₦airaland Forum

Hot Hangout spots?

Anybody want to buy some cheap tkts to Baghdad.I have a couple of tkts from Iraq Airways.I am flogging it on a discount for nairalanders

There are lot of positives about Nigeria.We have a lot of HIV positive people.

U can bribe ur way to a degree.Thats positive

U guys are all talking rubbish.How can u have a hot hangout spot in the Winter?U guys can go to hell

@Sista

I have seen that u forgot to take ur medicine.Your psychiatrist said I should tell u to take ur pills.Unfortunately I could only get to u through this forum.

Take those pills now b4 u go and murder some White people

nilla:
ha ha ha ha ha ha.
_{Done with my exams}

U guys have finished ur exams.I still have 5 months to my exams at the Booyakasha Centre for Strategic Studies.No one should make fun of my school.It is actually a world-class institute

I am studying the link btw excessive wanking and rabid anti-americanism

@Ikamefa

ikamefa:
so i suppose a woman who don't shave / wax the hair under her chin and upper lip is a dyke _{i love your logic by the way}

A DYKE?More like a dude with 2 balls and and a pipe btw his legs

So beyonce has left Jay- Z .MY PLAN IS WORKING.It remains how to convince her see me

@Ikamefa & Neelsel

Anyman who has the time to carve the hair under his lower lips is gay.A proper man will shave the damn thing off.

@Davidylan
Don't knock Strategic Centres.The fact that u don't know they exist is just because they are STRATEGIC.They are located strategically in the imagination of people.They conduct polls on imaginary people with predetermined results.

PS.The poll by the Obasanjo Strategic Centre was wrong.He is backed by 100.5 percent of Nigerians.U should get ur facts right

Anyman who leaves hair just below his lower lips is gay.The man should jump out of the closet.It is a shame that I am the only one who can see it

TayoD:
Is there an Organisation called Iraq Center for Strategic Studies?

Funny enough I wanted to ask this question earlier but I did not want to invite oppobrium from some people.

By the way did anyone see the poll done by Babangida Centre for Strategic Studies-apparently 90 percent of Nigerians want him back as President.Serious,it was on CNN,BBC,NBC,HIV

@mochafella

mochafella:
Okay I'll spell it out so you know even if you disagree.
US benefits: Political and Resource access.
GW & friends benefits: "Free" oil to sell on the international market, miltary contracts at tax payers expense.

At no point are those benefits mutually exclusive. We can argue the importance of one over the other to GW who made the final decision to invade, but they are not exclusive.

Free oil to sell?Mochafella,where is the evidence of the transaction in free oil by Americans?Presumably someone is transporting,storing,buying the oil.Which American is receiving the proceeds of this free oil and how much has he or she received?The onus of proving the existence of something is on the person who alleges its existence.The link does not in anyway show that Americans are actually profiteering from unmetered oil

mochafella:
I think you overrate the importance of political capital when he has no higher office to aspire to. Money also has a habit of smoothing ruffled feathers.

He invaded Iraq in 2003,19 months before election Presidential elections in which Iraq was the dominant issue around him.So he in effect risked his chances of re-election just to enrich his friends.Wow .Still waiting for u to tell me who these friends are and how much they have actually made in Iraq.Surely such sensational allegation will be all over the news

mochafella:
.
I would really like to see your evidence of that. Especially the one that "closely" links low prices of the late 90's and the oil embargo of the early 70's.

The long term impact of the oil embargo was that it curtailed the economy's overdependence of oil.As at 1980 14 percent of GDP was energy while at 2000 it was 7 percent.Skyrocketting oil prices encourage  over-investment in oil exploration and a subsequent supply glut which is not in the longterm interests of oil producers.Check this link www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/004481.html. Read the comment by the futures trader

mochafella:
Its been done once, it can be done again. You make it seem like the Arabs need to sell so much oil to survive. They don't. They can get by with supplying/selling less. Need I remind you that China has 4 times the US population and most want to live life like the Americans. I don't have recent figures but they won't remain the smaller economy for long.

The Arabs need to sell their oil more than America needs to buy it.For many of the Arab nations oil constitiutes at least 80 percent of their GDP and 90 percent of revenue.Like I noted earlier,energy constitutes 7 percent of the US economy.Any cutback in supply will amount to cutting their nose to spite their face .For these people America is their main buyer,but for America they are no longer the main supplier.If Arabs can get by with less,there won't have been one embargo since the 70s.Surely the success of an act is marked by the eagerness to replicate it.Not even Iraq engaged in an embargo before the invasion.As forChina,nothing changes except that it will be as eager as America to ensure constant supply of energy at affordable prices


[quote author=mochafella link=topic=30479.msg740959#msg740959 date=1165290169]I hope you can give me a stronger reason than "priorities" for leaving the exports unmeasured. I await your explanation.

