₦airaland Forum

It won't make much of a difference to Utd if Ronaldo were to leave now.If we sell him and get the likes of Benzema and Riberry/Diego as replacements,that would be a bonus.

With the transfer fee we can get for Ronaldo,we can get 2 world-class youngsters who will be more than adequate replacements.

Definitely,whichever striker we are signing,I hope its not Fabiano(Sevilla) who in my view is a flash in the pan.At 27(28 in Nov.),he is not exactly young and is a bit of hot-head.

For defenders,I would prefer someone like Fabiano Santacroce to Dani Alves.The former is cheaper and younger and can play across the back four.Players like Alves and Richards will constitute a waste of money compared to cheaper and better options like Santacroce and Christian Chivu.

vicade:
Diaby is good but like theo walcott, he drifts in and out of games too often. I still think if hleb is going to barca arsene wenger shouLD HOPEFULLY get yaya toure as part of the deal. Looking forward to seeing carlos vela in the pre-season fixtures

Gaynners have an absurdly rose-tinted understanding of football.How the hell does anyone believe that Yaya Toure or Barca will want a transfer of Toure to Arsenal? That will be a major step down at this stage of his career and he is crucial to Barca.

Its funny how Gaynners have suddenly realised that Hleb isn't that good.When he was injured during the season,I could remember how many of you here were claiming that he is a major loss for Arsenal.

[quote author=Tchinasa** link=topic=138739.msg2320944#msg2320944 date=1212316809] _{All these useless Mohadana/Dimka/Tresa8 threads!} [/quote]Na Mallam Musa Mohadana don turn to. Abeg keep this your latest name,I don't like the mental imagery the other name evokes.

madamkoko:
Africa is the richest and wealthiest continenent in the entire universe ( in heaven and on earth) African is the richest.

No we are not.For instance,if you look at Nigeria's oil revenue per capita,its effectively peanuts.

What we possess is economic potential not wealth.

@4Her

So you think this forum needs more "fyn brodas" like me? Seun should take note.

4 Him:
that will save you potentially a lot of money and seems to sound like a good deal. Depends on how many years you want to sign for.
I say the bidding starts from $150m. What do you say?

$150m wetin? Is it not better that I head to my famous village shrine and get the best "ogwu" money can buy?

What qualities does she have to be worth that much?Can she cook egusi and okro soup the way I like it? Does she she hate Arsenal and Liverpool with a passion? This price too much.

Uche2nna:


David, don begin dey sell shares

David no get stress.All I have to do is arrange one tipper load of onions(his favorite food,seriously) to NY and the deal is concluded. Hotness just dey make noise for nothing,na to stamp the sale document remain.

4 Him:
lets talk business in private. Rights transfer shld not be done in the open, i hope you have the cash.

Cash no be problem. . . I think we can work out something on hire-purchase.

[quote author=HR.hotness link=topic=138631.msg2318814#msg2318814 date=1212251269]Who is exchanging me dia?

And someone is using jazz ?

I reject all of u in Jesus name. . . .

typical naija men, i praise una small next thing na to misbehave [/quote]Be there making noise. . .negotiations are in full swing.Soon you will be mine!

4 Him:
what are the conditions of trade?

Who be the owner of the apple sef? I'm going to acquire ownership soon

4 Him:
you people are busy squabbling over an apple that is not even free?
Chei!

I can always 'trade' the apple.

oziomatv:
@4play
How much you go pay make I dey promote you?
me na show promoter.

I go link you up with some of my female relatives on NL.

jennykadry:
na wetin naaaa i help u do work ,u wan scatter am again,after u go say your jenny your sister no help u,if hotness no gree fo r u this time,no come my house dey cry anyhow oooo,because i go kick ya nyash comot for my parlour

I appreciate your help,keep it up my sister. Hotness go gree for me,I go use "remote control" from my shrine catch am.Just watch and see.

She say she no like bush men. . . very soon,she will be using her hand to eat "abacha" with me thrice a day.

@jenny

You dey craze. I will be paying you commission as my "otimkpu",just dey praise me for every thread you go.

jennykadry:
una too like this my name sef ask me what

Ikwesi ina enyerem aka na nna achu nwanyi ebea _{hope my written igbo is comprehensible}

[quote author=HR.hotness link=topic=138631.msg2318578#msg2318578 date=1212247863]I'm just in a bad mood today I guess. . . .

I've been told I don't give men enough of a chance. . . well I tried and all I get is rubbish,

I'm happy to remain single if this is all ther is to offer![/quote]You haven't given me a chance. . . that is why you haven't found what you are looking for. Ask Jennykadry,she can vouch that I'm special and will make any woman happy.

jennykadry:
4play jiriri ye nwanyo because chisimdi is a happily married woman wt three soldiers to show for it

So married women no dey see Big Ben?

