₦airaland Forum

I have seen the same thing on MBI news.

Good for the judiciary and hope for Nigeria.

The damage control you are currently employing may take you forever to succeed, don't have time for shameless liars.

4 Play:
@Afam

Last time u accussed me of modifying a post now u suggesting that the wikipedia author may have modified his post when u can verify what he wrote by checking up the books he cited

My statement on your shameful modification is in order.

I do not suggest that the wikipedia author may have modified his post as you are criminally implying.

My reference to a free encyclopedia means that any idiot like you can even edit the document and another person will cite your stupid entries as fact or reliable piece of information.

And I need not go read up a book to know if Israel is disobeying a UN Security Council Resolution.

Without credibility a man is finished and you really do not worth anything as far as I am concerned based on your so many wrong statements, shameful denials and twisting of information even though unsuccessfully.

ishmael:
JoshO, you are a yoruba man i believe!!

What has tribe or ethnicity got to do with this discussion?

That is the problem with a lot of Nigerians, always looking for avenues to play ethnic or tribal games or politics with issues that do not need them.

Na wah ooo, so a link to a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit is now more relevant than information found on the website of the UN even when the issue on board concerns UN Security Council Resolutions?

Very interesting position but the logic seems faulty to me.

On the role of the US as regards UN Resolutions concerning Israel, it either vetoes them or abstains from voting especially when it is the only one singing a different tune or supports them when it favours Israel.

@Jaybaba,

Great post. Sharia was introduced in Katsina because the majority wanted it. I believe a strong confederation is what we need today.

On Okotie, do you really believe he will do most of what he says just because he says so?

He has never been in any position to demonstrate the type of leadership a president requires.

Heading a church without branches isn't the best example of what a leader is especially in a country like Nigeria where a lot of religious and ethnic sentiments run high.

While a lot of Christains do not see anything wrong in Revd Okotie's candidacy, would we also support a popular Alfa or equivalent to aspire for the presidency? Abi, we go conclude say na terrorist or jihadist?

babasin:
Afam
In fact, this is worst thing he will ever do! Rubishing NIGERIAN Constitution in democratic environment!!

And, I assume you believe Atiku hasn't done anything wrong, right?

This is a cause and effect scenario and it is funny and strange how some of us conveniently avoid what led to the pronouncement but are really interested in protecting the constitution when appropriate steps were taken to remedy the mess Atiku created by being the only VP in the world that doubles as a presidential candidate of a rival party.

Honestly, touting a UN link is far better than your futile attempt at twisting and lying your way out of the mess you have found yourself in.

Since producing just one foreign policy will result in you asking why I produced just one so I have decided to produce 3 foreign policies that I support even though the implementations may have some flaws.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++===============

1. Protecting the safety and freedom of all American citizens, both within the United States and abroad;

2. Furthering free trade, unencumbered by tariffs, interdictions and other economic barriers, and furthering capitalism in order to foster economic growth, improve living conditions everywhere, and promote the sale and mobility of U.S. products to international consumers who desire them;

3. Bringing developmental and humanitarian aid to foreign peoples in need.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

However, I hope you understand that support for these policies do not mean that I cannot criticize it when it commits crimes against people, groups or nations.

Any other question?

Why do many of us get into a discussion, debate or arguement with very stiff mindsets based on sentiments and bias?

I see a lot of people here supporting Atiku just because they dislike OBJ, not that what the VP did was right in any way.

Such blind commendation or condemnation is hugely responsible for the state of affairs in Nigeria today and it is sad this is happening.

Even if OBJ has been wrong all his life this singular decision on Atiku is right and should be seen as so by all well meaning Nigerians.

Resorting to our enemy's enemy automatically becomes our friend may boomerang sooner rather than later.

4 Play:
I define terrorism as the indiscriminate and deliberate use of violence against innocent civilians

TayoD:
@4play,

So are you in disagreement with the fact that terrorism cannot be used to settle land disputes?

We are waiting for answers oooo.

@Kaecy5,

How body? What I think about the US being right or wrong is immaterial.

The way the arguement is going isn't really helping matters as emotions run high and some of us have come out (as usual) to make very wrong statements that will only attract insults when they are pointed out.

@4Play,

If you were a soothsayer you would have been broke if you depended on it for survival.

I do not believe the US is always wrong because as a matter of fact there are quite a number of good things the US does but in the context of our disagreements thus far, the wrongs done by the US have been the focus not the rights.

