ActivateKruger:


.... if you had saved that $36.02 in 1970 would it be equivalent to what gold is today?... the answer is no.

Putting money in a mattress is never a wise strategy - everyone knows that. The question is what else do you do with it? On the other hand if you put your money in any US savings account that pays as much as 6% per year will have generated a capital gains that is at least 34% higher than what you could have got with gold

I never championed gold as an investment BUT as a wealth preserver. If you wanna bet all your wealth on never guaranteed stocks, go ask guys who lost it all in the 2007 financial collapse...after all when all stocks and currencies come crashing, gold is the real currency

The idea that gold is a "wealth preserver" is a naive at best. If no one is willing to pay you as much as you bought your original bar of gold for, you would have lost money in real terms. Gold is pure speculative - in order words, similar to gambling. I just pointed out to you that someone who bought gold at the beginning of last year would have lost close to 30% of their wealth. Is that how you "preserve" wealth?

You're shouting my point with a vuvuzela

No, we are not talking about the same things. I mentioned the currency effects because both options are not strictly comparable.

Yes they do buy things in cash, but will be they buy the same in quantity as they did before the war? the answer is an obvious no. Inflation in war renders paper currency to almost worthlessness.

Inflation affects the prices of everything. Gold will be worth much more during a war than before a war - but then so also is toothpaste or cattle or even condoms. If you live in the US and you buy gold for $36 before a war - if during a war, the prices rise to $200 your wealth has not really been protected since if you sell your gold, to buy toothpaste, the price of toothpaste that was $5 before the war is now $27

Then I ask, why in war do governments pay contractors or hired external security personnel with gold instead of local currency as they would before a war? why did Qaddafi pay mercenaries in gold instead of his own currency? As I said before.... gold is the real currency, paper money is just printed currency.

First you cite the case of Qaddaffi - without much information that can be freely validated

Second, there are not many antecedents that supports your theory. The US has the largest reserve of gold in the world - yet it does not fund its wars by selling gold. It pays the good ol' dollars.

Third, gold is not a currency - how many cars/shoes is an ounce of gold worth? No one knows. Because the value of gold cannot truly be objectively determined. It's value is perceived based on demand and supply.

tpia6:
gold is used to value money i think.

buffet is right in the sense that its not a physical token such as paper money but i believe you may be quoting him out of context most likely.

Buffet is one of the biggest opponents of gold investing that i know.

ActivateKruger:


Your figures are only short term, what was the price of gold 20 years ago in comparison to today?

In 1994 gold was slightly over $400 per ounce compared to $1400 today. If you had saved $400 in Naira value in a Nigerian bank, how much would it be today? Chances are it would have been eaten up by high inflation during Abacha's era and it wouldn't be much today. However if you had bought gold, not only would you have preserved your $400 but also shielded it from being depleted in value by inflation.


And yes during wars and depressions wealthy people buy gold in large numbers to store.. why do you think Hitler, Saddam, Gaddafi or any other war loving leadership had stacks of gold bricks? because they knew that paper currency is nothing but paper when bombs start hitting the ground, no one wants it.

and yes, the last loaf of bread will be traded in gold.

My figures were only short term? How about this - An ounce of gold in the year 1850 sold for $18.93. Twelve decades later, before America abandoned the gold standard in 1970s, an ounce of gold sold for $36.02. This is equivalent to an annual rate of return of 0.538% over 120 years!

first it is hard to compare an investment in gold versus an investment in a Nigerian bank due to currency effects - but i will take a stab.

In the last 20 years, Gold has rallied - but so has every thing else. Global stocks, as measured by the MSCI world index returned 261% compounded over the last 20 years, versus gold return of 187%. If you have invested in a Nigerian deposit account that pays 15% per year, on a compounded basis over the last 20 years, you returns will be 1637% in NGN terms

If you must talk about the impact of inflation - Inflation in Nigeria over the last 20 years has trended lower and stabilized at at average of 10% a year. Over 20 Years, it can probably be assumed that inflation (all items) have compounded at 673%. I am ignoring the currency effects given that the Naira has generally lost value relative to the USD over this period - but to safely compare, it can be assumed that a foreign investor in a Nigerian bank at 15% per year perfectly hedges his/her currency exposure and likewise a Nigerian investor in gold hedges his returns back to NGN. In all of these scenarios - such an investor will have fared much better in an account that pays 15% a year - followed closely by investment in global stocks. Additionally, gold would not have protected your wealth from inflation in this instances.

People buy gold to store in times of fear only because they expect someone else who is more fearful than them to pay a higher price for it at some future date - pure speculation. Gold has very little utility - which is its use in manufacturing a jewelry (it probably has other uses). If i give you an ounce of gold today, you can not eat it, it will not pay you dividends, it will not grow in size - if you keep it under your mattress for another 120 years, it will still be an ounce of gold- Its value at that point in time is purely speculative. It could either increase, remain constant or decrease - like we have witnessed in the past two years.


