₦airaland Forum

Jokay07:
I wouldn't have responded to you but I am responding in order to educate the public and to ensure that people are not misled by fabbles and lies. However I will try and make my response very short and accurate

Please let's be serious here.
Since 2001, US has spent over trillion dollars to prosecute war in thd middle east with many Islamic Countries.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/3/3/how-many-countries-has-the-us-bombed-since-2001-and-how-much-has-it-cost#:~:text=The%20US%20has%20spent%20an,operations%2C%20DOD%20%2D%20Department%20of%20Defense
https://www.brown.edu/news/2021-09-01/costsofwar
Just 40 days conflict, you are here banding imaginary figures together.
Please get your fact right


Like I have said, the courage shown by the Iranians is nothing new. Ukraine, with little or no military resources is still dragging war with Russia. That is a courage too. In fact, Ukraine has done much damage to Russia than what Iran has done to US.




You have lost touch with reality. What could be worst than sending soldiers on ground to Iraq and Afghanistan at the same time for over 20 years.



I don't care about how many years you have spent on nairaland but one thing is certain, you seem to be giving too much credit to a country who ran to negotiation table almost at the eve of dealine however, I respect your opinion.

such infantile comebacks

1. The current conflict in Iran, Operation Epic Fury, ranks as the second most expensive U.S. war per day when comparing the daily intensity of major historical conflicts in inflation-adjusted dollars.
While World War II remains the highest at approximately $3.44 billion per day, the opening weeks of the 2026 Iran conflict reached a peak of nearly $2 billion per day before stabilizing.

2. Just as Russia has not achieved their aim in ukraine, u.s did not achieve their aim in Iran. In both cases, it has been because of resistance. The u.s goes to war with all their allies, yet in 20 years of conflict in Afghanistan, they ran away, leaving the Taliban still in charge of Afghanistan, leaving billion dollar worth of military hardware and not changing anything significantly.
Killing people and bombing places is not winning a war.
Today Iran is charging a toll gate for ships to use international water they co-own with uae. They still have their enriched uranium. They still fund and support hezbollah and huthis. Hamas still firmly runs Gaza. Ayatollahs are still ruling Iran.

What exactly did the war achieve and who was begging allies to help them during the war. Do you think the infantile Trump tweets are the major deciding factor in negotiations? What worst things can trump do to them that he hadn't already done?

From everything I have seen in this war, Iran has the capacity to destroy Israel if Israel didn't have direct u.s support.

Understand that nobody is doubting that the u.s has a stronger military than Iran. They do. But asymmetric warfare is a thing and means supper powers may not always have their way

Jokay07:
The number one mistake people are making is calling a "CONFLICT", "WAR"
The moment I saw "war" in your post, I lost appetite to read.

However, one must acknowledge the Iranian resilience and determination to push out some punches. Who would thought they could take out few of Americans Aircraft.

in a full scale war, no matter how you put it, no matter how you view it, no matter how you elevate Iran, they would surrender within two weeks.

When Trump said, ok, kids, it's time to be serious, play is over, he gave them Tuesday deadline. And when the deadline Trump gave Iran was reaching, they quickly jumped on the negotiation table. I was also praying for Iran.

Again, I must give it to Iran. They have nothing to lose in this conflict, again, they realise that surviving is sweeter than being pounded by bombers

I had to comment. I no longer enjoy commenting on nairaland, after over 15 years here, I now find it boring.
However I will point out few things
1. Sustained missile exchanges, airstrikes, economic disruption, and mobilization fit most modern definitions of war. U.S 'conflict' with Iran cost them more than most of their 'wars' of the past 50 years.

2. A country capable of:
Sustaining weeks of confrontation
Striking back (directly or via proxies)
Disrupting global systems (e.g., oil routes)is not one that collapses in 2 weeks. You can’t simultaneously acknowledge resilience and then predict near-instant collapse without evidence. Iran has NEVER surrendered.

3. You Underestimate asymmetrical warfare. Your “two weeks” claim assumes:
A conventional, Iraq-style invasion scenario
But Iran’s strategy is very different:
Deep geography (mountainous terrain)
Large population and military reserves
Proxy networks across the region
Ability to disrupt shipping (Hormuz)
Missile and drone warfare

A full war would likely be long, costly, and region-wide, not quick. And the U.S would not sustain it that long.

