advancement' hasn't gotten to the stage it was profitable in the 1960s?)

Firstly, Nigeria had a larger population so per capita wise, was as low as South Koreans despite the fact we had oil.

Secondly, South Korea, in the late 40's and early 50's were reliant on Foreign aid to survive because they were primarily peasant farmers. Their economy was mainly import oriented like all African countries that relied on aid (and are still reliant on aid till date) until they turned it around when the US aid was to be reduced.
South Korea become export oriented in the 60's when they made policy changes and that changed their lives.
Japan was already big exporters as of then and technologically advanced like most countries so South Koreans had a neighbour to look up to.

PS: Japan was an unwilling US ally and America was not that far ahead of them technologically in the 60s.

GDP per Capita
1962: Nigeria = $102, S. Korea = $105 (Same)
1970: Nigeria = $219, S. Korea = $279 (Same)
1980: Nigeria = $885, S. Korea = $1,689
1990: Nigeria = $348, S. Korea = $6,308
2000: Nigeria = $390, S. Korea = $11,347
2010: Nigeria = $1,465, S. Korea = $20,540

revolt: pleasreeeeeeeeeeee stop giving excuses for nigerias retrogression. babbling about we not having the same support south Korea got from U.S.
South Africa under apartheid didn't get any support from anybody

You are IGNORANT. UNLIKE IN THE REST OF BLACK AFRICA, South Africa's colonial regime from the 1800s re-invested the proceeds of that nation's exports back into South Africa annually, such that by the 1940s or so they were already a developed nation, a decade before South Korea even got on anyone's radar. This is why I say so many of you are so loud and yet so unschooled and unlearned. You just yell ''South Africa'' without knowing the FIRST THING about her economic history vis a vis the rest of Africa or even your own country.

At the very same time South Africa was being developed with her gold proceeds, the colonial regimes in Nigeria, Ghana, Sierra Leone, Congo, in short, everywhere else in black Africa, were stripping the continent dry, exporting its resources and putting less than 3% back into any form of development. What little infrastructure they built was geared directly to facilitating evacuation of resources to Europe. In South Africa, they built universities as early as the 1890s!!! Infrastructure fully built by the 1940s! Why? Because they had a significant white population. White racism at its most blatant. The other black colonial states lacked a significant white population, so the colonialists there just robbed them blind for a century. Then fast forward to today, and you ask ''why are we not like South Africa?''. If you knew the history of colonial rule in Africa, as you ought to, you would never ask that question. We are not ''like South Africa'' because we started our journey to development in 1960 while South Africa started her journey to development in 1860. They had a development head start on the rest of Africa of approximately 100 years. In 1960 Nigeria was a VIRTUAL BUSH WITH NO EDUCATED MIDDLE CLASS AT ALL. NO UNIVERSITY. NO CREDIBLE NATIONAL INSITUTIONS. WHO THEN DID YOU EXPECT to turn us into a Japan OR US in under 2 or 3 decades?

This is why i LAUGH WHEN i HEAR PEOPLE SAY NIGERIA HAS FAILED. FAILED FROM WHAT? YOU WERE A BUSH 40 YEARS AGO. TODAY YOUR LAND IS FILLED WITH ROADS, MODERN CITIES, 135 UNIVERSITIES, BANKS, CARS, SUVs, MILLIONS OF HIGHLY EDUCATED PEOPLE, MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR HIGHWAYS, STADIA, THEATRES, HOSPITALS, AIRPORTS, FACTORIES, OFFICE BLOCKS, THE LARGEST INTERNET MARKET IN AFRICA, 120 MILLION MOBILE PHONE SUBSCRIPTIONS, ECONOMY GROWING AT 7% PER ANNUM, AFRICA'S NO 1 INVESTMENT DESTINATION. GROWING INDIGENOUS CAR MANUFACTURER, AFRICA'S MOST AMBITIOUS SPACE PROGRAM ETC ETC...

I THINK WE'VE COME A MIGHTY LONG WAY IN UNDER 50 YEARS FROM BUSH WITH NO ONE'S HELP.

IN THE NEXT 50 WE SHOULD BE A RELATIVELY ADVANCED NATION.

Germany was heavily destroyed physically and economically, Japan, etc.
the truth is even with such good leadership in south Korea, if the population was black, trust me they'd still destroyed it. the bulk of negroes are destroyers. the very nature and values are retrogressive, and savage.

perhaps you may need to understand how and why the apartheid segregation started. it wasn't like that from beginning you know.

call me a bigot, but this us the truth. even South africa after being built and handed over to the blacks, see what it's turned to, same with black populated parts of U.S, and the U.K.
it's scary and hard to accept, but it's the truth.

