Katsumoto:

What a comment!!!! Do you have private audience with God?

No, I think he has God's email address and Jesus one of his face book/twitter friends.

But when you heared people like Oyb mouthing off as if they will make a difference themselves, it makes you wonder why they haven't changed Nigeria for almost 47 years they had all the time in the world.  But as always arm-chair field marhsalls tent to know it all from the comfort of their home with a bottle of beer in one hand.

keep changing the subject -

this is not about oyb, or about changing nigeria - this is about the lousy decisions your leaders made.  what do you think 'the burden of command' is about?

oyb:

keep changing the subject -

this is not about oyb, or about changing nigeria - this is about the lousy decisions your leaders made.  what do you think 'the burden of command' is about?

You couldn't possibly know either because theory is not practical. Any f'oo'l can give a definition from countless dictionaries online. Since your people never experienced it, your leaders never made decisions at all, and so could never be better than my leaders.

Remember your personal motto: The expert is the person who has made most mistakes.

Onlytruth:

You couldn't possibly know either because theory is not practical. Any f'oo'l can give a definition from countless dictionaries online. Since your people never experienced it, your leaders never made decisions at all, and so could never be better than my leaders.

Remember your personal motto: The expert is the person who has made most mistakes.

No two situations or stories are the same. Individuals are judged on the quality of the decisions they make with regards to the situations that they encounter. Some argue that the decision taken by the Yoruba leaders to discourage Banjo from marching on Yoruba land was a very good strategic decision.

People such as yourself have often accused the Yoruba people of being cowards but that is because Yoruba people will try diplomacy before fighting. This may seem like cowardice but it saves people dying needlessly. After June 12 was annulled and Abiola died in prison, the next president of Nigerian was going to be a Yoruba man and it was a Yoruba man. That was achieved through diplomacy and negotiation.

History also teaches us that the Yoruba fought many wars and rarely lost.

Onlytruth:

You couldn't possibly know either because theory is not practical. Any f'oo'l can give a definition from countless dictionaries online. Since your people never experienced it, your leaders never made decisions at all, and so could never be better than my leaders.

Remember your personal motto: The expert is the person who has made most mistakes.

actually, that is a truncated version - the full version is thus

an expert is a person who has made more mistakes than anyone else. . .and learned from them

not enough space available

Katsumoto:

No two situations or stories are the same. Individuals are judged on the quality of the decisions they make with regards to the situations that they encounter. Some argue that the decision taken by the Yoruba leaders to discourage Banjo from marching on Yoruba land was a very good strategic decision.

People such as yourself have often accused the Yoruba people of being cowards but that is because Yoruba people will try diplomacy before fighting. This may seem like cowardice but it saves people dying needlessly. After June 12 was annulled and Abiola died in prison, the next president of Nigerian was going to be a Yoruba man and it was a Yoruba man. That was achieved through diplomacy and negotiation.

History also teaches us that the Yoruba fought many wars and rarely lost.

i will not celebrate a leader whose actions and decisions lead me to perdition. he has no business being my leader.

Katsumoto:

No two situations or stories are the same. Individuals are judged on the quality of the decisions they make with regards to the situations that they encounter. Some argue that the decision taken by the Yoruba leaders to discourage Banjo from marching on Yoruba land was a very good strategic decision.

No, it was NOT!
In the short term, yes it was a good decision. In the long term (considering what Nigeria was turning into -a land where the tail would wag the dog) NO, it was a wrong strategic [/b]decision. Today, we are still saddled with the same thing, and more people are dying daily. That war would have cost far less if the west at least stayed neutral throughout the war. I wouldn't presume to know (as oyb is trying to do) when your leaders should advise you to fight. Yes, there is time for war too. Your leaders squandered an opportunity to stand for the future generations.

People such as yourself have often accused the Yoruba people of being cowards but that is because Yoruba people will try diplomacy before fighting. [b]This may seem like cowardice but it saves people dying needlessly. After June 12 was annulled and Abiola died in prison, the next president of Nigerian was going to be a Yoruba man and it was a Yoruba man. That was achieved through diplomacy and negotiation.

History also teaches us that the Yoruba fought many wars and rarely lost.

Like I've said already, more people ended up dying from terrible leadership over a 43 year period. Don't mistake the emergence of Obasanjo for Yoruba political savvy; if you don't know, it was only possible because the Hausa/Fulani was still afraid of what the Igbo might do if the Yoruba started to seriously threaten secession. The fear of Igboman is the reason behind every political moves since 1970. If the north was 100% sure that the Igbo would stay in Nigeria- they would have still denied your people a chance at presidency, and NOTHING would have happened. Your folks don't seem to think deep on these things. That is part of why savvy Igbo these days strongly reject secession moves because too many people have gained over us in Nigeria because of it.

