Gbawe:

Why don't you show some grace for once? You are ,afterall, ostensibly a woman. You claim I have taken a position I never did . When shown your error , you accuse others of rambling instead of retracting gracefully . The tactics is all too familiar . Those most concerned with blindly having their views accepted as correct will never have the minimal grace to say "my bad". Your signature becomes even more comically hypocritical in view of your conduct here.

If Attack-dog mode is what you are in right now, I suggest you let me know so I ignore you as I always do.

Do us all some good by sparing me the senseless attacks this morning. Those you love to attack are still here, so you can go rumble with them instead. If you are UNABLE to stick to discussing the issue, then PLEASE, FOR PETE's SAKE Don't even bother responding to my last post or any other.

Inviting US Military in Nigeria will create more terrorism. This will attract the Islamic maghreb terrorists (AQIM), and al-Shabaab from Somalia to come to Nigeria to help Boko Haram. They will take new recruits and plan terrorist attacks on Nigerian cities in the South, (Lagos, Port Harcourt, etc). They will go after "soft targets" by sending suicide bombers in crowded shopping mall, markets and bus transport. If US Military come in Nigeria you can say "good bye" to peace. Dont allow the Americans in Nigeria.

Kobojunkie:

If Attack-dog mode is what you are in right now, I suggest you let me know so I ignore you as I always do. Spare me the senseless attacks this morning. If you are UNABLE to stick to discussing the issue, then PLEASE, FOR PETE's SAKE Don't even bother responding to my last post or any other. 

You should take your own advice . It is you claiming[b] falsely[/b] and simplistically that I "believe" America is after Nigeria's oil when anyone averagely intelligent will note , from all I have written in this thread , that my stance is that the USA is simply self-serving , to the point of malevolence, even today . Nothing I wrote alluded to oil at all.

Is the "weapons of mass destruction" charade now not one of the most discredited bare-faced lie of the century? Your "control of the Nigerian Government" assertion just highlights your ignorance of history - especially African documented history - because it is obvious to bright folks that that crude consideration is not what I am talking about . "Control" is about background puppet master antics for America.

When has America not controlled many African Nation covertly through direct machination , including assasination and sponsored coups, to ensure individuals "friendly" to America's 'way of thinking' remained in charge and never pan-africanist or pro-unity firebrand like Kwame Nkrumah, Sankara et al who may lead African nations to act in ways that will threaten America's interest ?

Did this same USA not aid AL Qaeda once? Please gain more history lessons before you try and allude that others do not stick to the topic when it is clear you can simply not keep up because you don't know anywhere near as much as you should.

Another Circular bag of bullcrap Coming up . . . nah!! Not today!!! NEXT!!!

Horus:

Inviting US Military in Nigeria will create more terrorism. This will attract the Islamic maghreb terrorists (AQIM), and al-Shabaab from Somalia to come to Nigeria to help Boko Haram. They will take new recruits and plan terrorist attacks on Nigerian cities in the South, (Lagos, Port Harcourt, etc). They will go after "soft targets" by sending suicide bombers in crowded shopping mall, markets and bus transport. If US Military come in Nigeria you can say "good bye" to peace. Dont allow the Americans in Nigeria.

Haven't they done that already? Haven't they bombed places already?

i was saying that also, but people are too stoopid, if russia can be bombed for there occupation in the eastern part, imagine nigeria if the sect gets support form aqim which is very possible, nigeria will become the new frontline if america gets invited, i cant believe people are stoopid to realise, nigeria is populous, malls, night spots, stadiums etc. are always full to capacity and history has shown that things can always get worse, the north east will not be the final frontline in the case of military becoming involved

Horus:

Inviting US Military in Nigeria will create more terrorism. This will attract the Islamic maghreb terrorists (AQIM), and al-Shabaab from Somalia to come to Nigeria to help Boko Haram. They will take new recruits and plan terrorist attacks on Nigerian cities in the South, (Lagos, Port Harcourt, etc). They will go after "soft targets" by sending  suicide bombers in crowded shopping mall, markets and bus transport. If US Military come in Nigeria you can say "good bye" to peace. Dont allow the Americans in Nigeria.

Oh my gosh!!! We do have em now . . .suicide bombers. I remember reading some thread, some years ago, on how Nigerians could never commit suicide, and this was right after the muttalab reveal. Now, it is almost common place. Bombings are near common, and yes, Nigerian suicide bombers too!! What the HECK!!!