Paper currency is nothing? - But even during wars - people don't go to supermarkets with cartons of gold! They pay cash!

ActivateKruger:


Gold is used to preserve wealth.... let's just say you're a Russian businessman and you have millions/billions of Rubles, the last thing you want to do is to have your wealth unpreserved because the value of the Ruble can depreciate at anytime taking down your wealth with it.


If a comet had to strike earth and stocks and currencies go crumbling, the last loaf of bread will be traded with gold and only those who have it will get to eat a slice.

Gold is a pure speculative investment - much akin to gambling. The idea that it preserves wealth is nonsense. Last year alone, the value of gold fell by 28%.

The world has seen 2 world wars, a great depression, several recessions, earthquakes, tremors, and even moments when big towns were submerged under the sea (Alexandria of Egypt) or by molten magma (Pompei) yet, we are still here! I suppose your exaggeration of a comet hitting the earth is a tad bit too far, but even if that happens, the world will not trade goods and services in gold.

tpia6:
Always a very valuable commodity.

Some will disagree - your biggest opponent will be Warren Buffet. As he puts it:


"It (gold) gets dug out of the ground in Africa, or someplace. Then we melt it down, dig another hole, bury it again and pay people to stand around guarding it. It has no utility. Anyone watching from Mars would be scratching their head."


Buffet hammered on gold in his 2011 shareholder letter calling it an "unproductive asset." He said that assets like gold "will never produce anything, but are purchased in the buyer's hope that someone else will pay more for them in the future." He went on to say that the owners of assets like gold "are not inspired by what the asset itself can produce -- it will remain lifeless forever -- but by the belief that others will desire it even more avidly in the future."

Billyonaire:
Interesting, China and Russia just signed 2 multibillion Gas deals and you are talking Gold. China is stock piling gold, and with strategic arrangement, China can sell Russian Gold....

No, not really. China stopped stockpiling gold about 4 years ago

Russia may yet experience another currency crises similar to 2008 again! - Propaganda won't help this time as it will be hard to blame imaginary fascists for economic collapse!

Missy89:
how would it be a 28 war front? the NATO allies are saturated in the western flank of Russia so that's a single front. NATO's encroachment to the southern part of Russia have been checked when Medvedev Invaded Georgia and keep in mind that NATO's expansion to the Baltic and Eastern Europe is only political so far as there is no Major NATO base or infrastructure on those places. It would be a very rapid advance thou reckless and might not be worth it.

War fronts does not only imply borders! It implies waging a war against Russian interests. In the absence of nuclear weapons, there's absolutely no way Russia stands a chance. In addition, it is unlikely that Russia will be tempted to use nuclear weapons against a country in Europe, given the proximity to its own borders, and the chances that nuclear fallouts could reach Russia itself.

Russia is a big expanse of Land and will be hard pressed to defend itself in multiple places within its own territories while at the same time using its troops to hold down conquered territories in Europe.

In such a scenario, Georgia will either work with NATO or it will quickly become invaded! Troops can easily move from Turkey and the US central command in the middle east. It will also be forced to withdraw its troops from the Black sea or the Baltic sea or post high contingents to defend those vital positions. The US and Canada can open a bloody huge front in Siberia via Alaska and begin a march on Moscow! Russia will probably need more than half of its current troops + reserve to defend those areas. It will also need a require a large contingent to defend its oil and gas fields. German ships, French ships, UK ships can all open up a bloody front anywhere from the North Sea, Mediterranean sea or even the black sea itself. Thousands of paratroopers can be deployed from almost anywhere in Western Europe and ordered to march on Moscow!

Its just similar to German invasion of the Soviet Union. The Germans were only few kilometres from Moscow before the tides of war begin to turn. The Germans lost because the Allies opened up several fronts against their military.

If Russia invades Eastern Europe or a NATO country, it will immediately find itself fighting 28 different war fronts. I doubt that Emperor Putin is that reckless.

TCann:

Hmmmmm, so what does it amount to - the cyclical existence- what has been gained? the professionalism over the years? the 4am wakings and 11pm chicken sleepings to wake again for 4am. No time for family and friends. The near stroke almost occasioned by the corporate lifestyle. What are our life priorities? How useful are the Financial modellings, the Monte Carlos models at the end of the day on a beach prolly somewhere in Epe or Florida? Maybe just to sit on the beach and reminisce all your achievements and office politics played. Most won't even take up mentoring or volunteer lecturing to pass down what they ve acquired in the yrs of office politicking, practical technical knowledge acquired that schools dont and possibly can't teach.

Candylips, you see.....nothing dey der!! cos those "most people" that you re referring to use half of their lives and lots of resources to school, in preparation to work and climb the ladder of the corporate world (with the attendant happenings- both the bad and not too bad, in btw those thirty something yrs) and and back to the question- AFTER THEN, WHAT

I'll tell you the story of a friend's pop very soon.