I hope you also understand that normal human beings are capable of pointing out the good and the bad without unnecessary emotions, sentiments and bias.

Put differently, I do not believe in blanket commendation or blanket condemnation of anyone, any group or any nation, something you have consistently proven you are incapable of doing because to you everything the US does is right while everything any muslim person or nation does is wrong.

I am not filled with hated partly masked by lack of understanding and propensity to lie just to push forward certain misinformations.

I had thought you would have been humbled by your outright lie that the US was a voluntary union or at best tendered an apology to the forum for trying to decieve and misinform, instead you have chosen to chase Afam for pointing out such grave and dangerous lie.

The only problem is that I am really getting tired or pointing out such lies as they are indeed many, give yourself a break or seek to know what you don't know rather than exposing yourself to the world the way you have been doing for sometime now.

@Shango,

I really do wonder why people are afraid of truth and are willing to go any lenght to twist very clear issues.

@4Play,

I may be ignorant but I do not tell lies to support my positions neither do I twist issues.

Just yesterday you made a bold but very false statement that the US is a voluntary union even when it fought bitter wars to annex countries in the north and in the south.

I am really losing count of how many times you have been wrong on this forum and I won't play the this game of international law, cap 6, cap 7, legally binding etc because it seems you are looking for a cheap way out of your wrong analysis based on incorrect premises and assumptions.

This forum is not a substitute for real education, it is your duty to learn what you do not know, not the duty of other posters here.

For those learning how to throw insults, I am kind of busy right now and will respond when you are able to package your insults well, for now, they are like those packaged by mentally deranged people.

A single good website can bring you all the money you may ever need in your web design business.

Advert is not really effective because you have a lot of people with money to spend on adverts and there is no telling who is telling the truth or not.

Connection may work but it won't last because when the owners demand better value or functionality they will go any lenght to look for who can do the job regardless of whether they know the person or not.

ishmael:
[
Which constitution told you that it is in order for the president to declare the VP's seat as vacant if the VP decamps to another party?? Is it the nigerian 1999 constitution or PDP constitution??

I believe it is a proper thing to do, I never stated nor implied that it was covered in the constitution.

If we choose to wait for the constitution for everything then one can kill another with a blunt knife and claim that the constitution did not say anything about blunt knives.

@twinstaiye,

I agree with you but you must realise that a lot of Nigerians are more interested in abusing OBJ than they are in treating the issues raised.

There is no where in the world where you have the president and the vice president being members of rival parties, no where and the declaration that the seat is vacant is well in order.

Seeking and punishing the terrorist is in order and the onus lies on the punisher to make sure that the terrorist is punished not explaining the killing of innocent people all in the process of finding the terrorist.

No innocent person has to die for whatsoever reasons.

Osama is still alive but hundreds of thousands of people are dead based on careless and delibrate lies and miscalculations of Bush and the US led coalition that waged an illegal war in Iraq.

I am in total support of fighting the enemy, I am not in support of killing of innocent ones regardless of the excuses from collateral damage to terrorists hiding in civilian areas.

@4Play,

I agree you overestimated my powers of comprehension, coming from you it's a compliment, nothing I should lose sleep ove.

My reasoning or lack of it may be worthy of membership of the flat earth society, it does not matter but dancing around words and attempting to make simple things complex seems a weakness rather than a strenght.

I have delibrately not bothered to reply you sly remarks in kind because you are providing ample content to show what you stand for and what you want to push through even in the face of clarity.

@4 Play,

I had thought that issues concerning UN Security Councils Resolutions would have been appropriately dealt with or clarifications sought on the UN website rather than a free online encyclopedia that can be edited by anyone.

http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_resolutions.html has a nice list of all major UN Security Council Resolutions and I did advice you to read the site up at your leisure, I guess you did not.

Now, even from your free encyclopedia source the complete content is reproduced below and I wonder if you imagined that the content actually helps your position on Israel going against the world as regards the UN Security Council Resolution or harms it.

