₦airaland Forum

Lukgaf:
Sorry I wasn't following

Okay, so I suppose I can now await your thoughts. 'Preciate boss.

DeepSight:
Lukgaf, in light of the issue you raise on this thread which touches on women's rights, can you kindly give your view on the riots in Iran which were triggered by the death of a young woman arrested by the Iranian Morality Police over use of Hijab issues - and which lave led to the death of almost 100 people so far.

Thank you.

Lukgaf, you went silent on this?

HIPROFILE:
The poor just need to hustle harder than praying harder.

You know nothing of life, and I pray you don't learn the hard way. The race is not to the swift nor the battle to the strong.

wirinet:
No amount of internal roads would solve lagos traffic problems. What lagos needs is an internal railway system connecting all the local government. A rail like from Ikorodu to Epe to Lagos Island through the Lekki corridor to mainland to Berger.

Lekki corridor is a strip of swamp separating the lagoon from the Atlantic Ocean. I don't see how that corridor will accommodate an airport, a sea port and a refinery. It will be chaos.

You are right - the first thing that occurred to me is wow, they need to build more roads fast - like 4th mainland bridge, and also trains along the corridor.

But wait a minute, this is not really new is it? I though a Cargo Airport was already in the works there years ago?

Could this happen in Nigeria?

Lukgaf, in light of the issue you raise on this thread which touches on women's rights, can you kindly give your view on the riots in Iran which were triggered by the death of a young woman arrested by the Iranian Morality Police over use of Hijab issues - and which lave led to the death of almost 100 people so far.

Thank you.

plaetton:
Well, my friend, I have this saying that the fantastic thing about having imaginary enemies is that you have the power to declare victory anytime it suits you.

LogicnReason:
Look dude, you seem like a nice guy so I don't want to insult you okay. But let me inform you that you missing the point and what you just said in mentioning me is called deflection.
Because you CANNOT quote anywhere where I said the US singularly rescued Russia as you said, that phrase is absolutely your own not mine.

The issue is simple, the US supported Russia when Russia needed support in ww2, True or False? If true, that is all that matter. So now the US is helping the weaker nation now and the question is why is that bad? No one is talking about whether they did it alone or others were involved, once you begin to digress from the main issue it called OP, and that is why many of you fail exam in school. Just address the main issue, and if you want us to talk about the other people that helped Russia we can talk about that in significance to another point, that's how progressive discuss are argued.

Now the moral of our argument is, why did the US support Russia in ww2? It is because morally the Germans were wrong. They were oppressive because they had military might.
Today the Russian are wrong in oppressing the Ukrainians because they this time around have military might. And that's why the US is supporting Ukraine. Its that simple.

Remember the UN is there for order in the world. Ukraine is a sovereign nation. Even if there are ethnic speaking Russians in the Donbas and Russia feels they are not treated well, all you need to do is table it at the UN and use your influence to call the Ukrainians to order. But what you don't do is carry tanker and start blasting a sovereign country. So I hope this makes sense to you

Hi there. You may notice I used the word "perhaps" in referring to you? That was deliberate because I was not certain of your position in that regard. Admittedly I was digressing, and I find most of what you have written on point.

Krismas:
Senseless rumblings. Just look at the multitude of squandered words!
Talk active. For a war dat started in 1939, if America came into it in 1941, I will say they came 2yrs late to the party, they still fresh and had arms to spare. Considering also, they fought mostly in the pacific and had very little to do against the almighty Germans.
s

To add to this, I don't know why so many people (perhaps LogicnReason included) are making the error of insinuating that it was the USA that singularly rescued Russia. They helped Russia, yes, but Russia itself did most of the heavy lifting in defeating Nazi Germany. The assistance from the USA was only a small fraction of what Russia itself put out.

I have given details here-

https://www.nairaland.com/7364606/convoy-transporting-equipment-russias-nuclear/12#117243892

Neoteny7:
You're incorrect.

The number of planes you're quoting includes biplanes and older WW1 aircraft that were retired. Total aircraft that the USSR operated by 1945 was around 55,000 of mixed types, meaning the US supplied the Russians about 40% or more of their active fleet. That's not an insignificant number.

What sort of voodoo calculation is this. I gave you specific figures which covered money, airplanes and tanks used across the whole of the period of the war, and you try to limit it to total operated as at 1945. That's simply misfooted. Neither did I pluck my figures from thin air, just check them out yourself.

Total US Aid to Russia was $11.3 billion, Fact. -

https://ru.usembassy.gov/world-war-ii-allies-u-s-lend-lease-to-the-soviet-union-1941-1945/#:~:text=Totaling%20%2411.3%20billion%2C%20or%20%24180,

While Total Russian Military Expenditure during the war was $192 billion, Fact -

https://historyandheritage.cityofparramatta.nsw.gov.au/research-topics/world-war-two/world-war-two-financial-cost

That's around 6 per cent, so what on Earth are you on about?