Some people reason like bots, i don't even know what to call them.

Actually this IS ALL ABOUT OIL - nigeria supplies 25% of US oil imports - but here's the twist - china is also very interested in getting a piece of the action - and they are getting a piece of the action  - so much so that they are even willing to PAY MORE for nigeria's oil than exxon mobil and shell, - this therefore poses a major dilemma for the US and british who do not want to be edged out of a market that they have dominated for close to 40 years hence their (US and britain's) decision to start a fake war on terror on a fake terrorist organisation created by their own intelligence organisations (boko haram) the reason the likes of obo junkie and other numbskulls dont understand any of this is because they are functional illiterates who have NEVER EVER IN THEIR LIVES RESEARCHED ANYTHING REMOTELY RESEMBLING WORLD HISTORY -


NEWSFLASH!!!!! - AMERICA IS AN EMPIRE - IT HAS NO INTENTION OF GIVING UP ITS POSITION TO CHINA AND EVEN IF IT MEANS BLOWING UP THE ENTIRE WORLD TO MAKE A POINT IT WILL DO IT.

this is why the americans are secretely deploying troops to africa - why has obama sent 100 military advisers to uganda to smoke out a war lord (joseph koney) who has been on their terrorist list for over 20 years - why now?

ill tell you why now - because CHINA IS MUSCLING IN ON THEIR ACTION IN AFRICA AND CHINA IS THEIR MAIN COMPETITOR ON THE WORLD ECONOMIC STAGE - AMERICA AND BRITAIN ARE NOT PREPARED TO ALLOW A NON EUROPEAN COMPETITOR USURP THEIR POSITION ON THE WORLD STAGE, AMERICA AND EUROPE ARE BANKRUPT BUT THEY STILL HAVE THE WORLD'S MOST POWERFUL MILITARY - AND THEY ARE DETERMINED TO USE THIS TO RETAIN CONTROL OVER EVERY SINGLE VALUABLE NATURAL RESOURCE ON THIS PLANET.

IF AMERICA AND BRITAIN SUCCEED IN THEIR PLAN OF WORLD WIDE CONTROL OF NATURAL RESOURCES THERE WILL BE NO SUCH THING AS A SOVEREIGN NATION every non european nation will be ENSLAVED TO EUROPE AND AMERICA.

nigeria is STILL doing business with china this is why the FGN is now suddenly facing attacks from boko haram - all the nigerian govt needs to do to in order to stop these attacks is terminate all trade with china and hey presto boko haram will disappear - its that simple.

^^^

Not really about oil alone (they want to secure their investments we know) but it's mainly and mostly about control.

NATO, AFRICOM and the New White Man's Burden

With the era of formal colonialism only recently ended, and only 125 years after the Europeans and the United States formally divided Africa among themselves, NATO has begun the military reimposition of Euro-American rule of the Continent. The conquest of sovereign Libya has encouraged Washington, London and Paris to escalate their armed incursions under "humanitarian" guises, and with the eager participation of native collaborators. "The imperialist powers are obviously up to their old tricks of using treacherous Africans to help in doing their '’dirty work.’''


"Western countries are once again using feigned concern as pretext for invasion and resource theft."

As we watched with bewilderment, NATO's military assault on Libya using "humanitarian intervention" as it's pretext, we are reminded of an earlier period of Western European "civilizing" missions into Africa. Shortly after the Berlin West African Conference of 1884-1885; armed with bibles and bullets, a host of countries: Britain; France; Germany; Belgium; and Portugal, "scrambled" out of Western Europe in a quest to "save Africans from themselves".

With their claim of intellectual and moral superiority echoed by Rudyard Kipling's infamously imperialistic poem, these European powers took full control of the land and lives of their new African subjects. Africa, having not fully recovered from the ravages of both the Trans-Atlantic and the Trans-Saharan Slave Trades, was ill prepared for what was to follow.

With the exception of Liberia and Ethiopia, every scare inch of Africa was to come under the control of European imperialist powers. The result: nearly a hundred years of a brutal occupation; further dehumanization; theft of natural resources while subjecting Africans to internal slavery. The resulting loss of life was so high that no serious effort has ever been made to quantify it. But if Belgian, which controlled only 7% of Africa, could murder 10-15 million Congolese during this period, one could get a close estimate through extrapolation, the number of African lives destroyed by Britain, France, Germany, Portugal and later Italy. Given this history, coupled with the horrific results of NATO's incursion into Libya, what then are we to make of NATO's new identity as ''human rights interventionist.''