=============================================================

United Nations Security Council Resolution 478 declared that the 1980 Knesset law (the "Jerusalem Law" declaring Jerusalem as Israel's "eternal and indivisible" capital was "null and void and must be rescinded forthwith". This resolution, not taken under chapter VII of the charter (the binding chapter[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] ), advised member states to withdraw their diplomatic representation from the city as a punitive measure. Most nations with embassies in Jerusalem complied, and relocated their embassies to Tel Aviv prior to the adoption of Resolution 478. Following the withdrawals of Costa Rica and El Salvador in August 2006, no country maintains its embassy in Jerusalem, although Paraguay and Bolivia have theirs in nearby Mevasseret Zion. [1] The United States Congress passed the Jerusalem Embassy Act in 1995, stating that "Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of the State of Israel; and the United States Embassy in Israel should be established in Jerusalem no later than May 31, 1999. As a result of the Embassy Act, official U.S. documents and web sites refer to Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. The embassy itself still did not move pending the agreement of the President.

The vote on the resolution, which took place on August 20, 1980, was passed 14-0, with the United States abstaining.

=======================================================================

And the notes section, I hope you realise that I can edit the document and add my own note below with any information I may deem fit, however, the point is that in terms of factual information, the website of the UN is a far more reliable source when compared to a free online encyclopedia that even you can edit.


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Notes

1. ^ "Additionally it may be noted that the Security Council cannot adopt binding decisions under Chapter VI of the Charter" (De Hoogh, Andre. Obligations Erga Omnes and International Crimes, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Jan 1, 1996, p. 371).
2. ^ "Council recommendations under Chapter VI are generally accepted as not being legally binding". (Magliveras, Konstantinos D. Exclusion from Participation in International Organisations, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Jan 1, 1999, p. 113).
3. ^ "Within the framework of Chapter VI the SC has at its disposal an 'escalation ladder' composed of several 'rungs' of wielding influence on the conflicting parties in order to move them toward a pacific solution, however, the pressure exerted by the Council in the context of this Chapter is restricted to non-binding recommendations". (Neuhold, Hanspeter. "The United Nations System for the Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes", in Cede, Franz & Sucharipa-Behrmann, Lilly. The United Nations, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Jan 1, 2001, p. 66).
4. ^ "The responsibility of the Council with regard to international peace and security is specified in Chapters VI and VII. Chapter VI, entitled 'Pacific Settlements of Disputes', provides for action by the Council in case of international disputes or situations which do not (yet) post a threat to international peace and security. Herein its powers generally confined to making recommendations, the Council can generally not issue binding decisions under Chapter VI". (Schweigman, David. The Authority of the Security Council Under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Jan 1, 2001, p. 33).
5. ^ "Under Chapter VI, the Security Council may only make recommendations but not binding decisions on United Nations members". (Wallace-Bruce, Nii Lante. The Settlement of International Disputes, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Jan 1, 1998, pp. 47-4 ).
6. ^ "The UN distinguishes between two sorts of Security Council resolution. Those passed under Chapter Six deal with the peaceful resolution of disputes and entitle the council to make non-binding recommendations. Those under Chapter Seven give the council broad powers to take action, including warlike action, to deal with “threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, or acts of aggression”. Such resolutions, binding on all UN members, were rare during the cold war. But they were used against Iraq after its invasion of Kuwait. None of the resolutions relating to the Israeli-Arab conflict comes under Chapter Seven." Iraq, Israel and the United Nations: Double standards?, The Economist, October 10, 2002.
7. ^ "There are two sorts of security council resolution: those under 'chapter 6' are non-binding recommendations dealing with the peaceful resolution of disputes; those under 'chapter 7' give the council broad powers, including war, to deal with 'threats to the peace , or acts of aggression'." Emmott, Bill. If Saddam steps out of line we must go straight to war, The Guardian, November 25, 2002.
8. ^ ", there is a difference between the Security Council resolutions that Israel breaches (nonbinding recommendations under Chapter 6) and those Iraq broke (enforcement actions under Chapter 7)." Kristof, Nicholas D. Calling the Kettle Black, The New York Times, February 25, 2004.
9. ^ "There is a hierarchy of resolutions, Chapter 6, under which all resolutions relating to the middle east have been issued, relates to the pacific resolution of disputes. Above that, there are the mandatory chapter 7 resolutions, which impose the clearest possible obligations, usually on a single state rather than on two or three states, which is what chapter 6 is there for. Chapter 7 imposes mandatory obligations on states that are completely out of line with international law and policy, and the United Nations has decided in its charter that the failure to meet those obligations may be met by the use of force." Straw, Jack. House of Commons debates, Hansard, Column 32, September 24, 2002.
10. ^ "There is another characteristic of these resolutions which deserves a mention, and that is that they are under chapter 7 of the United Nations charter. Chapter 7 has as its heading 'Action with respect to threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of aggression'. This is the very serious chapter of United Nations rules, regulations, laws and principles, which the United Nations activates when they intend to do something about it. If the United Nations announces under chapter 7 that it intends to do something about a matter and it is not done, that will undermine the authority of the United Nations; that will render it ineffective. There are many other resolutions under other chapters. Resolution 242 gets a bit of a Guernsey here every now and then. Resolution 242 is under chapter 6, not chapter 7. It does not carry the same mandate and authority that chapter 7 carries. Chapter 6 is the United Nations trying to put up resolutions which might help the process of peace and it states matters of principle that are important for the world to take into consideration. Resolution 242 says that Israel should withdraw from territories that it has occupied. It also says that Israel should withdraw to secure and recognised boundaries and that the one is dependent upon the other. Resolution 242 says that, but it is not a chapter 7 resolution." Beazley, Kim, Waiting for blow-back (speech delivered in Parliament on February 4, 2003, The Sydney Morning Herald, February 5, 2003.
11. ^ "There are several types of resolutions: Chapter 6 resolutions are decisions pursing the Pacific Settlement of Disputes, and put forward Council proposals on negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies, and other peaceful means. Chapter 7 resolutions are decisions for Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, involving use of force and sanctions, complete or partial interruption of economic relations, rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic radio and other means of communication and the severance of diplomatic relations. Resolutions passed under Chapter 7 of the Charter are binding on all UN members, who are required to give every assistance to any action taken by the Council, and refrain from giving any assistance to the country against which it is taking enforcement action." Iran dossier crosses the Atlantic: Where to from here? (Microsoft Word document), Greenpeace position paper on Iran.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Do yourself a favour and say things the way they are.

