Put details here. No secret service!

Good day house. I own a translation company and I am looking for English Ibibio/Efik translator. It is a paid job and on part time. Location is not a barrier as it is going to be through mail/online. 07037348181. ebony4pink@gmail.com

Good day house. I own a translation company and I am looking for English Ibibio/Efik translator. It is a paid job and on part time. Location is not a barrier as it is going to be through mail/online. 07037348181. ebony4pink@gmail.com

Drinokrane:
Here’s a beautiful story of a Nigerian woman, Mrs. Akpevwe, who recently got a gift of a brand new Range Rover from her husband, Mr. Etu, for sticking with him throughout the years he was struggling. they’ve been together since childhood..

According to people in the know, the SUV is a 2013 Range Rover Evoque, and it’s worth $46,995 that’s (N17 million) Plus shipping, clearing and custom fee it will bring the car to a round figure of 20m+.

The couple dated for 10 years, got married in 2011, and have since remained married for over 6 years! They’re both based in Ghana.
The best kind of love has to be one you started from many years ago, childhood love perhaps.

Their union is blessed with 2 kids, a boy and a girl.

http://www.torimill.com/2017/11/after-10-years-of-dating-and-6years-of.html

Giving someone this type of gift is good but it does not guarantee happy married life or show love most of the times. It majorly means he can afford it. Don't because of this envy empty marriage. The husband can be another emerging Evans with one wife and lots of concubines!

Finstar:
Tonto don suffer.. Just because she raised two hands up and flew them twice in the air, it now means she was physically abusing her husband..? I didn't see anything physical IN that video ooh... If you look very well, she was slow and drained emotional, the husband must-have done something that made him play victim here.. And who was videoing the event? This is just a set up...


Anyway, Wetin concern me.. Visit www.entmirror.com

Hmm... You are right my brother! You know that is the way your mother used to slap your father. It is not possible for you to see anything physical here!

WotzupNG:

Controversial Journalist, Kemi Olunloyo is at it again. This time around she not only fired shots at Celebrities as usual, she also took swipes at the Bible.

She claims she is running a campaign in support of gender equality and spoke of how Tiwa Savage and the ex-wife of Ooni of Ife, Queen Zaynab who both spoke against gender equality now have serious marriage problems. 

See her Instagram post below.



https://www.wotzup.ng/kemi-olunloyo-bible-tiwa-savagae-queen-zaynab/

Elewon!

Former CIA Chief Warns of N. Korea’s Other Nuclear Weapon


Why is the North continuing its launches? Jenny Lee spoke with former CIA Director James Woolsey to discuss the latest developments.

Lee: North Korea’s missile launch on Friday came days after the passage of a new sanctions package by the U.N. Security Council. What do you think were Pyongyang’s intentions?

Woolsey: The North Koreans wanted to shove themselves forward and say, “I am not intimidated by any sanctions. Leave me alone. I am a powerful nuclear power.” That’s their message.
North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, center, provides guidance on a nuclear weapons program in this undated photo released by North Korea's Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) in Pyongyang, Sept. 3, 2017. KCNA via REUTERS

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, center, provides guidance on a nuclear weapons program in this undated photo released by North Korea’s Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) in Pyongyang, Sept. 3, 2017. KCNA via REUTERS

​Q: How likely is it that the Kim regime has developed a functional ICBM and a miniaturized warhead?






A: Probably not fully yet. But it doesn’t matter because they don’t need an intercontinental ballistic missile in order to attack directly the United States. They can do so with a satellite launch and [they] have nuclear weapons contained in the satellite that continues to circle the Earth a couple of times a day. … So it does not take an intercontinental ballistic missile to reach the United States. You can do it fine with a weapon on a satellite.

Q: You seem to be describing a nuclear electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack. Could you describe how it works, and do you think the North Koreans currently have the capacity to carry out such an attack?

A: I think it’s likely that they do. The destructive mechanism would be, it would not go directly against people, but would destroy the electric grid. It uses a detonation up above the Earth. It would not be targeted at a specific location, a specific building or an ICBM silo or something. It would knock out the grid generally. That means there would be no food, no water, no telecommunications and no hospitals. It would be a hideous situation. So that could be even more devastating than a nuclear attack that was targeted on individual locations.