Thanks for opening up this thread. Do you still work in IB?

It is more than heart wrenching to read news such as this.

This is a non story. Economies go through cycles, and it is no different for Germany. German politicians must however choose between bearing economic pain or protecting the long standing principles of inviolability of European borders. Merkel considered her options and she made her choice, knowing fully well that there will be a blow back on the German economy! -

Victoria Nuland's "F*ck the EU" statement does not necessarily imply that the Ukrainian affair was solely a "US Project" to imply so will be similar to the folly of picking a single line from a fictional novel to make an argument on the entire story. Ukraine is not as strategically important to the US as it is to EU. Germany's trade by volume with Ukraine is much higher than its trades with some other EU member states such as Greece. Additionally, Europe really does consider a rising Russian Empire as a threat to its security needs. It would have been unwise to lose Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova and Belarus to Russia which will only become bigger and dominant over several other European countries. - Between a dominant US and a dominant Russia, i suspect many EU countries will rather have a dominant US.

castrogee: For me I think it is certain that EU will some how severe it's links with the US, maybe not now but probably in the nearest future.
The madness Uncle Sam keeps pushing EU into is becoming worrisome and disadvantageous for the EU hence their desire to make a strong decision. The crises between Ukraine and Russia will always be won by Russia. Unfortunately Ukraine will become another Somalia or ... All these are happening to warn some african countries who are always won't to get into one stupid partnership or the other with the west. The west are just bloody selfish!
Certainly after this Ukraine imbroglio multipolarity will be confirmed, as Putin has always been a strong advocate of it.

I do not think so! Actually it is the other way round. EU is looking to strengthen its links with the US vis a vis the transatlantic trade and Investment partnership. It this goes through both economies will become more inter-wined than ever. Additionally, if more and more countries adopt conventional energy policies, Russia will become even less relevant as a partner. Will the Germans really forgo the opportunity to sell their BMWs, Mercedes, Addidas or banking system with the US for a relationship with Russia? I don't think so! - Additionally, many of them haven't really invested in their security apparatus. The US foots 70% of the entire NATO bill, I don't think many EU leaders are willing to forgo that - especially for a country that doesn't offer anything besides gas.

Finally, you cannot be certain who will win the conflict. Besides a full scale invasion of Ukraine by Russia, or a permanent conflict freeze, i do not see what other options Russia will have. And even if these two are the results of this conflict, i do not see how Russia can be a winner. 1 year ago, it had a peaceful puppet state at its doorstep, today it has lost its influence! That's not winning. Russia's dream of becoming an empire will never be complete without Ukraine.

Intelligence is usually formed in a child's early childhood.

Several research pointed out that when kids are exposed to an early onset of disease/malnutrition, they tend to perform very poorly on IQ tests or intelligence related discipline. This is because their body spends early childhood fighting off diseases, rather than to growing to full capacity! - This is particularly the case with African kids and malaria.

Second, a child's intelligence is usually a function of how much time he spends around adults. Kids have a curious and fictional mind. At this early age, they have very little to worry about and they hardly forget about things. When adults spend a lot of time to answer some questions raised by kids as well as engaging them in conversations relating to their environments, life, art, music, movies - their minds develop exponentially and by the time they approach their pre-teens, they can engage any adult in any conversation in a way that truly manifests their intelligence.

Third, a child's intelligence may be quickly improved by urging them to get involved in some basic life skills/activities - such as learning to play a musical instrument, learning to swim, arts, reading a map, history lessons etc. It helps even much more if adults (their mum or dad) play those games with them. In addition, kids have opinions, it is important for adults to develop these opinions with them and engage them in meaningful conversations regarding their opinions, no matter how silly that opinion may sound to you.

Fourth, If you have the means, travelling abroad with kids could help them dramatically with their intelligence/IQs. They get embed in other cultures, visit museums in other countries and develop their communications skills as they go along.


Hereditary plays a role, but not much. Genes develop organs (e.g the brain) - but genes are not responsible for how you make use of those organs.

I renewed my passport at the embassy a few months ago and I must say that my experience wasn't as bad as the OP.

Honestly, i sometimes feel that a few individuals tend to take things for granted just because "it is Naija"! The website was pretty clear on the things you must bring with you to the embassy --- all you need to do is follow some really simply instructions and there wouldn't be any need for much moaning.

The woman is wrong to have spoken to you in such manner - but i somehow get the feeling that she only accorded to you the same measure of respect you did to her. It is highly unlikely that she replied in a rude manner if your approach was polite and respectful! - I know some arrogant idi0ts who like to berate embassy staffs just because they speak good english and because they live in the UK. I will put on good money that OP is one of those

MiguelMi6: From day one I registered on nairaland,I follow every of your threads here in Foreign Affairs cause of the indepth analysis,but these days your post on the Gaza war has shown a certain bias for the Zionist state.