When you try to make simple things complex you end up making people question your real motive.

Center the content within the tags that contains the banner be it the div or td tag.

While I agree with the first 2 responses it is important to note that it is better to avoid problems than to create them and now spend forever deciding the correct way to redress them.

@4 Play,

Has the greater US troop presence in the Middle East made the US or the world safer?

It is strange that a policy that majority of the people in the world today thinks is a huge failure is being stated as a counter measure that should make sense to the problem in the middle east today.

Bush simply made the job of recruiting suicide bombers easier based on what they see in Iraq on daily basis.

In terms of numbers, about 2 days ago, the number of US casualties exceeded the total number of people that died on 911 at NY, Virginia and Pennsylvania put together.

In terms of the Iraqis themselves the number of casualties, mostly civilians had been staggering, so I fail to see the usefulness of the steps taken by Bush and his fellow war mongers in response to 911.

It would have been perfect if the Iraqi themselves got Saddam and sentenced him to death, not being handed over by the US to the Shiites that were persecuted during his reign in power.

This may be a big lesson for those leaders that wine and dine with powerful nations to the detriment of their people.

The US armed and supported Saddam when Iraq fought a bitter war with Iran, the US never condemned the gassing of the Kurds or the killing of the Shiites (especially in th Dujail case where the death penalty was based on) simply because in Saddam the US saw a friend because they both had a common enemy, Iran.

Trying Saddam under a US guided court proceedings and with the current carnage in Iraq would not have the impact it would have had assuming the Iraqis themselves took the guy out based on his actions or inactions.

@gbade,

If you must advice others do so in an objective manner, no one has any right to ask me not to reply insults in kind.

I believe the appropriate thing to do is advice those who cannot disagree with others without insulting them to stop doing so, not asking those who only reply in kind not to do so, that is plain bias and I am not the type that allows idiots insult others only to start complaining when you return the insults.

@4 Play,

I am only glad that other people have pointed out how far you are willing to go to confuse very clear issues.

One aptly put it thus; of what use are UN Security Council Resolutions if they are not binding on the nations? Suddenly wikipedia is now a source of information that you can trust, wonders shall never end.

The issues are clear, keep playing with words, the message is clear, I have since stopped attempting to explain very clear issues especially with you.

@chidichris,

As long as you keep making references to insults when you are not bold enough to admit that you started it then you don't deserve more than a few lines from me.

I hate with passion people who deny what they do and people who lie without shame.

mazaje:
if the government had provided fuel knowing fully well that its a festive peroid no body will foolishly go and scoop any petroleum pipeline, but because the people were pushed to the wall they had to do what they did ,though it turned out to be ugly, i refuse to blame the peoplethat scooped the pipeline i blame the useless good for nothing government that foolish allowed fuel to be a scarce at this festive period of the year.