U can't seriously claim that proof Bush and his pallies were profittering from Iraqi oil is established by the fact that America did not meter Iraqi pipeline(wonder why they had none before).Not even the BBC link alleges that.ALL it shows is American incompetence.Where is the evidence that this led to enrichment of Americans.Instead,u are asking me to explain.U have to show that this actually led to the enrichment of certain Americans







My point about BDS is not directed to your person but to the quality of your argument in this particular issue.BDS is used to refer to the phenomenon of making baseless allegations and spurious conspiracy theories about the Bush adminstration based on a dislike of the adminstration.The allegations u raised are only symptomatic of it-en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Derangement_Syndrome

[/quote]

@mochafella
How do u do the maths on unmetered oil?There is only so much oil that can be produced in Iraq at the moment.So u can actually have an idea of how much oil is being produced but unaccounted for.There is only so much oil that can be sneaked out of a country.It has to be transported and stored .

The link u gave does not even in anyway support the assertion that Bush and his pallies are smuggling Iraq oil and making fortunes.U will think such a dramatic allegation will be the subject of news everywhere.That Bush had a secret slush fund where he is stacking proceeds from Iraqi oil

With all due respect this is a symptom of the Bush Derangement Syndrome I talked about earlier

@Mochafella
So the US did not invade Iraq for its own oil interests but For Bush's interests.Bush staked all his political capital and sent 150,000 Americans to war in Iraq just line up the pockets of his friends.Not even his own pockets but that of his friends .Do u really beleive that?

Who are these friends of Bush for whom Bush spent his poltical capital.Do they have names and how much have they actually made from Iraq?Please enlighten me

As for the resource issue,I totally disagree with your claim that the US suffered  more than the oil producers-by the way it was an Arab oil embargo not Iranian induced-What the oil shock did was to reduce dependence on oil ,hence the low oil price for 2 decades-this helped plunge many oil producers like Nigeria into debt which they just came out from.Even today oil prices in real terms have not returned to the level of the 70s

The US is by far the biggest consumner of oil-25 percent of oil production.YOU CANNOT SIDELINE UR BIGGEST CONSUMNER .You can't sideline a nation that takes one in four of every barrel of oil produced,it is impossible.There will be a collapse in the oil markets.Japan and China combined is only one-third the size of the US economy,they can't afford a premium on oil if the US can't buy it

Why did u think that nobody has tried a similar oil embargo since the 70s.They all learnt their lessons-that any disruption in the oil markets is not in the interests of oil producers

@Mochafella
I just listened to your link.Interesting as it is,all of what I have heard before,it did not contradict in any way my assertion that the US has not siphoned Iraqi oil.

What it is ,is a catalogue of the corruption and incompetence that has attended the reconstruction programme in Iraq .But that is a far cry from suggesting as u do that the US is perhaps milking Iraq oil through the unmetered oil .

The link even starts with the claim,that the US  has spent 30 billion dollars of its own money and 20 billion dollars of Iraqi money,much of it unaccounted for.That leaves a net surplus of 10 billion dollars of US money.How is that stealing from the Iraqis by the US.

Is the proof that the US invaded Iraq for money lie in evidence that it can't account for 20 billion dollars of Iraqi money.Having spent 30 billion dollars of its own money on reconstruction and a minimum of 60 billion per annum on military operations.Does the maths stack up.How can u spend 30 billion dollars in order to steal 20 billion dollars and this does not include the cost of invading Iraq

This is why I posed the question,because anytime it is asnwered,it illustrates the futility of the claim that the US invaded Iraq simply for financial benefits.

Any simple cost-benefit analysis wil find it difficult to support the claim that the US invaded to make money for itself.

Lets take the unmetered oil for 1 year claim.For the sake of argument,lets presume that the US took every single dime of Iraqi oil revenues-about 30 billion dollars .That will barely cover the cost of mitary operations.

if the US were to take every single dime of Iraqi oil revenues per anumn-about 50 billion dollars at current value-that will amount     to an increase in the US economy of about 0.4 percent per annumn-The US ECONOMY is what 11.4 trillion dollars.

All this is based on the presumption that the US is taking every single dime of Iraqi money,which clearly does not happen and not even the BBC link suggests that anything of that sort is happening.

Any claim that the US invaded Iraq for oil,will have to show that on a cost benefit analysis,the US by invading Iraq intended to make more financially from the oil than they would spend in carrying out the invasion.NOTHING I have heard or seen over the past 3 years has shown me that and this BBC link has not changed my opinion that the US did not invade Iraq because of oil

Resource/energy security could easily be acheived by a return to the status quo of the 80s,which Saddam was more than welcome to.The nations that sell oil to the US depend more on such sale than the US.Often for them, oil revenue is often their sole revenue and they will be loath to do anything that jeopardise the continued supply of their sole resource

@Akolowale
We have so much quality that we can afford to bench these guys.