@Katsumoto,

Again, considering that we easterners that fought the war are not lesser in all aspects of development than you that didn't (at least our cities are not worse than yours and we are not less developed in education and per capita income), we only lost our beloved ones. But, history is already vindicating us. We celebrate our leaders (all those leaders who led us in war). They are enjoying our love and cherish, while yours have big question marks on their heads.

Onlytruth:

No, it was NOT!
In the short term, yes it was a good decision. In the long term (considering what Nigeria was turning into -a land where the tail would wag the dog) NO, it was a wrong [b]strategic [/b]decision. Today, we are still saddled with the same thing, and more people are dying daily. That war would have cost far less if the west at least stayed neutral throughout the war. I wouldn't presume to know (as oyb is trying to do) when your leaders should advise you to fight. Yes, there is time for war too. Your leaders squandered an opportunity to stand for the future generations.

How could the West have stayed neutral when Biafran Forces were advancing on its territory to engage Nigerian forces in a full scale battle? Neutrality was gone the minute BAF advanced to ore. I will however, agree with you, on the basis of what has happened in Nigeria since the war, that the West missed the opportunity to pull out of Nigeria at the same time as the Biafrans. But knowing Nigerians, we do not know what other societal diseases might have cropped up in the new nations.

Onlytruth:


Like I've said already, more people ended up dying from terrible leadership over a 43 year period. Don't mistake the emergence of Obasanjo for Yoruba political savvy; if you don't know, it only was possible because the Hausa/Fulani was still afraid of what the Igbo might do if the Yoruba started to seriously threaten secession. The fear of Igboman is the reason behind every political moves since 1970. If the north was 100% sure that the Igbo would stay in Nigeria- they would have still denied your people a chance at presidency, and NOTHING would have happened. Your folks don't seem to think deep on these things. That is part of why savvy Igbo these days strongly reject secession moves because too many people have gained over us in Nigeria because of it.

That is purely conjectural and delusional. You seem to arrogate to much importance to the Igbo while belittling other tribes in the process. What balderdash; the Hausa/Fulani let the Yoruba have a stab at the presidency because they were scared of the Igbo man. Matter of factly, no one is scared of the Igboman.

Katsumoto:


That is purely conjectural and delusional. You seem to arrogate to much importance to the Igbo while belittling other tribes in the process. [/b]What balderdash; the Hausa/Fulani let the Yoruba have a stab at the presidency because they were scared of the Igbo man. [b]Matter of factly, no one is scared of the Igboman.

You don't seem to understand me. Calm down first, take a bottle of cold beer, think a little and then return.

What do you think would have happened if the north refused to allow a westerner to rule? If the Igbo is 100% in support of not handing over to a westerner, and the north is 100% sure of Igbo staying in Nigeria, what do you think the Yoruba could do about it? When you figure this out, please return.

I never said the Igbo is the almighty God. I only said that the north is afraid of a disintegrated Nigeria, and they know that the only one of the major tribes that have ever led such effort is the Igbo.
That is why I, and other savvy easterners are against secession now. Too many people have gained over us because of it. 

^^^

I won't even go 100%, let's say 60%. If the north was sure of 60% Igbo support, the west would not have produced a president in 1998. I don't know how many of your people know this fact.

Katsumoto:

How could the West have stayed neutral when Biafran Forces were advancing on its territory to engage Nigerian forces in a full scale battle? Neutrality was gone the minute BAF advanced to ore. I will however, agree with you, on the basis of what has happened in Nigeria since the war, that the West missed the opportunity to pull out of Nigeria at the same time as the Biafrans. But knowing Nigerians, we do not know what other societal diseases might have cropped up in the new nations.

It is also conjectural to think that Biafra never obtained any form of assurances before advancing. Why did Banjo deem it necessary to contact the western leaders? Why did he stop at Ore if BAF was scheming to invade the west?
I honestly wish that the capital at the time was not Lagos, let see what other reasons you would give for fighting on the Nigerian side. The west had all the chance to declare neutrality (even after Ore "mis-incident"-it didn't. That is fact.

Has anyone here read 'The Anonymity of Sacrifice' by I.N.C Aniebo. That book is largely autobiographical.

oyb:

actually, that is a truncated version - the full version is thus

an expert is a person who has made more mistakes than anyone else. . .and learned from them

not enough space available

Biafrans have learned a lot from the mistakes they made 40 years ago. They've adapted well in Nigeria and are doing remarkably well.