4. You Overrely on U.S. authority (Trump framing). The statement:
“When Trump said… play is over”
Frames events as if:
The U.S. unilaterally dictates outcomes and Iran reacts submissively. The U.S loss in Afghanistan and Vietnam not too long ago. Cuba is next door to Florida, yet the U.S couldn't protect their allies there nor could kill Castro, after many attempts.

Iran has historically resisted external pressure (sanctions, threats, isolation)
Negotiations are often strategic choices, not signs of weakness. The negotiations were promoted by U.S, not Iran. Who could have thought then that Trump would want to negotiate when the war started?

Also the article was written by a well respected Israeli newspaper.

ekineme:
You are a poor student of History, Stop following social media narrative, you have data Google and and enlighten yourself, Israel has offer them a state more than once, and it was rejected.

Go and read about Hamas 1988 charter and come back here with your argument.
When people have half knowledge of the subject matters, they allow other people opinions to influence their thinking.

When you see some fanatics supporting, hamas, Hezbollah, houthi and iran, it shows where their loyalty lies.

This people has turned to emergency lovers of Christianity, telling us how Jews hate Christians, give them opportunity they will kill all Christians without thinking twice, how many of them condemned the killing of Deborah?, what was the fate of Lebanon, Persia, current day Iran, the Iraqi Christians? Northern Nigeria? They are just pained that Israel is stronger than them.

First Map shows Bantusans which the white South Africans 'generously' offered the Bantus as a way of ending the war.
Second map shows the map of West Bank which currently has 700k Israeli settlers. This has been 'generously' offered by Israel. Never mind that many houses Israelis live in today where built by Palestinians who were made to flee in 1947.
I'm sure you will probably support Rivers people on the 'abandoned property' issue against Igbos.

ekineme:
You are a poor student of History, Stop following social media narrative, you have data Google and and enlighten yourself, Israel has offer them a state more than once, and it was rejected.

Go and read about Hamas 1988 charter and come back here with your argument.
When people have half knowledge of the subject matters, they allow other people opinions to influence their thinking.

When you see some fanatics supporting, hamas, Hezbollah, houthi and iran, it shows where their loyalty lies.

This people has turned to emergency lovers of Christianity, telling us how Jews hate Christians, give them opportunity they will kill all Christians without thinking twice, how many of them condemned the killing of Deborah?, what was the fate of Lebanon, Persia, current day Iran, the Iraqi Christians? Northern Nigeria? They are just pained that Israel is stronger than them.

Yes, Israel has made offers for a Palestinian state that were rejected or not accepted by Palestinian leadership at key junctures, most notably in 2000 (Camp David) and 2008 (Olmert offer). These proposals generally offered a state in the West Bank and Gaza with shared control of Jerusalem, but were rejected over disputes regarding borders, the right of return for refugees, and control over holy sites.

Key Historical Offers and Rejections:
1947 (UN Partition Plan): The UN proposed dividing the land into Jewish and Arab states. Jewish leaders accepted, while Arab nations and Palestinian representatives rejected it.
2000 (Camp David Summit): Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered Yasser Arafat a state covering over 90% of the West Bank and the entire Gaza Strip. Arafat rejected the offer, leading to the Second Intifada.
2001 (Taba Negotiations): Negotiations continued but did not lead to a final agreement.
2008 (Olmert Proposal): Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered a plan similar to the 2000 deal, which Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas did not accept, saying it was not a suitable basis for negotiation, while others suggest he did not formally respond.

Perspectives on the Rejections:
Israeli View: The offers were generous, and rejection demonstrates a lack of a partner for peace and a desire to destroy Israel.
Palestinian/Critcal View: The offers were not truly sovereign or contiguous, did not address the refugee issue, and continued to allow settlement expansion. Some analysts argue the "generous offer" is a distorted narrative.


The primary reason these offers were not considered "sovereign" by Palestinian leadership and some analysts is that they included significant limitations on the proposed state's independence, control over its territory, and basic functions. While Israel framed the deals as "generous," the Palestinian Authority (PA) viewed them as a "re-packaging" of military occupation rather than a truly independent state.

1. Lack of Territorial Contiguity ("Cantonization"
The most common criticism was that the proposed state was divided into disconnected sections, often called cantons or "Bantustans".