Load of ignorant TRASH. Black people were the first to be civilized on earth, civilized the rest of the world, and gave the world her first and most long lasting civilizations - EGYPT, NUBIA, KUSH, KERMA. If any PEOPLE CAN CREATE fabulous civilizations, it is BLACKS.

What has South Africa ''turned to''?? That country has GROWN in leaps and bounds since the fall of apartheid. The economy has more than QUADRUPLED IN SIZE under black leadership. MILLIONS of blacks have had their lives improved. The ANC were never going to be able to transform the entire country overnight after a century of entrenched economic discrimination. They are making VAST PROGRESS THERE under black rule. Do not let any western news agency which will ALWAYS focus on those still in poverty, deceive you as to the extent of progress that HAS been made in South Africa under black rule.

Obiagu1:

I'll try to be as terse as possible.

North Korea, like China, didn't develop because they were communist states that lacked technology originally hence not much incentive for ambition, the key for industrial development.

Japan was already making automobile in 1904, so that tells you their level in technology. World War II will also tell you their level in the world.

You asked, what accounted for South Koreans GDP per capita. (By the way, who told you that 'technological advancement' hasn't gotten to the stage it was profitable in the 1960s?)

Firstly, Nigeria had a larger population so per capita wise, was as low as South Koreans despite the fact we had oil.

Secondly, South Korea, in the late 40's and early 50's were reliant on Foreign aid to survive because they were primarily peasant farmers. Their economy was mainly import oriented like all African countries that relied on aid (and are still reliant on aid till date) until they turned it around when the US aid was to be reduced.
South Korea become export oriented in the 60's when they made policy changes and that changed their lives.
Japan was already big exporters as of then and technologically advanced like most countries so South Koreans had a neighbour to look up to.

PS: Japan was an unwilling US ally and America was not that far ahead of them technologically in the 60s.

GDP per Capita
1962: Nigeria = $102, S. Korea = $105 (Same)
1970: Nigeria = $219, S. Korea = $279 (Same)
1980: Nigeria = $885, S. Korea = $1,689
1990: Nigeria = $348, S. Korea = $6,308
2000: Nigeria = $390, S. Korea = $11,347
2010: Nigeria = $1,465, S. Korea = $20,540

Now we are getting somewhere.
Foreign aid/support, communist ideology, US influence, etc, are basically all what I have been arguing about.
Foreign aid flowed better into South Korea because of capitalism, than into North Korea. Now you understand what I have being talking about.
Technological advancement (computers and co.) that I meant was that it hadn't developed to be as profitable as to account for a high share in the country's GDP, then (1962).
You said they reverted mainly to their domestic abilities after US reduced aid. But you forgot that the US only reduced aid after it noticed that the Korean market had become export oriented.

revolt: pleasreeeeeeeeeeee stop giving excuses for nigerias retrogression. babbling about we not having the same support south Korea got from U.S.
South Africa under apartheid didn't get any support from anybody, Germany was heavily destroyed physically and economically, Japan, etc.
the truth is even with such good leadership in south Korea, if the population was black, trust me they'd still destroyed it. the bulk of negroes are destroyers. the very nature and values are retrogressive, and savage.

perhaps you may need to understand how and why the apartheid segregation started. it wasn't like that from beginning you know.

call me a bigot, but this us the truth. even South africa after being built and handed over to the blacks, see what it's turned to, same with black populated parts of U.S, and the U.K.
it's scary and hard to accept, but it's the truth.

You have no clue about anything, South Africa just like South Korea received alot support from the west, even during the sanctions the west invested and traded with the country more than other African countries .
I saw this in military thread in the foreign affairs section. South Africa today has one of the top defense industry in the world and support from the west played a huge role in it.

chris365


[size=13pt:
South Africa Growth of the Defense Industry[/size]
South Africa's domestic arms industry originated in 1940 with the appointment of an Advisory Committee on Defence Force Requirements to study and to assess the country's military-industrial potential. Relying on its recommendations, the government, with British assistance, established six factories to produce or to assemble ammunition, bombs, howitzers, mortars, armored vehicles, and electronic equipment

Before the voluntary UN arms embargo was declared mandatory in 1977, South Africa received military technology through licensing agreements, primarily with West Germany, Italy, Israel, France, Belgium, and Canada. Licensing and coproduction agreements in the 1970s and 1980s made it difficult to distinguish between fully indigenous military manufactures and those that relied on foreign manufacturing capabilities

[size=13pt] Defying International Embargoes[/size]
Despite the numerous international embargoes against arms trade with South Africa in the 1970s and 1980s, it nonetheless developed the most advanced military-industrial base on the continent.

in the deliberate refusal by several countries to comply with the embargoes; in Pretoria's use of clever and covert circumvention techniques; and in its ability to develop and to exploit advanced commercial and "dual-use" technologies for military applications. By the late 1960s, South Africa had acquired at least 127 foreign production licenses for arms, ammunition, and military vehicles. South Africa had purchased fighter aircraft, tanks, naval vessels, naval armaments, and maritime patrol aircraft, primarily from Britain. After that, military equipment was carefully maintained, upgraded, and often reverse-engineered or copied, after the embargo made it difficult to obtain replacements or replacement parts.