Events like this shows a divided world,Assad has murdered thousands,nothing has been done till date.Israel chooses to defend itself after it was provoked by blood thirsty Hamas,of a sudden she's Nazi reborn.

Palestine and many Arab nations do not believe in Israel's right of existence nor occupation of its territories yet they believe in their own very existence.

All Still,my heart stands with the defenceless and weak Gazans not the selfish terrorist Hamas.
#Pray4Palestine.

Your heart stands with the defenceless and weak Gazans but it is okay for Israel to claim the lives of children or shell UN nation refugee camps as long as it is only defending itself? ---is this some kind of a poor joke?

I have often said that humans sometimes are programmed robots. We have heard the same statements since the end of the second world war ... "the Jewish state have a right to defend itself" .. they have told it to us over and over and over and over again. We now no longer ask questions. It matters very little that a family is being wiped out, all we need do is forget those things that make us humane , shut out that little nudging conscience and simply turn on the robot!

KingMEXX: This Paul Craig is Biased (IMHO)

Many of his views are filled with hate and bitterness against the Westerners... I'm not saying the West are good people of reputable character but Neither are the Russians! Both Nations (America and Russia) have an innermost desire to rule this world totally with absolute powers and controls with UK and China being their bitches respectively.

As far as am concerned, Both Countries are evil minded and no one is a saint amongst them..I laugh when I see some fools siding one side against the other....Pitiful!

God save us in this final hours because the truth is that these two countries are set out to destroy this world all in the name of supremacy and they are not looking back at all!

China is nobody's b1tch, just thought i'd point that out!

NairaMinted:
Hahaha! Bookface, you have shown your biased self here with this post.....

Yes, we all have bias. But i know where my position sits between bias and reality.

--- I despise wars
--- I know that interference is not limited to the West. Big nations will seek to influence small nations. Influence defines greatness.
--- I know that half of the stuff I read on-line are likely to be propaganda information, but I read them anyway.
--- I know that countries don't just do "peace and trade" - it's all about "what's in it for me". Time changes things quickly. The Russians and the Americans once fought on the same side against Germany and Japan - now both Germany and Japan are among the Americans biggest partners.

Come on man! There have been lots of Russian scientists that have contributed immensely to science notably in the field of Chemistry and Physics in the past. In recent times, perhaps Russia has fallen behind as evident in Russian companies been almost non existent amongst the new generation of tech start-ups and Fortune 500 companies such as Google, Facebook, etc but that doesn't mean Russian companies arent't still churning out inventions and contributing significantly to science. I subscribe to a science/tech journal and although I cannot name any Russian company from the top of my head, I know they are still in there contributing and innovating

I do agree that Russia has produced some great physicist and scientist, but one may argue that Russia tends to channel more of its activities into military purpose. Forget technology - look in other industries, from Finance, to healthcare to auto-mobiles - what exactly is Russia's impact? More than often, you are likely to hear Russian news media boasting about a new military grade weapon that can match what America currently has - When was the last time you used a "Made in Russia" product?

The "dutch disease" is why Russia has a big problem. It's entire economy is commodity based. It faces an ageing population. It's best minds are more likely to emigrate to the West than stay in Russia. It's laws are not investor friendly. Many Investors think about the case of Yukos oil and gas as an ideal case study of why they couldn't do business with Russia. It's all mafian style, nothing more. An environment like that does not spur innovation

And about choosing where to live between Western and Eastern countries, I agree that in many Russian cities (most Slavic countries in fact), blacks are not entirely welcome but you cannot overlook the fact that racism is also on the rise in Western European countries - including London..

Yes, you can claim racism exist everywhere. But the comparison really pales! London is almost "nobody's home", same with New York. You can live freely and enjoy life as long as you have the money to do so.

NairaMinted:

Lol! That will never happen. Nairaland is completely pro-West...

And for good reasons i may add. If we ignore the geopolitics - between Shanghai, St Petersburg, Venice, London or New York - I know which places i will prefer to live out my life. But then again, this is a personal opinion, and i feel that most people you consider "pro-west" feel the same way. I have visited St Petersburg and the level of hatred for blacks is just astonishing. I have friends that left Nigeria for London and are now vice presidents in Investment Banks and law firms. You are not likely to ever see this in Russia, so between East and West, why should a rational person choose East?


And if you look around you, can you name at least one thing that was invented in Russia? what exactly is Russia's contribution to the world beside Natural gas and Oil? and of course, besides military weapons? and why do top Russian inventors, such as Sergey Brin have to leave Russia for the West to make their own personal contribution to the world?

cap28:

The us is an imperialist aggressor who seeks to invade and exploit weaker nations and steal their resources while China and Russia seek peace and trade

Yes, i hear you. Russia seeks peace, but by placing thousands of "peacekeepers" in Transnistria, it controls half of Moldova. By placing "peacekeepers" in south ossetia and abkhazia, it controls half of Gerogia. By annexing crimea and seeking to "freeze" the conflict in Eastern Ukraine, it will control half of Ukraine. Now, that's how you "seek piss"?

and China? let's not even go there.