But having an ICBM that can be targeted on individual locations would give them more flexibility, and so I am sure they would like to have it. They are working on it, but in the meantime, in their hip pocket, I would say it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that they could use a nuclear detonation on a satellite in orbit to create the electromagnetic pulse.

» What is an EMP?

Q: Do you think North Korea is posing a serious threat at this point in time?

A: I think it’s quite serious because it’s relatively easy to do. Orbiting a satellite is the easiest thing … and a simple nuclear weapon that is about the size of a golf bag … is not hard to fit on a small satellite like that. With a satellite you don’t have to worry about re-entry, re-entry shields, accuracy and a lot of other things that you have to worry about with ICBMs.

Q: North Korea threatened to lob a missile at Guam at one point, and as recently as this Friday, it threatened to use nuclear weapons to “sink” Japan and reduce the United States “to ashes and darkness” for supporting new U.N. sanctions. Why is the North behaving this way? What are its intentions?

A: They want to intimidate everybody else into making sure they get to hold on to their weapons, because they are convinced that that’s the only way that the Kim family can stay in power. They look at the history of Saddam Hussein, and the history of [Moammar] Gadhafi, and their conclusion is if we do anything to get rid of our nuclear weapons, we are doomed. So make sure we hold on to our nuclear weapons, and the best way to do that is to intimidate everyone and make them think that we’re right on the verge of using them.

Q: When it comes to dealing with the North Korean nuclear issue, the Trump administration has emphasized its willingness to resolve it through diplomacy but also has left room for military options, such as preemptive strikes against North Korea. So, do you think the U.S. currently is on the right track?

A: It’s hard to be on any other right now than to try diplomacy and hold military in reserve. … You can’t think of an overall approach that would be superior to what we are doing now. But in the future, if things get worse, would we consider using force against them and could we do so successfully? The answer is — I don’t know.

Q: The Trump administration is spearheading the effort to expand sanctions against North Korea and thereby isolate the country diplomatically and economically. Do you think they are sufficient to rein in the regime’s nuclear weapons program?

A: It probably won’t get the job done, but they should do as much as they can. As the Russians and the Chinese move them off of their almost total embargo of oil to 30 percent embargo, they could continue to press to get more of it — an oil embargo. I think we’ve got to work with China and figure out how, together, we could get something done here, because the Chinese are the mainstay of the North Korean government. They are powerful and they are right next door to North Korea. And they have at least some inclination to work with us — not as much as I would like. So we are really left with China. There’s not much to do other than to try to work with them and bring them along into tougher sanctions and tougher positions


Source: http://blazingpress.com/former-cia-chief-warns-n-koreas-nuclear-weapon/

The United States is communicating with North Korea as it seeks to encourage the regime to abandon its build up of nuclear weapons, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said.

Mr Tillerson made his comments in Beijing after holding talks with Chinese leaders on Saturday amid rising concerns over Pyongyang's military programme.

Washington is known to have back channels which it uses to help negotiate the release of US citizens who have been held captive in the North.

But Mr Tillerson's disclosure suggests US officials are also using secret talks to convince Pyongyang to hold official negotiations aimed at easing tensions.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/30/us-confirms-direct-talks-north-korea-nuclear-programme/

ashjay001:



Seems u're one of those who still


https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Nuclearweaponswhohaswhat

Just that, u dont require any huge amount of nuclear weapons to destroy d world!? Reason why d US seems docile.

It is because you are just coming across all these article and all these references are stories and have no correlation with the present escalation.
Story to the gods. Non proliferation will only work when all nations denuclearized their arsenal. The eyes of the world leaders are now open to the fact that once you have WMD, all other nation will this k twice before they attack you.

ashjay001:


Seems u think Trump understands english ba?!

Jyst read an article today,on NK officials looking for pple who understand trump's rhetoric, so as to predict his possible actions.

http://thehill.com/policy/international/352485-north-korean-officials-requesting-meetings-with-republican-analysts

Trump abandoned costa rica to a hurricane, u think he will be bothered abt any repercussions? Even russia is scared!?

He's been threatening NK n china(NK's chief backbone) have pretended not to hear.