The questions I asked you earlier, but you dodged:

* What strategy have your Nigerian leaders put in place to prevent Nigeria from being a failed state?
* What is the point of fighting and dying for a country only to deliberately loot it to the stone age?
* Why is Nigeria worse off today than forty years ago, when your Nigerian leaders have been given all they wanted - defeat of Biafra, oil resources, the federal government, foreign aid to the billions, etc.?

Answers to these questions would reveal that either the Nigerian side did not fully understand what they were fighting for (very likely) or were just a gang of brainless goons who lack any ability for long-term planning (evidence abound).

RichyBlacK:

Biafrans have learned a lot from the mistakes they made 40 years ago. They've adapted well in Nigeria and are doing remarkably well.

The questions I asked you earlier, but you dodged:

* What strategy have your Nigerian leaders put in place to prevent Nigeria from being a failed state?
* What is the point of fighting and dying for a country only to deliberately loot it to the stone age?
* Why is Nigeria worse off today than forty years ago, when your Nigerian leaders have been given all they wanted - defeat of Biafra, oil resources, the federal government, foreign aid to the billions, etc.?

Answers to these questions would reveal that either the Nigerian side did not fully understand what they were fighting for (very likely) or were just a gang of brainless goons who lack any ability for long-term planning (evidence abound).

I think we all know the answers to the above.

RichyBlacK:

Biafrans have learned a lot from the mistakes they made 40 years ago. They've adapted well in Nigeria and are doing remarkably well.

The questions I asked you earlier, but you dodged:

* What strategy have your Nigerian leaders put in place to prevent Nigeria from being a failed state?
* What is the point of fighting and dying for a country only to deliberately loot it to the stone age?
* Why is Nigeria worse off today than forty years ago, when your Nigerian leaders have been given all they wanted - defeat of Biafra, oil resources, the federal government, foreign aid to the billions, etc.?

Answers to these questions would reveal that either the Nigerian side did not fully understand what they were fighting for (very likely) or were just a gang of brainless goons who lack any ability for long-term planning (evidence abound).

i don't have the answers, but going by what i see today, i doubt biafra would have been any different from nigeria - the beef would have been between ibo overlords and ijaw/itsekiri - and there would have been looting etal as well.

Onlytruth:

It is also conjectural to think that Biafra never obtained any form of assurances before advancing. Why did Banjo deem it necessary to contact the western leaders? Why did he stop at Ore  if BAF was scheming to invade the west?
I honestly wish that the capital at the time was not Lagos, let see what other reasons you would give for fighting on the Nigerian side. The west had all the chance to declare neutrality (even after Ore "mis-incident"-it didn't. That is fact.

Biafra never obtained any form of assurances from the West before advancing. If you have any information to the contrary, then provide it. The minute that the BAF started the advance through the midwest, everyone knew where they were going. From the start of the advance on the 9th of August until the 21st when the retreat started, the Western leaders had almost 2 weeks to contact Banjo.

In the absence of any evidence pointing to an alliance between the West and the East and the consequent advance of Biafran troops towards the West, why would the West remain neutral? Playing defensive is a bad strategy. Would the West have trusted that Biafran troops would not have advanced on its territory again? This is why an agreement was needed before hand. Otherwise you would not know what the otherside is planning. The other question is, why did Ojukwu send troops to the west without an agreement with the West? I have read the letter from Ojukwu to Banjo and that letter does not constitute an agreement.

Good for you achuzia, but obasanjo threw it away

oyb:

i don't have the answers, but going by what i see today, i doubt biafra would have been any different from nigeria - the beef would have been between ibo overlords and ijaw/itsekiri - and there would have been looting etal as well.

I seriously doubt that, but you don't have to take my word for it. Just take a simple look at Nigeria from 1960 till now. You would see that the East (Anambra, Imo, Enugu, Rivers, Cross Rivers, Akwa Ibom, Ebonyi and Abia) always had the lowest incidents of political violence when  compared to the rest of Nigeria.

The little trouble we experienced with the Uba brothers in Anambra state was instigated by your brother Olusegun Obasanjo and his party (the PDP) do or die mindset. When Obasanjo left and we had to organize an election in Anambra state, didn't you see how peaceful it was? Was there any assassinations, unlike what obtains in your part of Nigeria? And all these happened even while we are still part of the poisonous Nigerian environment.

Now, imagine if we have no Nigerian influences corrupting our culture, imagine how free we would be to enthrone our values: equality for ALL before the law, one man one vote, no lords (in typical Igbo has no king fashion).  You think Igboman cares about tribe if he has light and security?