NairaMinted:

I had to re-quote you seeing that you have indeed provided a briliant insight to the geo-politics at play. The part of statement that I highlighted however is the ICBM/nuclear war part. Do you know that under George Bush, Washington's nuclear war doctrine changed from that of containemnt to that of a first strike? The US government now reserves the right to strike Russia pre-emptively with nuclear weapons hence those ABMs that are popping up all across eastern Europe.Ne0-cons really do believe that a nuclear war is winnable.. Go look it up yourself.

This may be true. But i don't think the Soviets and now Russia, ever intend to use their own 10,000+ nuclear weapons against America ONLY in a retaliatory capacity. Everyone seeks a first strike option - In war, only potential losers fight fairly. Everyone will make a run for the first strike option if they have genuine intelligence that shows that the other party is planning such.

The only real solution is for a world without Nuclear weapons. But given that this will clearly give a country like the US a clear advantage over Russia, this option will never be achievable.

NairaMinted:


God bless you for this comment. At least this is an area we share common ground. When will Africans wake up and realize all these? I may post anti-West comments for now, but be rest assured that I would be posting anti-East, anti-China or anti-Russia comments if they were the ones trying to control the world like the US is obsessively trying to.

Again, it all comes down to what tools are available to each country!

China has been buying up several African lands and European businesses. They buy up US treasuries and London houses. The theory remains the same. Once you have economic prowess, the next goal usually is to achieve total control. The Romans tried it. The Japanese tried it. The Soviet tried it. The Germans tried it. Now the Americans are at it. Their are no innocent parties here, there are no victims. Only interests. Every country wants to be able to influence another country. This is why both Russia and US are at logger heads.

Russia does not want to see itself as a "former global power" - it still seeks influence in the former soviet states and if possible it will like to unseat US as a security apparatus in Europe. This is why Medvedev proposed an European Security Treaty about three years ago. US knows that if Russia unseats its position in Europe, then it faces a global decline - So as much as possible, the US will try to cast Russia in the worst possible light, possibly even as a threat so that Europeans can see the essence of NATO and neutral players such as Finaland and Sweeden will reconsider their stance.

There are no innocent party and it's all a fair game. The cold war never really ended.

The Russian government has finally realized that it has no Western “partners,” and is complaining bitterly about the propagandistic lies and disinformation issued without any evidence whatsoever against the Russian government by Washington, its European vassals, and presstitute media.

Russian government is complaining bitterly about propagandistic lies? LOL!!! Since when is Russia the innocent party? Have you watched Russian news media to realize the extent of propaganda being meted out?

It is really quite simple. It should be assumed that every government will mete out has much propaganda as they can to sway public opinion to their own advantage. It is no brainer, the western government controls more than half of the world's media outlet, so they clearly have the upper hand in the propaganda contest, but it doesn't mean that the Russians are the squeaky clean innocent party you wish to portray them to be.

In addition, Governments/countries don't have partners or friends - they have interests! and any government is only expected to pursue foreign policy that are in line with its core interests

The US Senate’s Russian Aggression Prevention Act, about which I reported in my previous column, does even more mischief than I reported. If the bill passes, which it likely will, Washington becomes empowered to bypass NATO and to grant the status of “allied nation” to Ukraine independently of NATO membership. By so doing, Washington can send troops to Ukraine and thereby commit NATO to a war with Russia.

Can you or someone explain why it is in US interest to go to war with Russia, knowing fully well that this will mean the destruction of more than 80% of US cities and the death of more than half of its citizens? You sound very much like the tin foil hat wearers who only get their information from one source which obviously leads to one conclusion - "Washington is the bogeyman", because? "look at Iraq, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan".

However, i often wonder why Russia (the supposed Victim) avoids the Bogeyman label afterall, it waged war against Afganistan: Carved up Gerogia: Carved up Moldova: Grabbed Crimea and it continues to threaten Lithuania, Lativa and Poland?

And why do all these countries who were once members of the Soviet Union so desperately seek NATO's membership if their big bear neighbour was actually at peace with them?


The basic points are really quite simple:

1) Countries have interests. It is in Russia's interest to drive as much wedge as possible between Europe and the United states. It is in United States interests to keep Russia busy by making its environment unstable and making sure that the rest of the world sees it as a pariah state.


2) In other to further the first point, both countries will make use of all the tools available at their disposal. E.g

---Russia nailed a CIA operative on national TV:
---- couple of months later Edward Snowden disclosed NSA closely guarded secrets
-----then the Russians intercepted and released a recorded tape of Victoria Nuland's "Fu*k the EU"
------then somehow, a CIA converted agent was caught in Germany!

etc. I do not believe that all these events are not interconnected. The result of this of course is that the percentage of Europeans who see the US favourably are now at an all time low. This is music to Putin's ears. Drive a wedge between them, divide and conquer!