Just wait for it

I guess it is today you just came across SPY article like this. It is normal. DPRK spying on US and US spying on DPRK.
You said Russia is scared! Lol! the only thing Russia is targeting is to destroy America economic power! Militarily, Russia is the only country that can destroy US in some minutes and they know. China is also a nuclear power and for your information they were the one that saved DPRK from US advance from South Korea in the Korean war. Have you ever seen any threat to US like this from small countries before. That is the power of weapon of mass destruction. No nation wants to confront any nation with it even if it is one. DPRK is just implementing the plan of Asian power my friend. Trump is blabbering but his top government officials and generals know they have military option but not a good military option.

"The North Koreans are in a weak position. They can't sustain a protracted conventional war. They would have to reach for their weapons of mass destruction early on," said Daniel Pinkston, a former military translator who now teaches defence strategy in South Korea.


"The North Korean army is still inferior in every aspect of their operations, but they have massive artillery and missile capability, very large special forces and covert operations and submarines," said Anthony Cordesman of the Washington-based Centre for Strategic and International Studies and author of a study of the military balance in Asia.


"In an all-out conquest for regime survival, they will come after the United States. They are not going to win, but they will try - I guarantee that," Givens said.

If Kim thinks his government is collapsing, many of those who have long studied the inscrutable leader believe, he would be inclined to reach for the nuclear option to take down everyone else with him - a last lash of the dragon's tail.

The oft-cited statistics about North Korea's military are formidable: 1.2 million soldiers in the fourth-largest ground army in the world, among them more than 100,000 special forces trained to infiltrate South Korea. Although its military hardware dates back to the Soviet era, North Korea has more tanks than the United States (3500 compared with 2381) and more artillery pieces than China.

Thank you sir. Nobody doubt the fact that America is powerful. However, an ordinary mosquito can drop an aeroplane! Lol!

SalamRushdie:


Yes seen there whole Jet assets and it's rubbish..940 useless planes except for the few Mig 29s ..they don't send a chance

Tonight, a retired U.S. admiral puts the chances of a nuclear war with North Korea at 10 percent and the chance of a conventional conflict with the regime at 50/50.
Pentagon also estimated death in south korea to be at least 20,000 daily in the first week of the war.
All these are telling us that North Korea is a credible threat. If the war broke out, it can only be stopped with the defeat of Kim. Before Kim will be capture, he will use all his weapon. Imagine a Sarin gas in the atmosphere.
The US atomic bomb on Hiroshima was 15 to 20 kiloton, the one tested by North korea recently is 140kiloton.
The only solution is to accept Kim as a Nuclear Power

Alariwo2:
North Korea has allies, strong allies.

Any attack from US won't end well for Americans cos China, and some other Asian countries will rise in defense of one of their own.

Being world power alone can't win wars. Other factors too will come to play

My man, that is not even the case, Russia and China are direct neigbours of DPRK. DPRK defeat means America will be controlling North Korea and be their neigbour which will not be accepted by both power because they could easily be attacked. China stopped the korean war by chasing America back from occupying Noth Korean then. Both countries are just watching to capitalize on the mistakes of US. Both countries are the supporters of the Nuclear program of DPRK in reality. They are only being diplomatic. It pays them for Korea to be Nuclear armed against the aggression of US using South Korea, Japan and Guam as a military base against the Asian Power. If America is attacked especially on its mainland, its economic will go back to where it was in the last 180 years and a new power will emerge.

madridguy:
This is not 1969, NK should know Trump is a no nonsense man.

If in 1969 that North Korea was not Nuclear armed, America Plane was shot down with 31 American that lost their life America could not do anything because they fear retaliation from North Korea. Now that North Korea is armed with Nuclear weapon, chemical weapon, biological weapon and Sarin gas, do you think Americans are foolish enough to attack them? America is the wisest country in the world they only attack defenseless countries. Two experience American generals in the Peninsula Just analyze that it is 50/50

US-North Korean war would result in 20,000 South Koreans dying every day, say Pentagon analysts

Up to 20,000 people would be killed in South Korea each day in a war between the United States and North Korea, a retired US Air Force brigadier general has said.

“Too many Americans have the view that [war with North Korea] would be like the invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan, or like combat operations in Libya or Syria, but it wouldn’t remotely resemble that,’’ Rob Givens, who spent four years stationed on the Korean peninsula, told the Los Angeles Times.