Anyway, just look at Nigeria from 1960 to date. Tell me if the East has not been the most peaceful region in Nigeria.

^^^
As for the looting, dem never born the monkey that would steal our money. We go simply organize "Boys oye" and all able bodied men will march to his home and burn it down. Theft of public resources is intolerable in the east because we work hard for our money.

Katsumoto:

Biafra never obtained any form of assurances from the West before advancing. If you have any information to the contrary, then provide it. The minute that the BAF started the advance through the midwest, everyone knew where they were going. From the start of the advance on the 9th of August until the 21st when the retreat started, the Western leaders had almost 2 weeks to contact Banjo.

In the absence of any evidence pointing to an alliance between the West and the East and the consequent advance of Biafran troops towards the West, why would the West remain neutral? Playing defensive is a bad strategy. Would the West have trusted that Biafran troops would not have advanced on its territory again? This is why an agreement was needed before hand. Otherwise you would not know what the otherside is planning. The other question is, why did Ojukwu send troops to the west without an agreement with the West? I have read the letter from Ojukwu to Banjo and that letter does not constitute an agreement.

Let us agree to disagree on that.
I ask you now: If the capital of Nigeria was in Abuja, do you think Biafra would still advance westwards?

oyb:

i don't have the answers, but going by what i see today, i doubt biafra would have been any different from nigeria - the beef would have been between ibo overlords and ijaw/itsekiri - and there would have been looting etal as well.

Don't you think that based on your ability to know the future that you should have known?
Igbos, Efik, Ibiobio or Ijaw had been living together for donkey years without any history of violence between them. Before Nigeria was created that was the case, during the 3 regional setup, the East was the most peaceful of the three. During the second republic the old east was the most peaceful and as we speak, despite the militancy going on, there had never been a case of Igbos, Efik, Ibibio, Ijaw etc slaughtering each other in Asaba, Port Harcourt or Calabar and they still live side by side.

There has been a re-run of governoship elections in Cross River, Bayelsa and proper one in Anambra and there was no bloodshed. Those of the old east are naturally peaceful people. People like you were waiting in the wing for Anambra to explode but were humbly disappointed. As someone had said, when Bayelsa or Anambra was having problems, it wasn't internally generated but was planned and executed by your son Olusegun Obasanjo.

@ few posters

It is very unfortunate that Nigeria has grown into stupidity with knack to demonstrate infinitely. I could not believe reading odious and impetuous analogy of Biafra and Germany from the ongoing discourse. People tend to gravitate to all time low trying to absolve themselves or their forbearers from delusional acts by indulging in arrant prevarication.

Biafra never enjoyed a minute of peaceful existence as a sovereign nation and yet someone audaciously decided to generate loathsome comparison that pitched Biafra against Germany that had risen to the apex of imperial power.

The discussions should center on the issue Chief Joe Achuzie raised in his alleged interview that Biafra was not actually defeated.

Dede1:

@ few posters

It is very unfortunate that Nigeria has grown into stupidity with knack to demonstrate infinitely. I could not believe reading odious and impetuous analogy of Biafra and Germany from the ongoing discourse. People tend to gravitate to all time low trying to absolve themselves or their forbearers from delusional acts by indulging in arrant prevarication.

Biafra never enjoyed a minute of peaceful existence as a sovereign nation and yet someone audaciously decided to generate loathsome comparison that pitched Biafra against Germany that had risen to the apex of imperial power.

The discussions should center on the issue Chief Joe Achuzie raised in his alleged interview that Biafra was not actually defeated.

[size=16pt]GBAM!! [/size]and [size=16pt]GBAM!!![/size] again

Dede1:

@ few posters

It is very unfortunate that Nigeria has grown into stupidity with knack to demonstrate infinitely. I could not believe reading odious and impetuous analogy of Biafra and Germany from the ongoing discourse. People tend to gravitate to all time low trying to absolve themselves or their forbearers from delusional acts by indulging in arrant prevarication.

Biafra never enjoyed a minute of peaceful existence as a sovereign nation and yet someone audaciously decided to generate loathsome comparison that pitched Biafra against Germany that had risen to the apex of imperial power.

The discussions should center on the issue Chief Joe Achuzie raised in his alleged interview that Biafra was not actually defeated.

diobi:

[size=16pt]GBAM!! [/size]and [size=16pt]GBAM!!![/size] again

What is there to discuss? Did Biafra not surrender? Even Achuzie himself said he surrendered to Obasanjo.
Lets look at the facts?
1. Operation Tail-wind launched on the 9th of January succeeded in the fall of Owerri, the Biafran capital. Owerri was the last major town to be captured.
2. Ojukwu ran away from Owerri, just a few days beofre the launch of Operation Tail-wind
3. Effiong surrendered officially on the 13th of January
4. Achuzia, the Head of the Biafran Army was incarcerated for 7 years.