The US on the other hand responds by encouraging all the smaller countries surrounding Russia to embrace the West knowing fully well that Russia will react badily to this. By doing so, the US gets the opportunity to label Russia as a threat to Eastern Europe and the US gets to keep its position as a security guarantor.

In the midst of all this, Europe will remain a pawn and the person who wins the propaganda/information war gets to keep its interest.


3) In as much as the rhetoric may sound tough and crazy, i do not believe that either side wants a fully blown war because there are simply no winners in such a scenario. Russia probably has ICBMs that are positioned towards every major US city and US probably has the same. Russia's total GDP is less than that of California. If Russia nukes America and America does the same, America will stand to lose much more than Russia.


The US wants to control the World, but so does Russia and so does China. Their are no victims here, only players. Propaganda, lies, threats are all tools of the game.

NairaMinted: I would respond to your questions and remarks.


I don't live in that region, yes. Neither do I have friends in that area as well. Do you? I really don't see how that is relevant to this topic. And speaking of sources. What are yours? I am guessing yours are sources that aren't Russian so does that automatically make yours credible and mine not trustworthy? Is that what you are insinuating?

No! You miss the point! - I am not here to debate Western vs Anti-western news sources.

My point is that the credibility of your argument suffers because you presented as a fact - "Nobody saw the missile trails" - an important piece of information that is most likely to have been derived from Russian sources which are widely expected to show a biased reporting.

In order words, you and i will probably not be having this debate if you have mentioned:

"According to Russia News sources, nobody saw the missile trails".

This will allow readers to judge themselves how much truthfulness they will assign to that information. It will also let readers distinguish between facts, opinion and propaganda. The last thing we need is someone presenting propaganda as facts.

NairaMinted:

Its been 5 days since MH17 was downed. We still await witnesses that witnessed that smoke trail to step forward....

That Ukranian jets trailed the plane is at all not in dispute. See, some of your Western sources have even reported this...
http://www.businessinsider.com/source-malaysia-flight-mh17-was-being-escorted-by-ukrainian-su-27-fighter-jets-2014-7

Again I am not here to debate Western vs Anti-western news sources.

The fact that this information appears on a Western media does not make it true or as you argue, indisputable. Also, the fact that it doesn't appear on BBC or CNN does not mean it is not true!

Most news media are expected to be tools to sway public opinions. BBC has had a very biased coverage of the GAZA crises since it started and i even joined a public protest at their London office during the past weekend. Same way Russian media blatantly lied that a child was crucified by Ukrainian Authorities.

a) my friend BUT have the Ukranian authorities turned over these recordings to anyone including independent investigators? NO they have not!

So you do agree that you will also have confiscated the materials just the same way the Ukrainian Authorities have done? And how have you come to the conclusion that Ukrainian Authorities, up to this moment, have not turned those pieces of evidence over to Independent investigators? Let me guess:

a) Because the Russians say so
b) Because Independent Investigators complained that Ukrainian Authorities haven't been co-operative with evidence
c) Because i just feel so
d) Other

Again, if you are an RT reporter or have reasons to promote the Russian side of the story then you should clearly disclose this. But for the purpose of debate, it is important to separate facts, opinions and propaganda.

Question remains: How do you know a Buk missile battery brought down MH17? I really need an answer to that question......The Russians have made their presentation. Where is that of the Ukranians??

I simply don't know for sure that it is definitely a BUK missile. But so far, the theories making the grounds are

a) The Russians shot it down with a SAM:

I believe that this is the most improbable scenarios as the Russians do not have any objective to achieve by doing so.

b) Ukraine shot it down either with Fighter Jets or with a SAM

This is a probable scenario and Russia claims it could prove that Ukrainian Jets were scrambled around the time the Jet was brought down. It also claims that Ukraine activated its radar station during this period. I find this version of the story difficult to believe because following are likely to be true:
- Since the conflict started Ukraine has not shot at malicious objects in its airspace
-The rebels don't have planes so Ukraine shouldn't have a reason to deploy SAMs
-Even when Ukraine claimed Russia violated its airspace several times, it wouldn't take the risk of shooting down a Russian aircraft since this will mean war and Kiev will fall within 2 days

While it may be claimed that Ukraine has the motives to attract the world's sympathy - it doesn't make sense to me that it will deliberately choose to do so by shooting down a civilian plane. It already has the support of Western governments. It knows it is not likely to get the support of China or India. So why shoot down an airplane? I think the rewards (of making Russia/rebels look bad) pales in comparison to the risk (of loosing Western support and loosing the war if discovered) so on the balance of probabilities, i think this scenario is not likely to have been the case


c) The rebels mistook the airplane for an Ukrainian military airplane and shot it down

We know that they following are likely to be true:

- that the rebels have shot down Ukrainian military aircraft in the past.
-that the rebels have the will and something to gain by shooting down an Ukrainian military aircraft.
-that the rebels may not have sophisticated military training as a conventional army and may be unable to distinguish between a civilian carrier and a military aircraft.
-that the rebels are not likely have known that a civilian aircraft is within Ukrainian airspace as Ukraine tower control is not likely to have shared that information with them
-the rebels denied independent investigators access to the crash site for more than 3 days


On the balance of probabilities, this third theory looks more convincing.



d) The Americans shot it down

This is a long shot. But you can't put anything past conspiracy theorists.