"Europe was in desperate need of an answer to rescue it."

At the end of the 19th century, Western Europe was in the middle of an industrial revolution that it could not sustain with the limited resources and markets within it's own borders. Competition for new resources and markets amongst these European powers was high. With the economic challenges resulting from the "Long Depression of 1873-1896''; overpopulation; a high rate of poverty and unemployment, Europe was in desperate need of an answer to rescue it from this malaise. Africa would prove to be the answer a thousand times over.

Today we find Europe, along with the United States, facing serious economic challenges not unlike those faced by Europe in the late 1800s. Like then, Europe and the United States are desperately looking for economic solutions that cannot be found within their national boundaries. With virtually all of the resources required to sustain their economies existing in other parts of the world but particularly in Africa, these Western countries are once again using feigned concern as pretext for invasion and resource theft. With competition now coming from Russia, India and China for these same resources, new and desperate strategies will have to be created in an attempt to justify these invasions. But how new are they?

NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization), a military/security alliance between Western European powers and the United States, was formed shortly after the Second World War in 1949. It came out of the same Atlantic Charter that gave birth to the United Nations. Its stated purpose was to counter what member countries perceived as an expansionist threat coming from the Soviet Union. During it's existence there has never been any direct military engagement with the Soviet Union. Instead, proxy wars, mostly fought in Africa and Latin America, would become the order of the day. While the Soviet Union sought to (at times meekly) aid the various Liberation Movements in Africa and the Americas, the NATO countries on the other hand, were interested in maintaining their sphere of economic influence in these regions.

"New and desperate strategies will have to be created in an attempt to justify these invasions."

With the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, NATO virtually overnight had become an irrelevant military bureaucracy. Many military and foreign policy experts began to speculate that NATO would soon be relegated to the dustbin of history. To avoid what seemed to be an imminent demise, NATO began looking for new roles to play in world affairs. What has happened as a result, as one foreign policy observer describes, has been "mission creep on a grand scale."

No longer concerned about guarding against the Red Army rushing across its borders, NATO countries have now armed themselves with a host of new missions (pretexts), from: fighting terrorism; saving the environment; crisis management; to "humanitarian intervention (sic)." With a new futuristic $1.38 billion building on a 100 acre site in Brussels, and having expanded from it's original 16 members to 28 (most of the new member states ironically coming from the former Soviet Union), and with the combined military budgets of member states comprising 70 percent of what the world spends on defense, this "new" NATO is riding high with a renewed sense of purpose, anxious to show the world it still has relevance. Africa (and the world) should be worried.

While significantly controlled by the US, which provides 75 percent of it's budget, NATO is headed by the arrogant and opportunistic Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the former prime minister of Denmark. With a very aggressive agenda for this made over NATO including offering NATO's services to the United Nations as a "global peacekeeping" force, he has in recent years already overseen NATO's involvement in several conflicts outside of Europe. Most notably, its involvement with the US in Afghanistan where it continues to kill innocent people, and is continuously asked to leave by many distraught and outraged Afghans.

"With the combined military budgets of member states comprising 70 percent of what the world spends on defense, this "new" NATO is riding high with a renewed sense of purpose."

It has also become involved in patrolling the waters off the coast of Somalia to protect foreign vessels from being seajacked by so-called Somali pirates. This campaign has resulted in an avalanche of deaths of Somalis, passengers and crew members of seajacked ships. Keeping in mind, when Somalis started boarding these ships which had illegally begun fishing in their waters seventeen years ago, not one hostage taken by them had ever been killed. All that changed with the Obama administration coming to power in 2009 (the year NATO, with mostly US Naval ships, started patrolling the Somalia coast).