Such a conflict risks a devastating artillery barrage on the South Korean capital city of Seoul.

The Pentagon estimates as many as 20,000 people a day could be killed in South Korea, Mr Givens said.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/us-north-korea-war-south-koreans-die-killed-day-pentagon-analysts-rob-givens-james-stavridis-h-r-a7970356.html

US-North Korea war 'would kill 20,000-a-day in South' | Daily Mail Online
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4921082/US-North-Korea-war-kill-20-000-day-South.html

At least 20,000 killed each day: What war with North Korea would look like
http://www.smh.com.au/world/at-least-20000-killed-each-day-what-war-with-north-korea-would-look-like-20170925-gyoogf.html

A US war with Kim Jong-un would result in around 20,000 DEATHS PER DAY in South Korea, retired American general warns

Some 20,000 South Koreans would die every day in a US-North Korean war
Figure based on hypothetical war and calculated by Pentagon, general claims
Ex-Air Force general Rob Givens said war would only end with Kim's defeat
Follows North Korea's Foreign Minister's claim that the US had declared war

20K people could die each day in war with North Korea | New York Post
http://nypost.com/2017/09/26/20000-people-could-die-each-day-in-war-with-north-korea/


Pentagon scenario of a new Korean war estimates 20,000 deaths daily in South Korea, retired US general says

"Obviously North Korea is a threat," Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Christopher Logan told CNBC on Monday.
The biggest risk is to the greater Seoul area, which is within striking distance of thousands of the North's rockets capable of doing significant damage.
A retired U.S. admiral puts the chances of a nuclear war with North Korea at 10 percent and the chance of a conventional conflict with the regime at 50/50.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/25/korean-war-simulation-by-dod-estimates-20000-deaths-daily-in-south.html

When North Korea shot down an American plane in 1969, the U.S. had no good options. Today, it would be even worse.


On April 15, 1969, North Korean MiG fighter planes shot down an American EC-121 spy plane flying off the coast of the Korean Peninsula (but still over international waters), killing all 31 crew members. President Richard Nixon, National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff spent the next 2½ months pondering what to do.

In 2010, the National Security Archive, a private research outfit at George Washington University, published a trove of once top secret documents—which the group had obtained through the Freedom of Information Act—summarizing the discussions. They are worth a close read. It’s likely that Trump’s advisers have been holding similar discussions; it’s also likely that their conclusions aren’t very different from those reached nearly 50 years ago.

On the first day of the 1969 crisis, the chiefs sent Kissinger a memo outlining the pros and cons of mounting an airstrike on a small number of North Korean air bases. On the one hand, a “positive and deliberate response” would show America’s “resolve” to punish an act of aggression, they wrote. On the other hand, the attack would be “a deliberate act of war,” to which “North Korea may respond by launching attacks upon [U.S. and South Korean] forces.”

The chiefs came up with more nuanced or, in some cases, more extravagant options in the ensuing weeks, but the obstacle remained the same. Any attack that didn’t obliterate North Korea’s military power would almost certainly spark a retaliatory attack against South Korea, Japan, and American forces in the region. Yet it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to obliterate North Korea’s military assets. If such an attack were attempted, it would be so large—probably involving nuclear weapons—that China or Russia might be drawn into the war; or even if they weren’t, the moral and political blowback against the United States would be enormous.

After a few days of deliberation, the central dilemma became clear to Kissinger, the chiefs, and all the other advisers mulling the problem. If the U.S. responded to the shoot-down with a limited attack, it would neither deter the North Koreans from further aggression nor prevent them from retaliating. Yet if the U.S. responded with a massive attack, it probably still wouldn’t knock out the entire North Korean military, and Pyongyang would almost certainly respond with its own devastating counterpunch. (Then, as now, North Korea had thousands of artillery shells well within range of Seoul, the capital of South Korea, just 35 miles from the border.)