Divided Land: In the 2000 Camp David offer, the West Bank would have been split into three or four separate blocs by Israeli-controlled roads and settlement corridors.
Israeli Control of Movement: Palestinians traveling between these sections would have had to cross through Israeli-held territory, meaning Israel could effectively shut down internal Palestinian movement at will.

2. Security and External Borders
The offers typically required the Palestinian state to be demilitarized and ceded control over its external borders to Israel.

The Jordan Valley: Israel insisted on maintaining a military presence or "security control" along the border with Jordan, effectively surrounding the new state with Israeli forces.
Airspace and Electromagnetic Spectrum: Israel demanded total control over Palestinian airspace and radio/cellular signals, meaning the state would not have sovereignty over the sky above its territory.

3. Jerusalem and Holy Sites
Sovereignty over East Jerusalem, particularly the Temple Mount (Haram al-Sharif), was a major breaking point.

"Custodianship" vs. Sovereignty: Israel often offered Palestinians "custodianship" or "religious administration" over holy sites while insisting on maintaining legal Israeli sovereignty.
Fragmented Capital: In Jerusalem, the Palestinian capital would have consisted of isolated Arab neighborhoods surrounded by annexed Israeli land, which Palestinians argued created "ghettos" rather than a unified capital city.

4. Control Over Resources
Under the proposals, critical natural resources remained largely under Israeli management or influence.

Water Rights: Israel sought to maintain control or shared management of West Bank water resources, which Palestinians viewed as a violation of their right to self-determination.

NairalandBishop:
Is he God?

But he listens to sponsors of terror abi?

The United States has at various times in recent history provided funding, weapons, or training to militant and paramilitary organizations that later engaged in activities designated as terrorism or were linked to groups designated as terrorist organizations.
Many of these relationships were forged during the Cold War in the context of resisting Soviet influence, or in the Middle East during regional conflicts, sometimes resulting in "blowback," where supported groups later turned against U.S. interests.

Here are the primary examples of terrorist or extremist organizations that have received U.S. support, funding, or training at some point:

Afghan Mujahideen (later factions of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda): During Operation Cyclone (1979–1992), the CIA provided billions of dollars in funding, weaponry (including Stinger missiles), and training to the mujahideen fighting the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. These groups were supported through Pakistan's ISI. While the U.S. generally did not directly fund Osama bin Laden, many of the Arab and Afghan fighters supported through this network eventually formed the core of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

The Haqqani Network: Led by Jalaluddin Haqqani, this group was a key recipient of U.S. and Pakistani support in the 1980s as a key mujahideen faction against the Soviets. The Haqqani network later affiliated with the Taliban and was designated as a foreign terrorist organization by the U.S. in 2012.
The Contras (Nicaragua): From 1981 to 1991, the U.S. provided funding, training, and logistical support to the Contra rebels, who used terror tactics in their fight against the Nicaraguan government.

Syrian Rebel Groups (later affiliated with extremist groups): During the Syrian Civil War, the U.S. provided training and arms to various anti-Assad rebel groups. Reports indicate some of these weapons and training were transferred to or ended up in the hands of radical jihadist factions, including groups affiliated with Al-Nusra Front (now Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham), which was designated a terrorist organization.

Al-Qaeda in Iraq (Forerunner of ISIS): While not directly funded by the U.S., the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq and subsequent destabilization of the region contributed to the rise of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, which later evolved into the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL/ISIS), considered a major U.S. adversary.

Libyan Militants (2011): During the 2011 uprising in Libya, the U.S. provided support to rebel factions aiming to topple Muammar Gaddafi. Some of these militias were later identified as having ties to extremist groups responsible for the 2012 Benghazi attack.

Individuals and Exiles: The U.S. has at times provided support to individuals involved in terrorism, such as Cuban exiles Orlando Bosch and Luis Posada Carriles, who were involved in violence against the Cuban government, including the 1976 Cubana Airlines bombing.

ekineme:
Looking at the thread, we know the crew, jubilating because they manage to get a drone through Saudi air space, not American air space oo, same applicable to Israel, using a cluster bomb which idf has said, they do allow it to get through because the cost of shooting it down is higher than the damage to property(Note: No live lost).