During the 1970s, South Africa expanded and refined its ability to acquire foreign assistance for domestic military production. Its broad-based industrial growth enabled it to shift imports from finished products to technology and components that could be incorporated into locally designed or copied military systems. Through this maneuver, multinational firms and banks became major sources of technology and capital for South Africa's defense industry, even during the embargo era.

Dual-use equipment and technology--such as electronics, computers, communications, machine tools, and industrial equipment--and manufacturing techniques were not subject to embargo and were easy to exploit for military applications. South African engineers also were able to modify, to redesign, to retrofit, and to upgrade a wide range of weapons using foreign technology and systems.

South Africa also invested in strategic foreign industries; recruited foreign technicians to design, to develop, and to manufacture weapons; rented and leased technical services, including computers; and resorted to cover companies, deceptive practices, third-country shipments, and outright smuggling and piracy to meet its defense needs. By the 1980s, the defense industry, as extensive as it was, was nonetheless incapable of designing and producing some advanced military systems, such as high-performance combat aircraft, tanks, and aerospace electronics.


The new Government of National Unity in 1994 faced the dilemma of whether to dismantle the defense industry many of its leaders had reviled for two decades or to preserve a lucrative export industry that still employed tens of thousands of South Africans. After some debate, President Mandela and Minister of Defence Joe Modise decided to maintain a high level of defense manufacturing and to increase military exports in the late 1990s
http://www.photius.com/countries/south_africa/national_security/south_africa_national_security_growth_of_the_defens~2506.html

so please stop deceiving yourselves and some ignorant south africans that you developed your defence industry alone during sanctions. western countries traded with SA, helped you with your military capabilities. even SA was Britains largest trading partner in Africa under sanctions. while Nigeria was completely abandoned because we didn't have European settlers. Fact

do you think i just come here blabbing without proof like you. i'm just not accustomed to the copy and paste mentality you people depend on to pass information.

like i said earlier, Nigerian defence industry is very young and wholly indigenous and so far we are doing very well. deal with it or go flush your head in a toilet.

^^^

This is a South Korean thread and not a South African thread.

South Africa was developed by Whites and I don't care how they did it.
My concern is why couldn't Nigeria, with her indigenous people, develop much like South Korea did by Koreans?

Obiagu1: ^^^

This is a South Korean thread and not a South African thread.

South Africa was developed by Whites and I don't care how they did it.
My concern is why couldn't Nigeria, with her indigenous people, develop much like South Korea did by Koreans?

Hey dumbo.. Did u read the comment I was replying to? The guy claimed that South Africa didn't receive any support from the west which is totally not true, do you think if Nigeria had that level of support it wouldn't be more developed now?

osystein:

Hey dumbo.. Did u read the comment I was replying to? The guy claimed that South Africa didn't receive any support from the west which is totally not true, do you think if Nigeria had that level of support it wouldn't be more developed now?

Yea, right!

In Nigeria the funds would have grown legs and disappeared.

osystein:

Hey dumbo.. Did u read the comment I was replying to? The guy claimed that South Africa didn't receive any support from the west which is totally not true, do you think if Nigeria had that level of support it wouldn't be more developed now?

hmmmm interesting, so what you stated in a nutshell is " southafrica development began with foreign inputs then they became self sufficient" that being said, did you know that the U.S needed support from France and Spain to fight it's colonial masters? They were no match for great Britain. After their independence they still battled another civil war, mostly carried out by imported tams. By early 20th century, though U.S was collectively looked down upon by Britain and the other imperial powers, they'd Been able to build up their economy and technology, by implication they forced their way into relevance. the same thing with China, japan, India etc that being said, Nigeria was exploited by Britain (SAME THING BRITAIN DID TO U.S), we got out independence with little or no efforts, the economic blue print already set up by the British was functional as we see in gdp then, we were given massive support in arms and military hardware during the civil war, our military trained by them, not until 2004 WE COULDN'T MAKE OUR GUNS not to talk of hardware.