On May 21, the Joint Chiefs came up with a medium-size approach—sending three B-52 bombers, armed with conventional weapons, to destroy a North Korean airfield or two. Gen. Earle Wheeler, the JCS chairman, wrote in a memo to Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird that, if this attack were mounted “quickly” and “in response to another hostile act,” we would have “a reasonable chance of not provoking the North Koreans into retaliatory action of such magnitude as to involve a major conflict.” Laird sent the note to Kissinger, adding that this plan struck him as “more sensible than any yet postulated.”

A “reasonable chance” of not triggering “a major conflict”: that was the best anyone could come up with.

Upon scrutiny, this wasn’t good enough. On July 2, at an interagency meeting in the White House Situation Room, Kissinger mused that “the trick in any action taken would be to preclude a counterblow” by North Korea. In that sense, he said, if a B-52 strike were deemed necessary, “the price you pay really isn’t much greater for a strike with 25 aircraft than with three.” The war, and the damage done to both sides, would escalate either way. (These quotes come from the note taker’s summary of the meeting.)


Still, war might break out, so the interagency group continued to explore options, both for how to respond to the initial attack and what to do if the war intensified. Eventually they came up with 25 options, including three nuclear options, which were bundled together under the codename “Freedom Drop.” One of them called for hitting 12 military targets, one nuke for each target, ranging from atomic artillery shells (exploding with the power of about 200 tons of TNT) to bombs of 10 kilotons (10,000 tons). Another option would drop bombs of 70 kilotons each on a wider range of military targets if North Korea attacked South Korea. A third option would drop bombs of 10 to 70 kilotons on still more targets with the goal of “greatly” diminishing North Korea’s offensive capability. (The atomic bomb that destroyed Hiroshima at the end of World War II had the explosive power of 15 kilotons.)

In the end, Nixon did none of these things. Kissinger had said at the July 2 meeting that Nixon “would probably either do nothing or select an option toward the extreme of the range of possibilities.” And so he did nothing, at least nothing that involved shooting weapons. (The two men went the other way in exploring options for the ongoing war in Vietnam.)

Instead, he sent another aircraft carrier battle group to the waters near North Korea. He resumed sorties of spy planes, this time escorting them with fighter jets. He issued stern warnings not to mess with the United States again. He reassured allies in the region of America’s commitment to their defense. And the crisis died down.

And by the way, these were the only options available at a time when North Korea did not have a nuclear weapons program, had not encased many of its artillery rockets on the sides of mountains, and had not dispersed much of its air force. In other words, North Korea was far more vulnerable to a disabling surprise attack in 1969 than it is now—and yet Nixon, Kissinger, and the generals found no military response that wouldn’t very likely trigger catastrophe.

Several times in the subsequent decades, other administrations explored the question of how to deal with North Korea in a crisis. President Bill Clinton and Secretary of Defense William Perry went through the same process in 1994 when a U.S. helicopter was shot down after straying across the North Korean border. President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and their generals went through the same process in 2002 when Pyongyang restarted its nuclear program (which an agreement, negotiated by Clinton shortly after the helicopter incident, had halted for eight years) again with the same, inescapable conclusions. At that point, Bush, who had earlier repeated Cheney’s line that “we don’t negotiate with evil, we defeat it,” resumed negotiations, though by then, it was too late to achieve meaningful results.

It is likely that President Trump, Secretary of Defense James Mattis, and the present-day generals are going through a very similar exercise. Mattis has said the United States has “military options” for dealing with North Korea; he has not said we have good military options. A recent war game of how a conflict might play out, reported in the Los Angeles Times, affirms the judgment going back almost 50 years now—that even the smallest skirmish could quickly spin out of control. The Pentagon has reportedly estimated that if war broke out, the number of dead in South Korea could reach 20,000 per day, even without the use of nuclear weapons. Mattis, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, and Trump’s national security adviser, Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, have lately been emphasizing the need to seek diplomatic solutions as well as keeping the familiar options “on the table.”

Trump seems oblivious to these concerns. He speaks blithely of “totally” destroying North Korea and tweets that “Little Rocket Man” and his foreign minister “won’t be around much longer” if they keep making bellicose comments. The Washington Post reports that North Korean officials are frantically calling Asian specialists in the United States, asking about Trump’s intentions and wondering why his statements differ so drastically from those of his top advisers. The North Koreans aren’t alone in their bafflement. Trump’s own officials don’t know what the boss is up to. The L.A. Times reported that, before his U.N. speech, intelligence officials had advised Trump not to insult Kim personally, or else diplomatic avenues might be closed off. The paper also revealed that the final draft seen by Trump’s top advisers did not include the phrases “Rocket Man” or “totally destroy.” (This may be why White House chief of staff John Kelly could be seen with his head buried in his hand around this moment.)