In April of that year, President Obama gave the first orders for snipers to kill Somalis who had boarded the American flagged ship, The Maersk Alabama demanding ransom. France would soon follow with the killing of eight Somalis in another seajacking incident. Now with the U.S. and France with NATO support, seemingly engaged in a full scale war against the Somali nationalist group Al-Shabat, we can only expect the number of dead Somalis to increase even more. This U.S. war in Somalia is also being augmented by troops from Kenya, Uganda and Burundi, with Uganda and Burundi involvement ironically, coming under the auspices of an African Union peace keeping mission. A new U.S. Drone base for this war has just been established in Ethiopia as well. The imperialist powers are obviously up to their old tricks of using treacherous Africans to help in doing their ''dirty work.''

Immediately following the murder of Muammar Gaddafi, Chris Coons, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s subcommittee on African affairs was reported as saying "Muammar Gadhafi’s death and the promise of a new Libyan regime are arguments for the measured U.S. military response in central Africa, ''. Encouraged by the results in Libya, the U.S. has recently sent roughly 100 troops to Uganda to track down members of the Lords Resistance Army (LRA). U.S. troops are also being sent to the Congo, the Central African Republic and South Sudan'.

"This U.S. war in Somalia is also being augmented by troops from Kenya, Uganda and Burundi."

It is obvious Senator Coons made this remark with AFRICOM in mind. This newly created U.S.military command for Africa, conceived by the Heritage Foundation during the Bush administration, could not have come at a more opportunistic time for the imperialistic thinking NATO countries. Working in conjunction with AFRICOM during the Libya campaign, and gloating over it's alledged success, NATO now sees itself as indispensible in this new war to ''save humanity.'' The cooperation between these 2 military packs represent a perilous development for Africa. With the Obama adminstration acknowledging the Libya campaign as AFRICOM's ''first'' undertaking, Africans no longer have to guess what the rest of AFRICOM's endeavors on the Continent will look like.

Like their 19th century predecessors in their mission to take on the ''burden'' of spreading the benefits of European ''enlightenment',' this new generation of marauders from the ''North'' are poised to, once again, impose on Africa the coldness of death, destruction and displacement which so characterized their earlier campaigns of human upliftment on the Continent.

Having failed to effectively respond to NATO's and AFRICOM’s assault on Libya, Africa must at some point show that it has learned the lessons of the past, and resolve itself to remove this ''white man's burden," once and for all.

Harold Green can be contacted at paclwp@msn.com.

REFERENCES:

The Son of Africa Claims a Continent's Crown Jewels

http://www.africaspeaks.com/reasoning/index.php?topic=7635.0

U.S. drone base in Ethi­o­pia is operational

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-drone-base-in-ethiopia-is-operational/2011/10/27/gIQAznKwMM_story.html

Sole Military Super-Bloc: NATO Issues Daily Reprieves To The World

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=27482

http://uruknet.info/?p=m82998&hd=&size=1&l=e

Do you know what i just realised? The 2015 prediction of nigeria's doom is chillingly getting realistic. Seriously, come to think of it. Intensive military action in some states, (maybe) U.N or american involvement(God forbid), then more violence, and before you know it, influencial people will start to call for seperation, and some U.N resolutions later, for the first time, i really feel like my country is in trouble/danger.

In whatever capacity the USG represents itself in Nigeria, there is only one objective- To protect her economic interests in Nigeria.
Not to play "Big Brother" or to stop us from killing each other, which by the way, they know they can't accomplish.
However, I doubt the feasibility of any such plans even if GEJ is thinking about it. The North is simply too strong for any such plan to work. Moreso, such plan would have to pass through NASS.

vascey:

In whatever capacity the USG represents itself in Nigeria, there is only one objective- To protect her economic interests in Nigeria.
Not to play "Big Brother" or to stop us from killing each other, which by the way, they know they can't accomplish.
However, I doubt the feasibility of any such plans even if GEJ is thinking about it. The North is simply too strong for any such plan to work. Moreso, such plan would have to pass through NASS.

In what sense is the North stronger than any plan to quell this violence? You pretend Northerners are happy to see their family and children blown to smithereens, and knowing they could be next.

honeric01:

^^^

Not really about oil alone (they want to secure their investments we know) but it's mainly and mostly about control.

Indeed my brother. Virtually impossible to count all the "strong men" , influential in Nations without oil, America have helped topple simple because they don't like their "radical/dangerous ideology". How many times have the USA tried to assasinate the "damn commy" Fidel Castro?