Gowon decided after the civil war, that were should remain non aligned, which actually should have given us the impetus to fly rocket our economy. (if I remember vividly, the, U.S economy skyrocketed after the wwi when they chose to be nob aligned.

it's pretty convenient to blame Britain foe our problems, ESP as concerns this unholy marriage but let's face facts, Nigeria would always have the potential economically, politically, etc than any of our regional nations. what destroyed Nigeria? nepotism, quota system, avarice and ethnoreligous bigotry. it's ironically that this phenomenon isn't just relative to Nigeria but the rest of negroid africa. the Arab Africans like Egypt morovco, Ethiopia, Libya etc had similar experiences, though they haven't developed to western standards, they've been able to get their acts right, at least infrastructurally.

truth I'd every where you go, look and see how their black population always fares, there are very few progressive blacks, and the majority of retrogressive pull them down.

imagine what would happen if transfer Americans to Nigeria, with all our problems, I bet you in a few Years you wouldn't even believe how the roads would be transformed not to talk of the economy, but imagine what would happen if were given an already built U.S.. Ten years would be too much for us to do what we do best.

you see one nigeria failure

ISpiksDaTroof:

Yea, right!

In Nigeria the funds would have grown legs and disappeared.

pls help me tell him, we've even been given better aids than s.a. the funds always grow legs. wish that was all. We destroy legacies and never solve problems. all we do adapt.

revolt: hmmmm interesting, so what you stated in a nutshell is " southafrica development began with foreign inputs then they became self sufficient" that being said, did you know that the U.S needed support from France and Spain to fight it's colonial masters? They were no match for great Britain. After their independence they still battled another civil war, mostly carried out by imported tams. By early 20th century, though U.S was collectively looked down upon by Britain and the other imperial powers, they'd Been able to build up their economy and technology, by implication they forced their way into relevance. the same thing with China, japan, India etc that being said, Nigeria was exploited by Britain (SAME THING BRITAIN DID TO U.S), we got out independence with little or no efforts, the economic blue print already set up by the British was functional as we see in gdp then, we were given massive support in arms and military hardware during the civil war, our military trained by them, not until 2004 WE COULDN'T MAKE OUR GUNS not to talk of hardware.

Gowon decided after the civil war, that were should remain non aligned, which actually should have given us the impetus to fly rocket our economy. (if I remember vividly, the, U.S economy skyrocketed after the wwi when they chose to be nob aligned.

it's pretty convenient to blame Britain foe our problems, ESP as concerns this unholy marriage but let's face facts, Nigeria would always have the potential economically, politically, etc than any of our regional nations. what destroyed Nigeria? nepotism, quota system, avarice and ethnoreligous bigotry. it's ironically that this phenomenon isn't just relative to Nigeria but the rest of negroid africa. the Arab Africans like Egypt morovco, Ethiopia, Libya etc had similar experiences, though they haven't developed to western standards, they've been able to get their acts right, at least infrastructurally.

truth I'd every where you go, look and see how their black population always fares, there are very few progressive blacks, and the majority of retrogressive pull them down.

imagine what would happen if transfer Americans to Nigeria, with all our problems, I bet you in a few Years you wouldn't even believe how the roads would be transformed not to talk of the economy, but imagine what would happen if were given an already built U.S.. Ten years would be too much for us to do what we do best.

You've said some reasonable things, and also some confusing things.
For instance, you actually said the US chose to be "non-aligned"! I'll give you the gist. WW1 would never have ended if not for the US! The US ACTUALLY chose to go BACK into "isolation and protectionism" after WW1, hence they never joined the League of Nations (by the way was one major reason why the League crashed!). How can you believe that US was "non-aligned"? Can you say a nation is non-aligned if it doesn't even want to have anything to do with other nations in the first place?!
To believe that the former Superpowers looked down on US I can say has been dumbfounded by the previous paragraphs!
Being non-aligned doesn't even guarantee that a nation's economy would "skyrocket", because non-alignment makes the nation lose some dedicated diplomatic benefits. For instance, a non-aligned nation may not need to be heavily armed, when compared to arsenal of Cold War nations. A non-aligned nation won't get that dedicated diplomatic support in areas of policy making, all they'll receive would be the general idea nothing concrete, cos they don't really trust you.
Non-aligned nations are seen as "third class" nations by Cold War countries. For instance, former US Secretary of State, Jerry Kissinger was said to have believed that non-aligned countries have little role to play in global affairs.
So why should you expect a non-aligned nation's economy then to skyrocket? You can only expect them to perform moderately!