@Jagalo

Excellent talk my brother.Our movement is growing stronger and our awareness campaign is in full swing. The idea that a man will exercise enormous self-discipline to remain a virgin and find a woman who he thinks is also a virgin,only to find that the woman is impostor. . . .its an outrage!

These women must be dealt with severely in order to serve as deterrent.

chisimdi:
@4play i dey thou i no b VIRGIN so hw i go come c u when i na acho pan(mint)

I say make u come see "Big Ben".You come dey make conclusions.I am willing to compromise anyway.

Ireland is a lovely place,I will like to visit someday.You dey come London at all or you no dey ever leave ROI?

chisimdi:
jenny ike dikwa gi oh!!!!!!! leave all this pretenders,may b there sharas(babes)hv disappointed them this wkend,ha bia eba i wusa frustration ha.o mu si ha gba stranded.

Nne. . .how Ireland sef? I just dey enjoy your posts.

Ever thought of coming to London to see the real Big Ben?

[quote author=amber_ella link=topic=138482.msg2316425#msg2316425 date=1212183057]Ok, I'll say it again.

It is very common for a virgin not to have her hymen in tact. A woman's hymen is often broken before she has sex by regular day-to-day activities such as (previously mentioned) horseback riding.[/quote]Horseback riding. . . we won't fall for such old tricks.Any woman without her hymen intact,in the absence of a genuine medical certificate to prove 'good cause',is not worth taking to the altar.Simple

Nigerian Men For Intact-Hymen is launching a sensitization campaign to create awareness of this very important issue.I think involving the Police is a good way to deter these women.

jennykadry:
by d time u guys free women and stop bleeping them im sure they wll be enough women wt their hymen intact


4play r u telling me that a woman who was raped and has never slept wt any other man,apart from the ones/one that raped her isn't worth taking to d altar?

Obviously,women who can prove their rape are excluded.

However,I don't see the point in a virgin like me marrying a woman who doesn't have the self-discipline to preserve her virginity.As the National President of Nigerian Men For Intact-Hymen,this has been an issue close to my heart.

I think evil thrives when good men stay silent.No longer can we men allow women to lure us into marriage with such false pretext. That is why I support the French court's decision.This is not enough though.We need greater recognition of the fact that such lies verge on the criminal and I expect prosecutions of such women.

[quote author=amber_ella link=topic=138482.msg2316412#msg2316412 date=1212182782]Really? Even if she is a virgin? Even if she's never even kissed a man, seen a man naked or engaged in any sexual act whatsoever?[/quote]

Any woman that doesn't have hymen intact isn't worth taking to the altar!I don't mean surgically-enhanced virginity but real one.

I think that woman in France should be prosecuted for fraud-she obtained pecuniary benefits from the marriage by false pretenses. The more we start jailing these women,the better.

stillwater:
It might be surprising how beautful she looks

Rubbish,na Ms Wowochi Wowolola be her name. Na why she dey vex because her husband would have realised he was married to baboon all along.

Na my Cristalz Doyin dey disturb?

But I think women should stay in the romance/sexuality sections at best,though,they are ideally suited to the kitchen.They have nothing useful to add here.If we needed the opinion of the clueless booboisie that make up the female world,we would have tuned to The Food Channel.

These women are growing wings o

A 50-year-old Saudi woman asked for divorce after her husband lifted her face veil while she was sleeping, local press reported.

For 30 years, the wife said she never showed her face to her husband in conformity with the tradition of her native village near the south western Saudi city of Khamis Mushayt.

"After all these years, he tries to commit such a big mistake," the wife told Saudi newspaper Al-Riyadh, after she left the house in total disbelief.

She said the husband apologized and promised never to do it again.

This is not the first case of husbands who have not seen their wives' faces in decades.

In the past Al Arabiya has reported the case of Ali al-Qahtani, whose wife had been wearing the face veil for the entire ten years of their marrage. When he tried to take it off, she threatened to leave and only decided to stay after he swore never to try again.

Hassan Al-Atibi threatened to marry another woman if his wife didn't show him her face. The woman nominated one of her friends who doesn't observe this tradition as a possible new wife for him, saying this would be better than her showing her face.

And neither the husband or children of Om Rabea al-Gahdaray, 70, have ever seen her face. Al-Gahdaray says it is a family tradition, also followed by mother and sisters, which her husband accepted and never tried to change.

When asked how she could have kids without her husband ever seeing her face, she replied: "Marriage is about love, not faces."