Some come here today to talk totally ignorant of history and not factoring it into their blind utterances . Shior  !!! There is no nation that does not act in self-interest but USA is certainly the most aggressively self-serving and controlling of them all beyond its borders. Some may argue that the USA has no choice but to be that way. That argument is certainly better than ignorantly trying to describe the USA as benevolent big brother given all history has shown us.

Gbawe:

Indeed my brother. Virtually impossible to count all the "strong men" , influential in Nations without oil, America have helped topple simple because they don't like their "radical/dangerous ideology". How many times have the USA tried to assasinate the "damn commy" Fidel Castro?

Some come here today to talk totally ignorant of and not factoring history into their blind utterances . Shoir  !!! There is no nation that does not act in self-interest but USA is certainly the most aggressively self-serving and controlling of them all beyond its borders. Some may argue that the USA has no choice but to be that way. That argument is certainly better than ignorantly trying to describe the USA as benevolent big brother given all history has shown us.

Most black people hardly think for themselves, they always want others to do their job for them, WHY DO WE HAVE A GOVERNMENT IF ANOTHER COUNTRY IS TO COME AND SOLVE OUR PROBLEMS FOR US? WHY ON EARTH DO WE HAVE AN "ELECTED" GOVERNMENT FOR FREAK'S SAKE?

cycober:

Do you know what i just realised? The 2015 prediction of nigeria's doom is chillingly getting realistic. Seriously, come to think of it. Intensive military action in some states, (maybe) U.N or american involvement(God forbid), then more violence, and before you know it, influencial people will start to call for seperation, and some U.N resolutions later, for the first time, i really feel like my country is in trouble/danger.

The North is not too strong, in fact it is weak.
There is no reason for the President to clear military or other security agreements he has reached with foreign nations with the NASS. He didn't need to inform the NASS when the FBI, MOSSAD and M16 were called in to help defang boko haram.

sun of god - always on point as usual.

NATO ARE NOT as invincible as we think - it took them 8 months to take over libya - a tiny nation of only 6 million people and they had to rely on psychological warfare and bombing of civillians from the air - as we speak the war in libya is still not over - the one thing i ponder on is WHETHER THEY WOULD  DROP A NUCLEAR BOMB ON US(africans) IF WE CHALLENGED THEIR POSITION LIKE THE JAPANESE DID.

From the words of some posters here, you would think the US was coming to steal Nigerian state secrets! A sick joke. lol
A cursory following of wikileaks will show that there is nothing Robin Sanders hasn't been willingly told by Nigerian officials. Americans already control our oil and know every shiit we think is hidden; indeed Hilary Clinton has made the claim on quite a few occasions that foreigners know more about Nigeria than Nigerians.

If they have all these soft weapons arrayed against us, it would be foolish to imagine that they need to invade us to control us. When 9ja turn ninja sef? In whose imagination?

The US simply want to come in and phuck up boko haram before they grow strong enough to threaten the oil industry as a way of hitting the US. We supply a full 15% of the US total oil supply (don't mind "comrade brother" Crap 28 that says its 25%, that guy talks like a befuddled bull frog). Cutting out 15% of the US supply will surely hurt the American economy and thats something they don't wanna wait for.

Beaf:

From the words of some posters here, you would think the US was coming to steal Nigerian state secrets! A sick joke. lol
A cursory following of wikileaks will show that there is nothing Robin Sanders hasn't been willingly told by Nigerian officials. Americans already control our oil and know every shiit we think is hidden; indeed Hilary Clinton has made the claim on quite a few occasions that foreigners know more about Nigeria than Nigerians.

If they have all these soft weapons arrayed against us, it would be foolish to imagine that they need to invade us to control us. When 9ja turn ninja sef? In whose imagination?

The US simply want to come in and phuck up boko haram before they grow strong enough to threaten the oil industry as a way of hitting the US. We supply a full 15% of the US total oil supply (don't mind "comrade brother" Crap 28 that says its 25%, that guy talks like a befuddled bull frog). Cutting out 15% of the US supply will surely hurt the American economy and thats something they don't wanna wait for.

Beaf = Big Empty-Head Acting F.o.olish

Give a historical precedence whereby the Americans have attacked an African Country and left it for the better – what makes you think Nigeria will be a different case?

Your baseless argument is “they will destroy the North” but “They already control us”; Can't you see the contradiction? Why would they need to destroy what they already control?