abubaka101:
You've said some reasonable things, and also some confusing things.
For instance, you actually said the US chose to be "non-aligned"! I'll give you the gist. WW1 would never have ended if not for the US! The US ACTUALLY chose to go BACK into "isolation and protectionism" after WW1, hence they never joined the League of Nations (by the way was one major reason why the League crashed!). How can you believe that US was "non-aligned"? Can you say a nation is non-aligned if it doesn't even want to have anything to do with other nations in the first place?!
To believe that the former Superpowers looked down on US I can say has been dumbfounded by the previous paragraphs!
Being non-aligned doesn't even guarantee that a nation's economy would "skyrocket", because non-alignment makes the nation lose some dedicated diplomatic benefits. For instance, a non-aligned nation may not need to be heavily armed, when compared to arsenal of Cold War nations. A non-aligned nation won't get that dedicated diplomatic support in areas of policy making, all they'll receive would be the general idea nothing concrete, cos they don't really trust you.
Non-aligned nations are seen as "third class" nations by Cold War countries. For instance, former US Secretary of State, Jerry Kissinger was said to have believed that non-aligned countries have little role to play in global affairs.
So why should you expect a non-aligned nation's economy then to skyrocket? You can only expect them to perform moderately!

yes like you said non aligned nations hardly get partisan support diplomatically no doubt, but that would matter if the nations isn't self sufficient to a healthy degree. a non aligned nation can have unrestricted economically relations to it's advantage with little or no sentiments. I don't agree it was because the U.S refused yo join the league that caused it's crash.
Basically wwii destroyed the economy and infrastructure (Both military and civil)of the world powers then. The U.S on the other hand sold arms and raw materials to any willing buyer, thus taking advantage of the situation, until she started being increasingly inimical towards nazis. obviously by the end of wwii, armed with the hydrogen bomb, U.S was the non disputed world power, so it was only expedient to phase out the league which was a British institution.

I pray Nigeria's foreign policy can attained intercontinental status., we can say all we want but let's not attribute south Korea's successes to U.S benevolence. they don't even have crude oil.

osystein:

Hey dumbo.. Did u read the comment I was replying to? The guy claimed that South Africa didn't receive any support from the west which is totally not true, do you think if Nigeria had that level of support it wouldn't be more developed now?

Nigeria can receive help from God and still will not develop. South Africa developed to the extent it did due to a dominant culture which was European. If South Africa was left in an environment where cultures conflict and compete idiotically like in Nigeria, it would have been less desirable than Nigeria.
There was a documentary program in USA where Americans of all works of life discussed the “Superpower status of USA”, they all agreed that citizens of USA made it possible for such ideal status.

revolt: yes like you said non aligned nations hardly get partisan support diplomatically no doubt, but that would matter if the nations isn't self sufficient to a healthy degree. a non aligned nation can have unrestricted economically relations to it's advantage with little or no sentiments. I don't agree it was because the U.S refused yo join the league that caused it's crash.
Basically wwii destroyed the economy and infrastructure (Both military and civil)of the world powers then. The U.S on the other hand sold arms and raw materials to any willing buyer, thus taking advantage of the situation, until she started being increasingly inimical towards nazis. obviously by the end of wwii, armed with the hydrogen bomb, U.S was the non disputed world power, so it was only expedient to phase out the league which was a British institution.

I pray Nigeria's foreign policy can attained intercontinental status., we can say all we want but let's not attribute south Korea's successes to U.S benevolence. they don't even have crude oil.

I never said lack of US presence was THE MAIN reason the League crashed, but it was one of the main reasons.
WW1 shattered the Superpowers' economies before WW2.
The League ended the minute WW2 started. Claiming it to be British institution is unfair. However, the appeasement policy of the then Superpowers, Britain included, towards Germany caused a lot of crises. For instance, the Japan and China issue, the Italy invasion of Ethiopia, etc...
Am sure you do knw that the WW2 victors, Soviet, US, and Britain, led the way for the UN to come into existence.
And back to the S Korea and US issue, it wasn't benelovence, but "concrete partnership" that they had, and still have.
For Nigeria's foreign status to excel, it needs to be overhauled/reformed. More economic and strategic diplomacy and less military diplomacy...

abubaka101:
I never said lack of US presence was THE MAIN reason the League crashed, but it was one of the main reasons.
WW1 shattered the Superpowers' economies before WW2.
The League ended the minute WW2 started. Claiming it to be British institution is unfair. However, the appeasement policy of the then Superpowers, Britain included, towards Germany caused a lot of crises. For instance, the Japan and China issue, the Italy invasion of Ethiopia, etc...
Am sure you do knw that the WW2 victors, Soviet, US, and Britain, led the way for the UN to come into existence.
And back to the S Korea and US issue, it wasn't benelovence, but "concrete partnership" that they had, and still have.
For Nigeria's foreign status to excel, it needs to be overhauled/reformed. More economic and strategic diplomacy and less military diplomacy...