Could you please answer the following question honestly?

Will you scoop fuel from a vandalised or ruptured pipeline for any reasons knowing what you know today about the dangers inherent in such activities?

If your answer is in the negative then I wonder what purpose you want to achieve with your position that has refused to apportion blame appropriately.

Sad but again, one must ask; why would anyone for whatsoever reasons engage in a potentially fatal venture like scooping fuel from a ruptured or vandalised pipeline given the fact that Nigeria had witnessed similar scenarios that ended in fatalities in the past?

While we sympathize with the victims it is equally important for Nigerians to avoid acts that could end their lives in the most terrible ways as dead men don't dream neither do they hope for a better tomorrow.

We must learn to accept responsibility of our actions whether right or wrong, the blame game may be convenient for some but it certainly isn't the best or most effective.

From the inbox, I agree with the writer completely anyway as facts are there to support his positions as against sentiments, bias etc

War Is Not A Solution For Terrorism
By Howard Zinn

THERE IS SOMETHING important to be learned from the recent experience of the United States and Israel in the Middle East: that massive military attacks, inevitably indiscriminate, are not only morally reprehensible, but useless in achieving the stated aims of those who carry them out.

The United States, in three years of war, which began with shock-and-awe bombardment and goes on with day-to-day violence and chaos, has been an utter failure in its claimed objective of bringing democracy and stability to Iraq. The Israeli invasion and bombing of Lebanon has not brought security to Israel; indeed it has increased the number of its enemies, whether in Hezbollah or Hamas or among Arabs who belong to neither of those groups.

I remember John Hersey's novel, "The War Lover," in which a macho American pilot, who loves to drop bombs on people and also to boast about his sexual conquests, turns out to be impotent. President Bush, strutting in his flight jacket on an aircraft carrier and announcing victory in Iraq, has turned out to be much like the Hersey character, his words equally boastful, his military machine impotent.

The history of wars fought since the end of World War II reveals the futility of large-scale violence. The United States and the Soviet Union, despite their enormous fire-power, were unable to defeat resistance movements in small, weak nations -- the United States in Vietnam, the Soviet Union in Afghanistan -- and were forced to withdraw.

Even the "victories" of great military powers turn out to be elusive. Presumably, after attacking and invading Afghanistan, the president was able to declare that the Taliban were defeated. But more than four years later, Afghanistan is rife with violence, and the Taliban are active in much of the country.

The two most powerful nations after World War II, the United States and the Soviet Union, with all their military might, have not been able to control events in countries that they considered to be in their sphere of influence -- the Soviet Union in Eastern Europe and the United States in Latin America.

Beyond the futility of armed force, and ultimately more important, is the fact that war in our time inevitably results in the indiscriminate killing of large numbers of people. To put it more bluntly, war is terrorism. That is why a "war on terrorism" is a contradiction in terms. Wars waged by nations, whether by the United States or Israel, are a hundred times more deadly for innocent people than the attacks by terrorists, vicious as they are.

The repeated excuse, given by both Pentagon spokespersons and Israeli officials, for dropping bombs where ordinary people live is that terrorists hide among civilians. Therefore the killing of innocent people (in Iraq, in Lebanon) is called accidental, whereas the deaths caused by terrorists (on 9/11, by Hezbollah rockets) are deliberate.

This is a false distinction, quickly refuted with a bit of thought. If a bomb is deliberately dropped on a house or a vehicle on the grounds that a "suspected terrorist" is inside (note the frequent use of the word suspected as evidence of the uncertainty surrounding targets), the resulting deaths of women and children may not be intentional. But neither are they accidental. The proper description is "inevitable."

So if an action will inevitably kill innocent people, it is as immoral as a deliberate attack on civilians. And when you consider that the number of innocent people dying inevitably in "accidental" events has been far, far greater than all the deaths deliberately caused by terrorists, one must reject war as a solution for terrorism.

For instance, more than a million civilians in Vietnam were killed by US bombs, presumably by "accident." Add up all the terrorist attacks throughout the world in the 20th century and they do not equal that awful toll.

If reacting to terrorist attacks by war is inevitably immoral, then we must look for ways other than war to end terrorism, including the terrorism of war. And if military retaliation for terrorism is not only immoral but futile, then political leaders, however cold-blooded their calculations, may have to reconsider their policies.