There were some suggestions that Silvestre might be let go as part of a deal to bring Owen Hargreaves from Bayern Munich

We can always loan them to Arsenal

UNN is definitely the best especially in terms of the quality of the graduates and the current students.But most importantly it has the most beautiful women

@Afam

davidylan:
Dont waste your time, we have been through this with Afam before. He resorts to insults when he is cornered and shown up for the ignorant person he truly is. Making bogus statements based on a few minutes of CNN news reports

It seems that I am not the first to notice that u are allergic to the truth.U don't want the truth to get in the way of ur argument.

The Palestine position,not including that of Hamas,is for a return to the pre-1967 borders.Lets not forget that Palestinians had an opportunity to take a greater piece of territory at 1948 but they chose the path of war thinking that they could defeat Isreal militarily.At that time Isreal had a population of just 600,000.This calculation backfired and Palestine ended up with less land than they could have gotten initially.

Even then there is no obligation on Isreal to unilaterally withdraw to the 1967 borders except as part of a comprehensive peace deal

Afam:
Do yourself a favour and reproduce where you referenced the saughter of Kurds in the Kurd and I will tender an unreserved apology right now.

@Afam
This is my original quote which sparked all this

4 Play:
@Easyy


Honestly speaking,I don't know how old u are,but can u recall when Saddam's forces killled 150,000 Shias in the 90s .It barely made the news.If nairaland existed then,we wont be discussing Iraq then because there was no America to blame.What about the Anfal campaign when about 100,000-180,000 Kurds where killed?Do u recall that making news?

I await ur response

Afam:
Me? Explain what you are trying to grasp to you? Never

@Afam
No where in my last post did I ask u to explain anything.U now put questions to urself and refuse to answer them.

NEED I SAY MORE

@Grizzly
Why would Ronaldo have dived when he had an empty post to tap the ball into.So he in effect passed up the opportunity of scoring in other to win a penalty to enable someoneelse score

@Afam
Read my previous post on post 141 on the 4th paragraph were I refered to the Anfal campaign in the same paragraph with the massacre of Shias

I await ur apology

@Afam
U said ur conclusion is not that Isreal has no obligation to return to 1948 lands.Then presumably u conclude the opposite-Isreal has obligations to return to 1948 lands.That conclusion ,is an incredible cocktail of ignorance and irrationality.There is no international law authority or even Palestinian demand that Isreal has obligations as per pre 1948 borders.

It is quite possble that u have no idea what ur conclusions are,which from my knowledge of ur previous posts would not surprise me

I hate the Gunners but for once,I am going to support them against Chelsea.Knowing how messed up the Gunners are I don't have much hope.They should stop calling themselves Gunners and start calling themselves Gonners,because they are gone as far challenging for trophies in the fiture is concerned

Man Utd 4 life

@Afam
U said

Afam:
If Israel enjoys dashing people land as is criminally being smuggled into the discussion then they should stop complaining and give up every single land that they claimed since 1948 and even they ones they forcefully took from the peope they met there when they decided to form a jewish home state after the holocaust.

To which I replied

4 Play:
There is no serious person who recognises any obligation on the part of Isreal to withdraw to 1948 lands,even Palestinians simply call for withdrawal to 1967 lands.

U seem so confused that u are unable to follow the debate u are engaged in.U contest something in one post and then 5 posts later claim that u agreed with it all along.

So ur conclusion here then is that Isreal has no obligation pertaining to 1948 borders

@Afam
May I plz know then what precisely was ur objection to my earlier post that the US and Britain helped impose a no-fly zone in response to the slaughter of Shia and Kurds post Gulf War 1

There is no serious person who recognises any obligation on the part of Isreal to withdraw to 1948 lands,even Palestinians simply call for withdrawal to 1967 lands.

Resolution 242 which governs such a withdrawal is predicated on both parties reaching a peaceful agreement.Hence the obligation does not rest on Isreal alone but on both sides.

@Afam
I am trying to lead u from the wilderness of confusion u have found urself in.U seem so lost that u now refer to urself in the 3rd person,perhaps a futile attempt to disassociate urself from ur past display of sheer disregard for facts and logic.

After refering to my claim that no-fly zones were imposed in the 90s as a result of Saddam massacres as "erroneous information", u now purport to agree with me.Good for u.

We will need the reserves when oil prices come down.We made this mistake in the 70s ,during the last oil boom ,of spending our money without puting some away for the future

People talk about spending the money,don't they realise that expenditure has gone up 3 fold since the Abacha days.Where has the money spent already gone?We can't start spending even more when the Govt can't account for all that the increase in spending.For instance,where is the money spent on N.E.PA?