You can take Nigeria as currently configured to the moon it will still smell of failure.

DerideGull:

You can take Nigeria as currently configured to the moon it will still smell of failure.

it's not just about configuration. it's about the bulk of blackman values.

revolt: it's not just about configuration. it's about the bulk of blackman values.

To me I feel the African race is confused. In Nigeria the study of History is not even respected or made compulsory. That's why we have people with no knowledge about how we started out, how we are interconnected, interrelated and eventually got amalgamated. All we have are people who assume how things came about, or people who utilize "oral tradition" to the point of distortion, falsification, and ultimately embrace such lies.
If only we had been embracing our core values, and had been learning our history, and eventually been recording every other event that have happened from 1960.
Instead, we embraced Federalism, became tribalistic and uncooperative, became ignorant greedy imbeciles who went after oil and immediately abandoned our other sources of income. After they've all had their share of the loot, they now want to deceive us that they care about us, and the ignorance of our people is too massive, they can't stop digesting the lies.
If we are going to go beyond where we are, we need a change of government system. Let's switch to either Unitary or Confederal system. Let each region know that they are autonomous. Let them take full responsibility for themselves.
I say this because nearly all African nations claim to be a republic, but when any region wants to leave, things become violent and chaotic. Let them try something new. Africa has to many ethnic groups not scattered per se but found mainly in certain locations. In Nigeria, the Yorubas are mainly in the South West, Igbos East, Hausas North, Igalas, Tivs, Idomas, Bassa-nge are found in the Middle-Belt.
Once we switch govt systems, all these tribes would switch their focus to regional governance, very few will be influential enough to drag for the power at the centre. The Parliament would guide the principles of govt, among many other things. This may sound promising but it still has its cons. However a trial is all that is needed!

abubaka101:
To me I feel the African race is confused. In Nigeria the study of History is not even respected or made compulsory. That's why we have people with no knowledge about how we started out, how we are interconnected, interrelated and eventually got amalgamated. All we have are people who assume how things came about, or people who utilize "oral tradition" to the point of distortion, falsification, and ultimately embrace such lies.
If only we had been embracing our core values, and had been learning our history, and eventually been recording every other event that have happened from 1960.
Instead, we embraced Federalism, became tribalistic and uncooperative, became ignorant greedy imbeciles who went after oil and immediately abandoned our other sources of income. After they've all had their share of the loot, they now want to deceive us that they care about us, and the ignorance of our people is too massive, they can't stop digesting the lies.
If we are going to go beyond where we are, we need a change of government system. Let's switch to either Unitary or Confederal system. Let each region know that they are autonomous. Let them take full responsibility for themselves.
I say this because nearly all African nations claim to be a republic, but when any region wants to leave, things become violent and chaotic. Let them try something new. Africa has to many ethnic groups not scattered per se but found mainly in certain locations. In Nigeria, the Yorubas are mainly in the South West, Igbos East, Hausas North, Igalas, Tivs, Idomas, Bassa-nge are found in the Middle-Belt.
Once we switch govt systems, all these tribes would switch their focus to regional governance, very few will be influential enough to drag for the power at the centre. The Parliament would guide the principles of govt, among many other things. This may sound promising but it still has its cons. However a trial is all that is needed!

I guess you made a mistake here in suggesting we practice a unitary system of govt, Cos Confederacy isn't unitary. perhaps you meant true federalism, Cos Nigeria at present is more of a unitary system in practice.

abubaka101:
To me I feel the African race is confused. In Nigeria the study of History is not even respected or made compulsory. That's why we have people with no knowledge about how we started out, how we are interconnected, interrelated and eventually got amalgamated. All we have are people who assume how things came about, or people who utilize "oral tradition" to the point of distortion, falsification, and ultimately embrace such lies.
If only we had been embracing our core values, and had been learning our history, and eventually been recording every other event that have happened from 1960.
Instead, we embraced Federalism, became tribalistic and uncooperative, became ignorant greedy imbeciles who went after oil and immediately abandoned our other sources of income. After they've all had their share of the loot, they now want to deceive us that they care about us, and the ignorance of our people is too massive, they can't stop digesting the lies.
If we are going to go beyond where we are, we need a change of government system. Let's switch to either Unitary or Confederal system. Let each region know that they are autonomous. Let them take full responsibility for themselves.
I say this because nearly all African nations claim to be a republic, but when any region wants to leave, things become violent and chaotic. Let them try something new. Africa has to many ethnic groups not scattered per se but found mainly in certain locations. In Nigeria, the Yorubas are mainly in the South West, Igbos East, Hausas North, Igalas, Tivs, Idomas, Bassa-nge are found in the Middle-Belt.
Once we switch govt systems, all these tribes would switch their focus to regional governance, very few will be influential enough to drag for the power at the centre. The Parliament would guide the principles of govt, among many other things. This may sound promising but it still has its cons. However a trial is all that is needed!