The practice of always remaining veiled, even in front of your husband, is not an Islamic practice but a very old tradition practiced by a minority of people in Gulf countries.

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/2018477/posts

debosky:
Viable alternatives?

The no fly zones were already bringing dividends for the Kurds - the Shias were also slowly gaining some freedoms as well. Proper monitoring of the oil for food program and other UN initiatives would have yielded improved social development throughout Iraq, with proper verification of the disarmament leaving Iraqi's free to decide on their own who will rule their country. This 'benevolence' of the US is obviously tainted and I do not think it was necessary or even that beneficial. The Maliki who has been installed has been using Shia death squads within the Army to kill innocent Sunnis, using Iraqi troops to defeat Sunni strongholds so that he remains the only one in power, and lessening the impact of other power blocks. He is in essence not much different to Saddam in my view, save for his pro-Western stance right now.

Now I don't claim all that would have solved the problems, but the US intervention was/is unnecessary.

I think you have forgotten that not all Kurds lived in areas covered by the no-fly zone.The Shias slowly gaining freedom? You are having a laugh!

You are also forgetting that living standards rapidly deteriorated under the sanctions regime.Some estimates put Iraqis deaths then at close to a million. All the talk of "proper monitoring" or "proper verification" is just pie in the sky Panglossian fantasy totally divorced from reality.The sanctions regime was rapidly unraveling.

Think of it,if Iraq had no WMDs there will be no rationale for maintaining a sanctions regime and support for it will collapse.Thus,the next logical step would have been to let Saddam loose and we are back to square one.

As for Maliki being installed,Maliki is part of a governing coalition that was duly elected in elections in which brave Iraqis came out to vote.For people who shed crocodile tears for Iraqi deaths,its ironic how people are dismissive of their wishes.

How can anybody with a decent grasp of history claim Maliki is on par with Saddam? Hasn't Mailiki sent troops to Basra,Kut and,Nasiriyah and Sadr City. . .these are hardly "Sunni strongholds".

doyin13:
and. . . . hopefully Hollywood will not engage in any revisionist activities declaring otherwise

A leftist Hollywood revising history in the Right's favor? No chance. . . .there are many in Hollywood who still think US military mobilization against the Soviets was foolhardy.

Asking why the US isn't invading Sudan would be engaging in pointless permutation.It is akin to asking why Sunderland haven't signed Ronaldinho,the US doesn't have the troop strength to engage in another large scale operation while occupying Iraq and Afghanistan.

You are virtually asking why the US hasn't done the impossible.The question of consistency here is rendered irrelevant because it will be impractical,in any case,for the US to mount an operation in Sudan.

As for the US going in "unilaterally",there were more non-US troops in Iraq than there were for the Afghanistan,Kosovo,or Bosnia campaign.If a country goes to war alongside 30+ other nations,that hardly sounds "unilateral" to me unless the meaning of unilateral has changed.

I have been calling on you to suggest how Saddam could have been removed without the current bloodshed.Criticism is easy,suggesting viable alternatives is what is more important.

debosky:
@ 4Play

I think this issue is more than crying more than the bereaved - people ARE dying who shouldn't be dying, I do not think the US approach was NECESSARY as the ONLY way Saddam could have been removed and the issues in Iraq resolved - that is a conceptual matter and cannot be simply reduced to '80% don't want Saddam while 20% do, majority wins'

People are dying who shouldn't be dying? What about the ones who died under Saddam,maybe in their case,they "should be dying".

You haven't been able to tell us how Sunni minority-rule could have been ended without the bloodshed we are seeing today.What deep moral and ethical issue supersedes Sunni and Kurdish hatred for Saddam?

I believe this whole 'benefiting the Shias and Kurds' line to be revisionist, no one even contemplated that or mentioned it as the core reason behind the push into Iraq - it was an attempt to 'stop' weapons of mass destruction from being used and proliferated. If it was simply out of concern for the Iraqis and removing Saddam, why is there no US intervention in Darfur? They still do not donate helicopters not to mention troops to the quantum needed to make some impact there or in other locations. This isn't about crying more about the bereaved, but when you paint it as if this intervention was a godsend or that the iraqi's were clamoring for it, that is nothing more than an untruth or at best an afterthought.

To rejog your memory,the Americans called the 2003 campaign "Operation Iraqi Freedom",that is a pretty good indication that the operation had more than WMD as its stated focus.You only have to read the texts of Bush's speeches-widely available on the internet-to see how much this aspect was stressed upon by the Bush administration.So much so that before the war,many accused the Bush administration of attempting to bring democracy to Iraq by "force of arms".