NairaMinted: By the way, has any one even asked if it was actually a Buk battery that downed plane? Think about it!
Did a Buk missisle battery actually bring down a plane? How can we be sure of what was used?
WHERE’S THE MISSILE?
No eyewitnesses at all have seen the missile trail. They heard loud explosions; they saw not one but
two shadowing fighter jets; they saw stuff and even body parts falling out of the sky. But NOBODY saw
the missile trail. A BUK missile leaves a quite GRAPHIC AND THICK trail.
Ukraine's SUB security confiscated all Air Control Tower records and ground radar tracks. Thus the
extremely credible possibility that the shadowing fighter jets were flying over Donbass under the cover
of MH17 – as directed by Kiev’s traffic control – to get recon on how the federalists are shaping up on
the ground.
And this also could open to yet another credible possibility - that the MH17’s transponder was tampered
with or shut down.
What’s certain is that Kiev, under CIA orders, WON’T release these records – which would be able to
explain A LOT.

"NOBODY saw the missile trail" -

- I don't know where you live, but my wild guess tells me you don't live anywhere near Eastern Ukraine and you are not likely to have had a friend/relative who witnessed the incident. Therefore the only way you could have obtained this information is through Russian sources! This destroys the integrity of your argument! You can't conclude that no one saw the missile trail unless dozens of witnesses have been interviewed by independent parties.

"they saw not one but two shadowing fighter jets"-

How come only the Russians/the rebels saw two shadowing fighter jets? One Russian news source claimed Ukraine shot the BUK missile hoping to target President Putin's plane - Another news source claimed the Jet was bought down by Fighter jets - I'm confused, which is which?


"WHERE’S THE MISSILE?"

Seriously? Let's assume YOU were the one who shot the missile - and you have access to the crime scene three consecutive days afterwards, i suppose you will simply leave the missile casings lying about on the floor for the world to see how guilty you are?
Let's not ask silly questions - If a country as big as Russia wishes to mop out a crime scene, it wouldn't really take too much effort to do so.

"Ukraine's SUB security confiscated all Air Control Tower records and ground radar tracks."

You are the head of the SUB security - a plane has just been shot down within your airspace - What do you do?

a) Confiscate all air control records and tower tracks which will serve as vital pieces of evidence
b) Give in to Russian demands and provide them with your air control records and radar tracks to prove you are innocent
c) Do nothing - leave the data as it is and let anyone have access to any information they want to prove you are open and transparent

Olaone1:

Keeping munching your sugary popcorn as you stay fixated in front of your TV watching hate/propaganda-filled news-items on Western news channels.

I will - and you stick to your Soviet TV channels that is completely devoid of hate/propaganda filled news-items

NairaMinted: The size of the propaganda campaign vs. Russia regarding the downing of MH17 is absolutely, utterly, unprecedented - without equal. The size of the online assets they have mobilized alone is something to behold. This has all been planned ahead of time - and this makes it 100% a NATO false flag operation.

You have "audio" released immediately after the plane went down ... videos of the Buk launcher allegedly coming into Ukraine AND leaving (despite alternate theories that the launcher was taken from Ukraine)! Do you believe this was all incidentally caught on video and pieced together this fast? They tried this with the Damascus Ghouta sarin gas attack too - which later was confirmed to be a false flag attack.

NATO mass murdered 300 innocent men, women, and children to get a "leg up" on Russia. These are dangerously insane people - we must not stop, rather redouble our efforts to bury this menace to humanity - no matter what it takes - once and for all.

I have never seen them go through so much effort. It is always darkest before the dawn and I believe the level of effort we see here is directly proportional to their desperation.

Don't waver, rather, fight harder.

Oh shut up and stop making Russia out to be the victim! - Everyone with an iota of common sense know that this is nothing short of an informational war to sway public opinion ! Russia is engage in a similar misinformation propaganda on State run media where more than 90% of Russians rely on for their news source.

There has been speculations on RT that Ukrainian jet fighters tailed the doomed Malaysia Airlines flight MH-17. Of course, that will make sense if the Ukrainian government, while it already has near total global support, would prefer to set itself up to be hated and condemned by everyone.

"An aviation source cited by Kremlin-owned news outlet RT also pushed the idea that Ukrainian forces may have fired a rocket at the Malaysian Boeing, mistaking it for Putin's jet returning from a summit in Brazil."

This is the dumbest one i will think. Forget that Kiev will instantly declare war on itself by killing the President of a country with more than 10,000 nuclear weapons and an approval rating above 85%, i will doubt that Putin is expected to be dumb enough to fly over Ukraine, a country he's hoping to wreck.