Then you guys will be jubilating, I wish idf will forget rules and unleash Gaza 2.0, I want to see you guys start singing greater Israel, Genocide etc

it takes a certain type of weirdness to think the weaker nation is the nation fighting a coalition made up of U.S, Israel and Their European allies.
Let's say there is a world where Iran and Israel can fight alone without any external support. Who wins?
And all Israel needs to do to have peace is work with their allies to create a viable Palestine state.
People like you would have supported apartheid in south Africa

richeeyo:
Instead of Africans to move forward
They are still dwelling in the past
Over 400 years
Repatriation has no economical value to the masses
Its about boosting the black man ego
Imagine an Africa that only ships finished product instead of raw materials an Africa with one voice
Africans don't have a leverage or a bargaining chip
To even command such talks
Bunch of thieves as leaders

Trust a wannabe jew to defend Israel and insult his own brothers.
Do you not understand that acknowledging every past ill while refusing to acknowledge the most brutal and evil of them all shows exactly that that brutal evil is still ongoing?
Do you not know the role U.S and Israel have played and continue to play to disorganise Africa? They worked hard to convince African leaders not to accept Nkruma's vision of a united Africa. They also sponsored a few coups across Africa..
Even if our leaders were corrupt, its just a small part of why Africa is underperforming

SpatialKing:
Iran no actual war plan just cruise and propaganda

actually their plan was simple; we would make the war too expensive for Israel and especially the u.s to continue long-term, no matter who they kill. It is working. Countries are pressuring trump to end the strikes as their countries gravitate towards recession.
If Trump leaves the war premature, Iran wins. And then Iran's power in the region grows. The Arabs will then know that their fate is tied to Iran's

Kreesxxx:
If the Obi says they are Igbos that settles it. We are not quarreling. There is no issue here.

good, so if I see you in another thread talking this same way, I'd know you have another agenda

Kreesxxx:
Where was I against it? I only said the custodian of the people has the power to say who his people are not Ned.

the people themselves don't have the right? Only their 'custodian'. Elected Anioma governors, senators and reps all of whom say they are igbo are of no consequence? If I show you the Obi of ogwashi uku saying they are igbo, you won't say something else?

Kreesxxx:
I didn't say Anioma is not igbo. Right from time I have always heard about Bendel Igbo. i have always advocated that you call someone whom he said he is.

so why are you running up and down now that they are calling themselves igbos

Kreesxxx:
Ned only from his people can't make his people Igbo. Let him include his paramount ruler.

Ikwere people don't care, however you are on every single thread about this topic to remind us how Anioma is not igbo. You no get work?

Goldensword:
In as much as i agreed that Anioma's are igbo subgroup, I still believe all these renewed push by Ned Nwoko is a political strategy to get the igbo to support Anioma state creation over Etiti state creation as the newly approved one more state for south East to be par with other regions, once he achieved his ambition, he may change his position again, he can't be claiming to be full igbo, when his name is still sounding strange to igbo language, he should change his name from Ned Nwoko to Ned Nwoke, which is the right words, let take him more seriously.

I didn't want to comment until I saw your post. Nwoko is a common surname in imo state

OneCandleAway:
Please don't compare abroad to Nigeria. You're supposed to be more knowledgeable than this. Do your politicians abroad brazenly steal from the people for their own benefits.

politicians steal everywhere. But more importantly, without taxes, how do we build Nigeria?

EmperorIsaac:
Yes it is; especially when citizens provide all public goods for themselves- from security to education, to basic healthcare!

well maybe they haven't been providing those public goods because of lack of funds due to low tax coverage.
I live abroad, I pay 30% tax

This one is story. Nigerian law always for multiple wives. So any marriage you do is marriage

KobolanderSegun:
Vote Bede2u for Resident ! All the religious zealots can see is one sided violence when a country has stolen land from Palestine and is killing Palestinians babies. Thou shalt not Kill and thou shalt not Covert you neighbors goods. People behave like Israel is special with God but if you read your Bible God allowed their enemies to imprison and Kill them..where was God when Hilver almost wiped them out ? People love hype so much.

It's not isreali land and never say never. Everything has an expiry date

ChildOfDoom:
My dad is currently in a miserable state. One of his legs is swollen. He is having issues urinating properly. A man who once looked sturdy and active, now looks lean and feeble.

In earlier years, he was known for constant womanising and drinking. He was always in debt from gambling too (fled past location).

Health complications have meant that he now spends anything he solicits on drug.

Here I am, a boy of 33, doing worse atrocities than him. I feel I am young now and I can fight off any challenge, unknowingly I am complicating issues for myself. I long to stop but hard.

