nku5:


Your facts are badly twisted and inaccurate. Besides the fact that neither china or russia is a real democracy:

1. China: Taiwan IS independent though it was always part of china from the beginning of history. After the communist revolution, the chinese general who lost power to Mao moved to the island and with American backing it has claimed statehood ever since. Hong Kong was simply leased to the British for 100 years and the lease has expired. Chinese are a race, what is a Nigerian? What does it mean to be a Nigerian? Do you know?

2. Russia: The chechenya you mentioned has been the subject of a struggle by big nations for centuries by and between the Russians, Ottoman empires and Crimean khanate. Russia alllowed them be until 1999 when they started sponsoring islamic fundamentalism in the region and attacked Dagestan.


3. Your scotland example is not only wrong its laughable. If Scotland joined willingly why did they fight a war of independence like Biafra did? Moreover who says a nation can only opt out of a state only if it joined willingly, ridiculous idea!


You have no justification at all for denying people the right to self determination as enshrined under the UN charter

obailala:
You keep making these northerners sound like some form of gods... Inferiority complex and a defeatist attitude is all I read in your comments; and this is a problem faced by the entire south, believing and fearing the northerners as though they were gods of some sort whose decision is final.

Meanwhile your submission doesn't add up, you do not think it is possible to achieve regional rule, but you think it is possible to have outright secession?... The fact is that you are just obsessed with the idea of an exit cos your above assumptions are illogical.

For a secession to succeed, the SE absolutely needs the support of at least the SS and SW, but you and I know the SW and even majority of the SS isn't buying the whole secession idea. (if anyone thinks by any chance that the SS is actually interested in secession, I would simply advise such a person to travel and interact more). A desire which is common with the SS, SE and SW is the return of regionalism (or resource control as the SS would prefer to call it). I also do not doubt the desire of the middle-belt states (Benue, Kogi, Kwara, Plateau, Nassarawa) to return to regionalism also if they had the chance. If any form of restructure is to be achieved, the cooperation of more than one zone is needed, and the only way to get people to cooperate is to offer everyone something which is mutually desired (this concept shouldn't be difficult to understand). Since the SW, middle-belt and even the majority of the SS aren't down for secession, the logic of 'regionalism' being more achievable than secession shouldn't be difficult to understand.

DeleteNonsense:

Nobody is depriving you of your regional autonomy and in the other hand don't deprive others of their right to Self-determination. Thanks.

obailala:
Biko who am I to deprive anybody of self determination?... Goodluck!

obailala:
You keep making these northerners sound like some form of gods... Inferiority complex and a defeatist attitude is all I read in your comments; and this is a problem faced by the entire south, believing and fearing the northerners as though they were gods of some sort whose decision is final.

Meanwhile your submission doesn't add up, you do not think it is possible to achieve regional rule, but you think it is possible to have outright secession?... The fact is that you are just obsessed with the idea of an exit cos your above assumptions are illogical.

For a secession to succeed, the SE absolutely needs the support of at least the SS and SW, but you and I know the SW and even majority of the SS isn't buying the whole secession idea. (if anyone thinks by any chance that the SS is actually interested in secession, I would simply advise such a person to travel and interact more). A desire which is common with the SS, SE and SW is the return of regionalism (or resource control as the SS would prefer to call it). I also do not doubt the desire of the middle-belt states (Benue, Kogi, Kwara, Plateau, Nassarawa) to return to regionalism also if they had the chance. If any form of restructure is to be achieved, the cooperation of more than one zone is needed, and the only way to get people to cooperate is to offer everyone something which is mutually desired (this concept shouldn't be difficult to understand). Since the SW, middle-belt and even the majority of the SS aren't down for secession, the logic of 'regionalism' being more achievable than secession shouldn't be difficult to understand.

attackgat:


Wake up and smell the coffee. Nigeria is the illegal creation of the White man. You cannot get legality out of illegality, that's why the very existence of Nigeria is a fraud. The only way to make Nigeria legal is to ask the indigenous ethic groups that Lugard stole their lands to create Nigeria, if they want to continue with the union or if they want leave, via referendum. Any other thing is a waste of time.

DeleteNonsense:

Where were Nigeria territorial integrity when barkasi peninsula was ceded to Cameroun?

ItsMeAboki:


Bakassi was ceded by virtue of a court judgement, after the two countries had agreed to go on trial and be bounded by the terms and conditions of the international court of arbitration; it wasn't ceded to a bunch of riff raffs because they could come up with baseless claims of genocide and marginalisation.