I guess you made a mistake here in suggesting we practice a unitary system of govt, Cos Confederacy isn't unitary. perhaps you meant true federalism, Cos Nigeria at present is more of a unitary system in practice.


and yes, verily it's not the overlook of history in our curriculum, but also the typical blackman doesn't read to gain knowledge but reads to pass exams and probably hopes of getting money with the certificate. don't you see our youths are just interested in dbanj stories and whiz kids gf. our values are upside down.

revolt: I guess you made a mistake here in suggesting we practice a unitary system of govt, Cos Confederacy isn't unitary. perhaps you meant true federalism, Cos Nigeria at present is more of a unitary system in practice.


and yes, verily it's not the overlook of history in our curriculum, but also the typical blackman doesn't read to gain knowledge but reads to pass exams and probably hopes of getting money with the certificate. don't you see our youths are just interested in dbanj stories and whiz kids gf. our values are upside down.

Nigeria isn't anywhere close to a unitary system that you assume. They keep yapping about True Federalism because the federal system is what we practice and we're still screwing it up. ASUU went on strike, the state-owned universities also went on strike against the federal govt. People will see how bad their roada are and will say that GEJ isn't doing anything. States that aren't contributing much to our economy will shout that they want equal oil revenue sharing formula.
All in all, nobody sees/wants to hold the other tiers of govt responsible for anything, they only see the Federal Govt. But when we change practice, everyone would have to hold their regional govts. The belief of one Nigeria is strained by the problems some regions are imposing on the nation. This is why some ignorant and cowardly fellows are saying the country should split. Ones we change to Unitary or Confederal, each autonomous region would need to fallback to its own potentials.
You really can't blame the blackman for not caring about education, some locations developed the act of writing very late. But you missed my point still. I was never referring to how indifferent our young people are. I was referring to the time when our leaders of old times were sending their kids to school, to learn and fight for a place in govt. They should have kept on teaching our core values and history to the later generations.

Obiagu1: Those Korean pictures show how Yorubas still live till date and they want us Biafrans to continue with them

Nigeria expires in few hours.
Everyone should go home and live how they want to.

ewu!!! Who is stoping you people (ibos)? Not to worry nah hunger go kill una! What is painin me most is that ibos dn't have any mineral resources, no brain!! Always attache to SS! Igbo!

WIZGUY69: ewu!!! Who is stoping you people (ibos)? Not to worry nah hunger go kill una! What is painin me most is that ibos dn't have any mineral resources, no brain!! Always attache to SS! Igbo!

This thread has advanced beyond tribal arguments... Please don't drag us back...

abubaka101:
Nigeria isn't anywhere close to a unitary system that you assume. They keep yapping about True Federalism because the federal system is what we practice and we're still screwing it up. ASUU went on strike, the state-owned universities also went on strike against the federal govt. People will see how bad their roada are and will say that GEJ isn't doing anything. States that aren't contributing much to our economy will shout that they want equal oil revenue sharing formula.
All in all, nobody sees/wants to hold the other tiers of govt responsible for anything, they only see the Federal Govt. But when we change practice, everyone would have to hold their regional govts. The belief of one Nigeria is strained by the problems some regions are imposing on the nation. This is why some ignorant and cowardly fellows are saying the country should split. Ones we change to Unitary or Confederal, each autonomous region would need to fallback to its own potentials.
You really can't blame the blackman for not caring about education, some locations developed the act of writing very late. But you missed my point still. I was never referring to how indifferent our young people are. I was referring to the time when our leaders of old times were sending their kids to school, to learn and fight for a place in govt. They should have kept on teaching our core values and history to the later generations.

pls what's a unitary system of government, Cos I don't understand how you use that principle synonymously with Confederacy.