I started a 33 days abstinence plan which I have failed to keep. I squandered around 70k yesterday in a brothel after getting an alert of six digits.

My addictions are: std and loperamide drugs regular intake (one to fight std and the other to fight regular stooling), up to 3 carbonated drinks daily, betting, womanising, borrowing when unable to pay, junk food and masturbation.

God help us


I go again

Day 1 - 25th September

Womanising free


Day 4 - betting-free

what you are going through is likely a genetic mental disorder. It is not something you can fight on your own. You need to see a doctor asap

mosicola:
clearly give two valid reasons to show Israel as a terrorist state. Israel will be on its own and you are killing them and you expect them to clap for you

there are maybe over 100 links out there that shows violent isreali settlers killing Palestinians in the west bank or preventing them to use their mosques. Do you want me to post it?
As an igbo man and disciple of Nnamdi Kanu, I used to like Israel until I realised that they are the main cause of instability in the middle east and their refusal to allow the creation of a Palestine is the source of most of these conflicts.
Until what is happening to Palestinians happen to you, as it did to South Africans that's when you understand that freedom fighting is not terrorism.
I just hope the Arabs respond forcefully this time that Qatar has been attacked

Northernblood8:
The solution to Islamic terrorism is Netanyahu.

what is the solution to Isreali terrorism? You do know they are violently settling the west bank against UN and even U.S position

Kdon2:
Ipob version of history you mean to say.
We know what you people did in abia, Delta and cross river before the war. Not to be aok of what you people did to edo people during the war

Bot, this historical fact is open for anybody to go and verify

So when next you want to insult the Biafran agitation, don't bring up the lie that zik refused secession clause. Zik only refused adding minorities into a 3 region model that would ultimately lead to tension.
Was he right or wrong? We all know the answer to that.

You have often heard enemies of Biafra say that while Awolowo and Bello wanted to put a 'secession clause' in our constitution, Zik refused.
Well...that didn't happen, but you probably already know this since the British would have gone with the wish of the majority and hence added 'secession clause' to the constitution they drafted.

What happened was this....
The 1946 Richards Constitution Introduced by Sir Arthur Richards, then Governor of Nigeria,
divided Nigeria into 3 regions: Northern Region, Western Region and Eastern Region
It created regional legislatures and regional councils of chiefs. Strengthened indirect rule and gave more autonomy to traditional rulers.
Introduced limited African representation in the legislative council.

It was aimed to reflect Nigeria’s "diverse cultures" — reinforcing the tripartite regional model.



Azikiwe (Eastern Nigeria) and Eyo Ita (Calabar area) opposed the regionalisation model.
They feared it would deepen ethnic divisions and entrench colonial divide-and-rule policies.
They argued that the 3-region model was artificial and would weaken national unity.

Azikiwe and Ita led a group that rejected the 3-region structure.

They proposed a federation of 8 states based on ethnolinguistic and cultural diversity, not colonial convenience.

1. Hausa/Fulani state (North-West)

2. Kanuri state (North-East)

3. Tiv/Benue state (Central North)

4. Yoruba state (West)

5. Edo/Delta state (Mid-West)

6. Igbo state (East)

7. Ibibio/Efik state (South-East coast)

8. Minority coastal state

Their report was rejected as a 'minority report' because NPC and AG backed the 3 regional agreement as an opportunity to dominate the unfortunate minorities of their region.

This is what happened. This is accurate history, not Lagos-Ibadan revision.

lwisee:
Chibuike! Chibuike! ! Chibuike!!!
Stop deceiving yasefu

some of you are too unexposed i swear. Having left Nigeria for over 8 years, reading comments here just gives me a fresh perspective of how backwards Nigerians are

Did Shuaibu hold this view when Jonathan was president or is he now an emergency patriot?

OChimex:
You dont live in Australia. If you so you would had known that the homeless use gas stations, mobile toilets and stores like Walmart, Costco, target and more
Unless severely mentally ill ones 🤧

there's no Walmart in Australia, but cheers though

Thunderfayamods:
Did anybody says Ghanians don't like Igbos. When una go find trouble una go begin change story. Ghana na una land?

trouble? Only your tribe think igbos found trouble. Ghana doesn't think so

I live in Australia and I know it's not 100%
Many homeless people living in the city and trailer parks/camps

I have never met a ghanaian that didn't like Igbos and our industrious ways.

Next story please