As for Darfur,you contradict yourself.After stressing the importance of working through the UN,you then proceed to question why the US hasn't gone in guns blazing into Darfur.Its obvious that the UNSC,due to China and Russia,won't allow this. However,its important to note that the US is responsible for nearly 50% of the humanitarian aid sent to Sudan.

Its also important to note that it was US sanctions,while the whole world dithered,that helped end the conflict in South Sudan that cost more than a million lives.If America were to intervene in Darfur militarily,there would inevitably be major loss of lives,the argument for not intervening in Iraq(that is costs lives)would effectively mean that the US should never intervene anywhere unless "midget"-states like Liberia and Haiti because any such intervention,particularly in Mu-slim nations,will inevitably lead to a bloodbath.

otele:
have you heard of something called cost-benefit analysis? go figure.

about staying alive, saddam was a terror. but even the shias today know that irak was better and more secure under saddam than today. today in their country violence is normal. it is chaotic. how can you know their country better than them.
they want the americans out,
the rest of the world wants the americans out.
the british want them out(and have started pulling out themselves.
the un did not legalise the war,
the war is unpopular in america, uk, europe, etc

only bush and co, israel, blair and co, kobo and 4play and co want this war. he he he hee eh eh ehe

This confused rant of yours doesn't address the central point-would most Iraqis prefer Saddam to Maliki?

Are you suggesting that Iraqi Shias would prefer to replace current Shia rule with Saddam's rule? Or that Kurds would rather have Saddam back? Not even the most passionate American hating Sunni Arab will even dare produce such a lie.

Cost-benefit analysis also applies to leaving Saddam in power.What if the CIA managed to assassinate Saddam?Would his children-Uday and Qusay-been any better. The UN sanctions of the 90s cost lives too-in the hundreds of thousands.

In my view,the reason why there is so much kerfuffle over Iraq is that for the first time in decades,Westerners (in the form of US troops)are also losing their lives.Saddam's Anfal campaign didn't make headlines because no single American died in it

debosky:
that is the crux of my point - is the removal of Saddam completely and utterly synonymous with the immense loss of lives that have occurred since then? The entire thought process behind the war was wrong - it was based on wrong premises and grandiose expectations of victory - it failed. BUT the main protagonists have REFUSED to admit as such and are still justifying their actions. I am sure there are ways Saddam could've been removed without the chaos there is now.

You are sure there are ways of removing Saddam without the chaos we are seeing today? Please enlighten further on this.I am curious to know what grand scheme you could have whipped up.

The premise of the Iraq war is that Saddam posed a threat to US and Israeli interests in the region and this threat has been neutralized.

You have sidestepped my point about the consequences of leaving Saddam in power.Saddam's regime did cost lives-you seemed to have forgotten that.The pertinent question has always been whether the removal of Saddam is worth the current level of bloodshed,my answer is yes.Most Iraqis are no more nostalgic about the Saddam era anymore than Zimbabweans are nostalgic for the Ian Smith era.

In one breath you quote 'polls' as being an authentic measure of Iraqi feelings, the next, you mention the Sunni 'megaphone' capable of obfuscating reality - which is the true reality then?

The true reality is that most Kurds and Shias think the removal of Saddam is worth it but we mainly get fed the opinion of the minority Sunni who dominate the information campaign.Iraq is deeply sectarian and many people seem to forget that.

debosky:
Were polls taken before the war in Iraq to gauge people's expectations then?

Having Saddam removed is one thing, do the majority of Iraqis support the over 90,000 documented deaths and likely thousands more undocumented that have occured? Or the daily suicide bombings and general insecurity? Unless of course you are suggesting that the current carnage and destruction in Iraq was the ONLY way Saddam could have been removed, then the issue is a lot more complex than the current 'hindsight' view of some Iraqis (I doubt the spread and veracity of these so called 'polls' anyways) and the views of Soldiers - did the Iraqi people make a plea to Bush to come 'save' them from Saddam?

Are the immense losses of Iraqi life necessary all in the name of overthrowing Saddam? I don't think so.

If we use this same logic all through,then the world was wrong to hound Ian Smith's white-minority rule out of power because the replacement-Mugabe-has made living standards far worse for Zimbabweans than it ever was before.

Iraqis don't support the current situation but Iraqi Kurds and Shias never liked the previous situation and think Saddam's removal is worth it.Why cry more than the bereaved? When Saddam was decimating Shias and Kurds,how many people poured into the streets to complain?

Is it any wonder that entire Iraqi army divisions preferred not to fight in 2003? Apart from Fedayeen Saddam and many Sunni dominated corps,the rest stood aside while some facilitated the invasion itself.Instead of crying more than the bereaved,we should respect the preferences of Iraqis who actually lived under Saddam.