I went to Seoul 2 years ago, the city looks finer than London.
An interpreter told me they have only 1 language. And they had a charismatic leader that developed the country wholly.
They have 21 bridges linking their island to the mainland unlike lagos' miserable 3.

me_for_you: I went to Seoul 2 years ago, the city looks finer than London.
An interpreter told me they have only 1 language. And they had a charismatic leader that developed the country wholly.
They have 21 bridges linking their island to the mainland unlike lagos' miserable 3.

it's only socialist and Communist leaders that can decided to develop their enclaves without private input. obviously all negroid govt have shown their myopic and avarice driven values can never achieve that. the only solution is capitalism. since profit is all that drives blackman,

me_for_you: I went to Seoul 2 years ago, the city looks finer than London.
An interpreter told me they have only 1 language. And they had a charismatic leader that developed the country wholly.
They have 21 bridges linking their island to the mainland unlike lagos' miserable 3.

it's only socialist and Communist leaders that can decide to develop their enclaves without private input. obviously all negroid govt have shown their myopic and avarice driven values can never achieve that.

the only solution is capitalism. since profit is all that drives blackman, and the development I speaking is as a results of our continued relationship with white capitalist s

South Korea in 1963 or 1964 began a push for growth.

It was estimated in the first 10years exports grew by 40% annually. It had an export or perish mentality.

Nigeria has to learn from this.

bloggernaija:


Not with this budget

Recurrent expenditure -3.3 trillion naira ( salaries of 1trillion ,overheads of over 2 trillion naira and spent on God knows what.
Capital expenditure -1.1 trillion



In 1960, Korea was poorer, on a per capita basis, than Iraq, Liberia and Zimbabwe, and, with hardly any natural resources or industry, its future prospects seemed dire. Yet today Korea is a proud member of the G20 and a leading manufacturer of microchips, LCD panels and automobiles. Of all of Asia’s rapid-growth economies, Korea has experienced the greatest increase in per-capita GDP since the mid-1960s.

Most analysts tend to credit Korea’s success to the heavy role of the state in making this miracle happen. But I prefer to see the Korea story as one created by the power of globalization. [/b]Back in the 1960s, Korea’s technocrats were smart enough to realize they could increase incomes at home by using their advantage in low-cost labor to export cheap manufactured goods to the industrialized world[b], and especially the United States. As wealth increased, the country could then afford investments in new, heavy and high-tech industries. South Korea is probably the best single example of how international market forces, if wisely tapped, can turn the poorest of nations rich in a remarkably short period of time. It’s proof that no matter how destitute a nation might be (such as an unfortunate number of African countries), the right mix of policies can get growth going and incomes rising, and transform hopelessness into hope.


in short,
we have to stop importing crap like toothpick,pen,pencils,paper,candles,lanterns,vegetable oil and utilize the labour of millions of the poor etc and
stop building crap like

abuja city gate,
roads to nowhere,
another senate president residence,
another set of furnitures for sambo.
official cars for people who are already paid expenses .
and buying cars,cars ,cars all the time.



Read more: Why South Korea Matters | TIME.com http://business.time.com/2010/03/24/why-south-korea-matters/#ixzz2p5TvpIJk

No country has ever become prosperous without globalisation. You have to focus on increasing exports.

There's nothing wrong in importing toothpicksl Self reliance doesn't make you rich.

grandstar:


No country has ever become prosperous without globalisation. You have to focus on increasing exports.

There's nothing wrong in importing toothpicksl Self reliance doesn't make you rich.

The best example of which, ironically enough, is provided by the neighboring state of North Korea, which is proudly "self reliant" in its utter destitution.

Too many Nigerians think macroeconomics is simply home budgeting writ-large, with the key to success being spending more than one earns. In truth, it doesn't work that way at all, and it's quite reasonable for a fast-growing country to sustain a current-account deficit for several years, or even decades; Japan did so throughout its initial industrialisation period during the 19th-century Meiji era, importing the capital needed to finance its development instead of relying solely on the meagre savings of its poor peasants.

omohayek:

The best example of which, ironically enough, is provided by the neighboring state of North Korea, which is proudly "self reliant" in its utter destitution.

Too many Nigerians think macroeconomics is simply home budgeting writ-large, with the key to success being spending more than one earns. In truth, it doesn't work that way at all, and it's quite reasonable for a fast-growing country to sustain a current-account deficit for several years, or even decades; Japan did so throughout its initial industrialisation period during the 19th-century Meiji era, importing the capital needed to finance its development instead of relying solely on the meagre savings of its poor peasants.

Thank you so much for this.

I remember China had trade deficits until about a decade or so ago. You are so correct.

It was also very dependent for decades for foriegn investments especially from Hong Kong.

meforyou1:
I went to Seoul 2 years ago, the city looks finer than London.
An interpreter told me they have only 1 language. And they had a charismatic leader that developed the country wholly.
They have 21 bridges linking their island to the mainland unlike lagos' miserable 3.

I don't accept your talk about the charismatic leader. He was a dictator and not much like. Also, the country had horrible labour practices the people hated.