Your ramblings are as impressive as a dogs fart.

the truth is that the introduction of the US military would only complicate issues. remember, how they mismanaged wars in iraq, afghanistan, somalia etc. they have always wanted to enter nigeria since the time of niger delta crisis when they planned sending a force of 25,000 troops to protect our oil fields. however, if we dont want to learn on the job, how we gain the necessary to improve?

the truth is that the introduction of the US military would only complicate issues. remember, how they mismanaged wars in iraq, afghanistan, somalia etc. they have always wanted to enter nigeria since the time of niger delta crisis when they planned sending a force of 25,000 troops to protect our oil fields. however, if we dont want to learn on the job, how do we gain the necessary wealth experience so as to improve?

Beaf:

From the words of some posters here, you would think the US was coming to steal Nigerian state secrets! A sick joke. lol
A cursory following of wikileaks will show that there is nothing Robin Sanders hasn't been willingly told by Nigerian officials. Americans already control our oil and know every shiit we think is hidden; indeed Hilary Clinton has made the claim on quite a few occasions that foreigners know more about Nigeria than Nigerians.

If they have all these soft weapons arrayed against us, it would be foolish to imagine that they need to invade us to control us. When 9ja turn ninja sef? In whose imagination?

The US simply want to come in and phuck up boko haram before they grow strong enough to threaten the oil industry as a way of hitting the US. We supply a full 15% of the US total oil supply (don't mind "comrade brother" Crap 28 that says its 25%, that guy talks like a befuddled bull frog). Cutting out 15% of the US supply will surely hurt the American economy and thats something they don't wanna wait for.

FUCKWIT when are you going to wake up?

when is the penny going to drop ?

wikileaks = US intelligence - why dont you research Julian Assange's background - find out why he is still alive despite the massive access he has been allowed to have to top secret classified information.

Chinese investment in nigeria is a major threat to Anglo/US economic interests why is this so hard for you to understand?

THEY NEED TO INVADE YOU IN ORDER TO EXPEL CHINESE WORKERS AND BUSINESSES FROM YOUR COUNTRY - THEY DID THE SAME THING IN LIBYA 8 MONTHS AGO - WHAT PART OF THAT DO YOU NOT  UNDERSTAND - ARE THERE ANY CHINESE PEOPLE LEFT IN LIBYA DOING BUSINESS AS WE SPEAK?

WHETHER WE SUPPLY 15% OR 25% OF US OIL IMPORTS IS NOT THE ISSUE - THE REAL ISSUE IS WE ARE TRADING WITH A NATION THAT IS ENCROACHING ON WHAT THEY SEE AS THEIR OWN TERRITORY - HAVE I SIMPLIFIED IT ENOUGH FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND YET?

GEJ IS BUT A PAWN IN THE HANDS OF TWO WARRING WORLD POWERS - BUT UNLIKE MUAMMAR QADAFFI HE LACKS THE INTELLIGENCE AND EXPERIENCE  TO KNOW HOW TO NEGOTIATE A DEAL THAT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF HIS NATION.

as much as i hate to hear about the BH guys doing their thing, i dont think the US military intervention is the best solution, we need to look at the different success they achieved in Iraq and Afghanistan compared to the lives lost. it'll just cause more rift and dissonance.
Jona had better sack the current Minister of defence and get a more experienced person to fill the office, he has failed and should be sacked.

Damn!, who is heading the invation? JACK Bauer? Nigeria has turn to Sangala. Lol.

We invited them in the first place, then why complaining? The conceptor of this BH should bear the blame. The North are to be blamed.

^^^You are suggesting the 1000's in the North who have lost lives, and been displaced since the massacres began last year, are to blame?

its all unconfirmed

Horus:

Inviting US Military in Nigeria will create more terrorism. This will attract the Islamic maghreb terrorists (AQIM), and al-Shabaab from Somalia to come to Nigeria to help Boko Haram. They will take new recruits and plan terrorist attacks on Nigerian cities in the South, (Lagos, Port Harcourt, etc). They will go after "soft targets" by sending  suicide bombers in crowded shopping mall, markets and bus transport. If US Military come in Nigeria you can say "good bye" to peace. Dont allow the Americans in Nigeria.

You said it all. Definitely it will add to our problems.

If America comes Al qaeeda will come in full force.
Even in Iraq, America lured some Iraqis to their side that was when the problems reduced.

We don't need US Military at all.