Howard Zinn is a professor emeritus at Boston University and the author of the forthcoming book, A Power Governments Cannot Suppress to be published by City Lights Books (www.citylights.com) this winter.

It is not the duty of PDP to ask people that cross carpeted to vacate their seats, it is the duty of the parties that were abandoned to do so.

This is common sense and crystal clear. Every party tries to protect its interests not the interests of its rivals.

Maybe understanding the issues would have been better before calling people hypocrites as you may be the one lacking in understanding.

otokx:
Most of the current politicians in the south south with the exception of donald duke and a few others are a disgrace to their predecessors and indeed every people.

So, why exclude Donald Duke? I thought he did what the other aspirants from the SS did as regards the clamour for SS presidency.

The site has remained the slowest I have ever come across in my lifetime and I don't think I have been able to successfully browse that site more than once.

The VP should have resigned before becoming a presidential flag bearer of a rival party, it is not done anywhere in the world, at least to the best of my knowledge.

If the constitution did not expressly cover this unique area then it shows that our law makers indeed do have a lot of work to do so as to block all the loopholes that some of our leaders have been taking advantage of to do whatever they liked.

If our law makers had demonstrated a certain level of intelligence in throwing away the 3 term part of the bill that contained over 100 amendments, issues like what constitutes a 2/3 majority and this particular case would have been fine tuned and our constitution made better rather than the situtation we have today where even lawyers waste air time and give very diverse and dangerous interpretations to the same constitution.

Maybe the PDP was underestimated this time, I believe the PDP is in order in asking for the post of the VP to be declared vacant, same with Abia state and ofcourse, the breeze has blown to Lagos state where the AD is asking for the same thing since the governor had abandoned the party a long time ago.

@chidichris,

Please, try to organise your thoughts before putting them down on a public forum, I don't have the time to solve puzzles all in the name of reading through your incoherent posts.

@mrpataki,

So it is now a question of sense of humour? I have heard dogs say the same thing when put in the same position you are in right now.

You abused me, I responded in kind, you turned around and stated you were joking.

Now, it's a case of sense of humour, you really know no shame. Why don't you take my responses in kind they way you take yours? If you can converted your insults to jokes then feel free to convert mine to jokes too.

I prefer and respect people that will be bold enough to insult others and stand by the insults rather than snakes like you that will insult people and deny them once they are insulted by way of a response in kind.

@ 4 Play,

You are only introducing the issue of General Assembly Resolutions to confuse issues, I am sure that Security Council resolutions have the main crux of the matter since the issue of Israel going against them came to the fore.

Why bother to make simple issue look complex?

Point of correction, democracy is alive and well in Iran, the president came to power through a free and fair election based on his hardline stand against the West. Same way Hamas won a landslide in a free and fair election unless you have a personal standard you use in determining what a democracy is in your books.

On Iran's rejection of the UN Security Council resolution

The world may not have any rights under the sun to question Iran if Iran carries out its threat to withdraw from the NPT which by the way is voluntary.

Today, Israel, India & Pakistan are not signatories to the NPT, that means that these countries can develop as many nuclear weapons as they want without anyone having the right to question it.

Should Iran choose to withdraw the scenario will change and no one will have the right to question it as regards nuclear technology and nuclear weapons.

Now, what moral right or justifications do some nations have over others concerning development of nuclear weapons when they continue to develop them and use such status to bargain or force their ways in the world affairs today?

My position is that no nation should be allowed to develop or own nuclear weapons for whatever reasons whatsoever.

However, if one country feels it should develop and one them, then I do not see any reasons why others will not want to do the same.

On the issue of Iran disobeying UN Security Council resolution, I do not believe anyone here has remotely implied that only Israel has gone against the UN Security Coucil resolution. Iran has rejected it, just like some nations have rejected some in the past.

@Donzman,

I agree that you do not appease militants, I also believe that the decision to cede the VP position to the SS was not to appease the militants but to appease the people of the Niger Delta as a whole.

I also do not ascribe to this minority/majority stuff as it tends to divide more than it brings together.

Nigeria without any of its component state will not be complete as the country is currently structured.

You cannot have peace (not the type that is forced by the use of a gun) with justice, equity and fairplay.

I am from the SE and just like LoverBwoy stated, there is no serious candidate in the PDP from the SE that deserves the slot otherwise they would have come out and campaigned and not rely solely on a blessing from Baba.

Until we have selfless leaders we cannot make real progress.