What other factor or factors would be necessary for it to have been a defeat? The death of every Biafran?

Katsumoto:

Biafra never obtained any form of assurances from the West before advancing. If you have any information to the contrary, then provide it. The minute that the BAF started the advance through the midwest, everyone knew where they were going. From the start of the advance on the 9th of August until the 21st when the retreat started, the Western leaders had almost 2 weeks to contact Banjo.

In the absence of any evidence pointing to an alliance between the West and the East and the consequent advance of Biafran troops towards the West, why would the West remain neutral? Playing defensive is a bad strategy. Would the West have trusted that Biafran troops would not have advanced on its territory again? This is why an agreement was needed before hand. Otherwise you would not know what the otherside is planning. The other question is, why did Ojukwu send troops to the west without an agreement with the West? I have read the letter from Ojukwu to Banjo and that letter does not constitute an agreement.

You are simply a tool!

Nigeria declared war on Biafra. . . is the West not part of Nigeria?

Was Lagos not the most strategic place in Nigeria to capture?

Dede1:

@ few posters

It is very unfortunate that Nigeria has grown into stupidity with knack to demonstrate infinitely. I could not believe reading odious and impetuous analogy of Biafra and Germany from the ongoing discourse. People tend to gravitate to all time low trying to absolve themselves or their forbearers from delusional acts by indulging in arrant prevarication.

Biafra never enjoyed a minute of peaceful existence as a sovereign nation and yet someone audaciously decided to generate loathsome comparison that pitched Biafra against Germany that had risen to the apex of imperial power.

Sharrap dia!!!. . . we are simply discussing military strategy here, not whatever you perceive that we are discussing. . . it is a matter of fact that the invasion of the West and North was necessary if Biafra was not to fight a static defensive war. . . . I have no reason to defend my elders for most of the people of my hometown of Ogan-Ama were solidly behind Biafra.

Another attempt to gain attention all to himself
I have never heard of the name "Achuzia" talk less of
believing the idea of him handing over biafra to Obasanjo
BTW, Is Obasanjo Igbo?

I can't believe that you have not heard of Achuzia before. Any way he is an Igbo chieftain and the last Secretary-general of Ohanaeze ndi Igbo. He is the most famous Delta Igbo.

Ibime:

You are simply a tool!

Nigeria declared war on Biafra. . . is the West not part of Nigeria?

Was Lagos not the most strategic place in Nigeria to capture?


Sharrap dia!!!. . . we are simply discussing military strategy here, not whatever you perceive that we are discussing. . . it is a matter of fact that the invasion of the West and North was necessary if Biafra was not to fight a static defensive war. . . .  I have no reason to defend my elders for most of the people of my hometown of Ogan-Ama were solidly behind Biafra.

Are you not able to discuss issues without resorting to insults? You jumped in the middle of a debate without trying to understand the contexts in which certain comments were made.

Lagos was a strategic target and in the context of the war, nothing should preclude Biafra from capturing it. It has however, been argued by several Biafrans that, they were not invading the West but were merely trying to liberate it from Northern forces. If you have never read Ojukwu's letter to Victor Banjo, then try to read it. Up on till that moment, Gowon was using mainly northern military personnel. Nigerian 1st Division had also, only attacked Biafra from the North through Benue. It was in this context that we were debating.

I try to have sensible and mature debates with all kinds of posters on these forums and I never resort to direct insults. If you are unable to have intelligent debates and discussions without resorting to immature and petty insults, then I suggest you back off sucking my d.1.c.k.  

I know your type, you are bullied by your colleagues, friends, wife, and girlfriends and then you take out your frustration by insulting strangers on anonymous forums.

abadaba:

I can't believe that you have not heard of Achuzia before. Any way he is an Igbo chieftain and the last Secretary-general of Ohanaeze ndi Igbo. He is the most famous Delta Igbo.

More famous than Nzeogwu?

Lol!!!!!
Biafra was not defeated.Hehehe!!!
Some people really think they can rewrite history.

Tippy Top:

Lol!!!!!
Biafra was not defeated.Hehehe!!!
Some people really think they can rewrite history.

achuzia says baba iyabo knows the truth. he mentioned names of nigerians whom he challenged to deny it. now the no victor no vanquished is making more sense. something advised that no victor no vanquished. it is unNigerian.