And that’s the danger of the current moment. I’ve written before that we should easily be able to deter North Koreans from launching a nuclear attack, either against our territory or that of our allies. After all, we have thousands of nuclear bombs and warheads, and though Kim is erratic, he seems the opposite of suicidal. However, I’ve also written that the important thing—the key to deterrence—is that we remain calm, resolute, and consistent in displaying the ability and the will to protect our interests. This calm, resolution, and consistency are what’s lacking. Another element that’s lacking is any diplomatic presence on the ground: We currently have no ambassador to South Korea, no assistant secretary of state for Pacific and Asian affairs, no assistant secretary of defense with that portfolio, no special emissary—nothing. In this climate of harsh rhetoric and rough nerves, with two ego-pampered leaders ill-disposed to backing down, a skirmish, a misperception, or an untimely false alarm could trigger a conflict, which could widen into a devastating war.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2017/09/what_happened_after_north_korea_shot_down_a_u_s_plane_in_1969.html

Why destroying them when we have ill equipped security personnel all over? Maybe they want to still steal some of them and sent it back to the owners while claiming thatvthey have been destroyed or maybe they want to resell them to Nigeria security forces after claiming they have been destroyed. No rational person or institution will give this type of suggestion.

...Remaining remnants of the royalty in our ex-queen! Great and congratulations!

Words

We need an Edo translator for an urgent translation task from Edo to English. The volume is approximately 15 thousand. Call 07037348181 or mail ebony4pink@gmail.com. Thank you in advance.

majamajic:
No love between these actors and actresses. The reason they die mysteriously.

There is nothing like dying mysteriously among them. Their death are normal like others in other profession. Because of the popular nature of their personality that is why everyone is talking. Humam being dies every minutes and no body hears because they are not popular. Why are we reasoning this way. After Moji's death, thousands has followed!

NoToPile:


Can't forget this guy and that his "pink lady " movie advert. So annoying.
Was also the one that produced one musical like that for one abass obesere( can't really remember his name) where there were doing a lot of nonsense.

Also produced lepa shady I think.

Pink lady pink lady piiiinnkkkk laaaaddddyy

Lepa shandy lepa shady leeepaa shannndyy.
Loool, repeats the same line over and over again.

He made poor ( very wack) movies IMO, the adverts were worse.

Never even knew he's still there.

Wonderful! You don't like the man and his work but you know every details of his work from day 1 till now. What an hipocrate?

Surely the OP is from a poor family. If her parents are rich enough to meet all her needs, like air time, cars and the likes, she will not be looking for a relationship where she will be a liability to the guy! Secondly, where do you put gender equality. In some countries ladies pay dowry on men. Go and change your lazy mentality that guys must provide for ladies! That is why majority of you get old in your parents house. Your parent brought you up in face to face house you are dictating marriage condition of living in Lekki! If they give your poor brother such a condition, selling your whole family will not resolve the issue.

softwerk:
Only in Nigeria a mole on a girl's face is believed to add beauty

She has also used heavy make up to hide those 2 large ridges under her eyes!

I'm not beefing her sha, God knows

You are surely a PHD holder- Pull Her Down syndrome. People like you don't ever see what is good in anybody except yourself and your family. And thank God no one notice your family! Abuse me well! Your family is known for that!

This is one of the problem we have. Robbing Peter to pay Paul! How did he come about this money? He is a lawmaker to make law. They all become millionaire overnight! The best brain we have are languishing in poverty. Profs and Doctors have become beggars because of their unpaid salaries. Let's speak against all these politician before they turn everyone of us and our children to keke Napep driver!

The point is all the ladies mentioned married money and not real husband. They married those men because of their fame and societal status. The guys too, married them not because they are marriage materials or that they have values more than ordinary women but because they are popular and celebrated and than they can enhance their societal status and also make them popular more! Both parties married for wrong reason. How do you expect the relationship to last!