There have also been other wacky Kremlin-drone "explanations"… which remind me of the "CIA are everywhere!!!" loony conspiracy theorists.

"Putin has also pointed the finger of blame at his Ukrainian counterpart Petro Poroshenko, saying it would not have happened if Kiev had not ended a ceasefire with the separatists."

Of course. Who else could he blame? His standard scapegoat – blaming the US government – would have been too much of a stretch, even for Putin.

"Russian media drew parallels with a Russian passenger jet carrying 78 people which was mistakenly shot down by the Ukrainian military in 2001 as it flew over the Black Sea." This is a very good old Soviet whataboutism. Putin loves those. Surely part of basic training for KGB officers.


"China, where the state news agency said in a commentary that officials from the U.S., Australia and other Western countries had jumped to conclusions in pointing their fingers at the rebels in eastern Ukraine or blaming Russia."

This I agree with. The Chinese are generally reasonable people. While Putin's thugs are the most likely suspects, it would be better to wait until the investigation is over before making official accusations. The fact that the so-called "rebels" are actively trying to hamper the investigation is just more evidence against them. But not surprising either. Criminals often try to destroy or hide evidence of their crimes.

it will be great to see the pictures

brabus:

At much later time on my thread, I'll show you what I'm building presently. I doubt I'll even reach the two million mark and the house is a three bedroom bungalow with two toilets/bath. Though labour is FOC as per Oga concern but it's a well managed project.
Anyway, anything is possible for those that believe! You'll agree with me that N600k can give you a single bed house so N2m is a good budget if well managed for a two bed house.

I am not a builder and i have utmost respect for Brabus..but a 2 million estimate sounds like its extremely on the low side of the cost curve in my opinion!

But anyway, what do i know?

I can't believe people here haven't seen or heard of a mermaid swim suit before? this is easily available on ebay! I don't think that picture is as controversial nor the story behind it!

Zeus_Ayo: the s400/500 also carry other point close air defense/cram weapons in the battery like the SA7/22 sams and CIws so for small targets like jdam and all dose fancy drones u talked about would be shot down by the close in weapons so the main missiles would be used against the main fighters and the ruskies claim they have radars that can see through stealth

You missed the point!

First, you cant carry a closed in weapons system on a missile!

Second, you can't use a closed in weapons systems for targets that are miles away.

Third, there are drones that are the same size as jet fighters, a radar cannot tell the difference between the two. A radar will only identify either a small or large object flying at xyz speed along with a number of other information - the radar will not distinguish between a drone and a fighter. You will need to get up close and personal to make an identification - i.e scramble your own jets.

Fourth, an invader that is looking to target your radar stations may send in the drones as in the third point above as decoys - it wouldn't matter if you shoot your SAMs or whatever at them, as long as your radar station begin to track these decoys, their locations can be mapped and they can be taken out pretty quickly! Once your radar stations are out, every your missile defense structure is wrecked! It took NATO only two days to wipe out Libya's Soviet made missile defense structure!

Fifth, the Russians may truly have the technology to "see" through stealth, but these claims are untested. The beauty of having a stealth technology is that it gives you the upper hand, not only in combat but in psychological wars. For instance, the US may claim that it has just flown a B2 bomber through Russian airspace - this may in fact be false! But the Russians cannot tell if it is true or false - Until a time when you actually shoot down a B2 spirit, an F22 or an F35, you claims to have the capacity to "see" through stealth will remain untested.

Zeus_Ayo: agreed but the moment those so called stealth aircrafts open there bomb bays to use those weapons and the s400 or500 radar picks up their signature, those pilots are as good as dead.....once the missile leaves its rack, that aircrafts defences wouldn't even have the time to kick in because an s500 missile hits u @ mach12 at that speed the war head doesn't even need to detonate it just needs to hit the plane and dey would be cleaning up its pieces with a mop....... the ruskies are way ahead of the yanks in anything missiles just get it

LOL!!! You place too much trust on these systems.


It's not really that hard to defeat a complex missile system like those of the ruskies
First, you can use Joint stand off weapons - Just the same as Israel did in Syria about a year ago.


Second, you can send in hundreds of high altitude armed global hawks UAVs that fly in the same formation and with the same speed as an F35. Since a radar cannot differentiate between the two, the ruskies will simply have to fire their missiles at these drones. An invader that is several miles outside this theatre of operation could easily map the location of radar stations and take them out with standard JDAMS. To put in context, US is well on target to have about 8000 drones in its arsenal by 2025

Third, these missiles are actually bloody expensive - Russia has only about 112 units of S400s!!!! -- To put in a context, each US cruiser/destroyer carry about 90 Tomahawk missiles. To put in another context USS Barry (just one ship) fired about 120 Tomahawk missiles into Libya in one single night! - how many S400s do you need to defend Russia?