Secondly assuming but not conceding your figure of 40 per cent (which is simply imaginary and false) 40 per cent is still not "most." However I must emphasize that the fact is that total US assistance to Russia was simply no where near this, as the facts above show.

Here's portion of a text Stalin wrote to Roosevelt:

"Your decision, Mr. President, to give the Soviet Union an interest-free credit of $1 billion in the form of materiel supplies and raw materials has been accepted by the Soviet government with heartfelt gratitude as urgent aid to the Soviet Union in its enormous and difficult fight against the common enemy — bloodthirsty Hitlerism.”

You are funny. We are talking about a country that spent almost $200bn in the war and you are showing me assistance of $1bn as evidence that the US was responsible for their success?

Also:

At a dinner toast with Allied leaders during the Tehran Conference in December 1943, Stalin added: “The United States … is a country of machines. Without the use of those machines through Lend-Lease, we would lose this war.”

Nikita Khrushchev, who led the Soviet Union from 1953 to 1964, agreed with Stalin’s assessment. In his memoirs, Khrushchev described how Stalin stressed the value of Lend-Lease aid: “He stated bluntly that if the United States had not helped us, we would not have won the war.”

The Nazis were within sight of the Kremlin, and what helped the Russkies was winter, Hitler's insistence that his army groups should not retreat and regroup, and Lend-Lease.

Look no one says that the US didn't help them. Also no one says that that help was not critical. Every single bit of help counted as it was a desperate struggle. But to quantify that help as "most" of what the Russians put out is simply false.

You are re writing history, period.

As for the order halting the alllies' advance, the only mystery is why it was given. Probably another secret pact to allow the Russians fight the bitter close quarters combat because they don't mind sacrificing their men, and were driven by bloodthirsty vengeance.

Stalin created competition between his men deliberately to hasten their advance, but it's well known who he favored to take Berlin: Zhukov.

Feel free to theorize as much as you want, the fact is Russia took Berlin.

Neoteny7:
Then you need to read about the Lend-Lease program wherein the US armed the soviets, almost 18 million tons of equipment, 95% of it from the US, since from 1941, before Pearl Harbor.

Also, the only reason the soviets took Berlin was because of a mysterious halt order from Supreme HQ Allied Command, to which Churchill was bitter to the end of his grave. Not just Churchill, but most of the allies and some US generals.

I have already dealt with this with another poster who made similar assumptions. See below -

DeepSight:
No one says they didnt help, but to quantify that help as constituting most of Russia's resources is plain wrong.
We can start with small statistics.

Tanks - Russia had over 108, 000 tanks produced in WW2.
The US gave them a total of 15, 000 tanks.

Most? Think again bro.

DeepSight:
Aircraft - Russia used over 170, 000 aircraft in WW2.
The US sent them about 15, 000.

Most?
Think again.

DeepSight:
Money
Total Russian Military Expenditure - $192 Billion
Total spent by the US on Russia - $11 Billion.

Most?
Think again.

As for your mysterious halt order, its up to you to decipher it. Even among different Red Army divisions there was competition to be the first to reach Berlin. All parties understood the importance and significance.

wirinet:
In a nuclear conflagration with NATO, Russia will become a nuclear waste land for centuries. Yes the remaining NATO countries will also suffer devastating consequences, it due to its shear size and spread, many more cities and people on the NATO side will survive.

If there is an all out Nuclear war the whole of Europe will be destroyed, not so Russia because of its spread all the way to China and the Pacific Ocean. The whole of Europe can fit into one corner of Russia. North America may survive by sheer dint of size and separation.

Neoteny7:
First of all it was world war 2, not 11.

Second, the US nuked Japan not because it couldn't defeat the japs, but because nukes would cause far fewer casualties than using conventional weapons as was done in Dresden, also because the shock and awe factor would force Japan to an early surrender and thus shorten the war and its casualties, which indeed was what happened. Remember at this point the US almost singlehandedly won the war in the East and West by arming the Soviets and the Allies.

The US did not "almost singlehandedly" win the war in the West and it did not "almost single handedly" arm Russia. Britain, perhaps, but not Russia. It helped Russia, but only to a fraction of Russia's total output. Russia bore the heaviest brunt of taking down Nazi Germany especially in terms of losses of men and materials by far. Needless to say, it was the Red Army that took Berlin.

wirinet:
I hate so much negativity being radiated by you guys. Its bring about dark and negative energy and stifles personal and societal development. Learn to "count your blessings and name them one by one "

How can you compare Nigeria to Dubai. What's the historical and political background of dubai and what's that of Nigeria? What's the population of Dubai and what's that of Nigeria? What's the religious and ethnic composition of Dubai and that of Nigeria. You are comparing grapes with grapefruit.

Thank you.

Jakumo:
There is probably something deep in the primal origins of the human male psyche that compels largely rational people to seek out tribal conflict, be it based on race, language, skin tone, or football team allegiance.

You have touched on something signal here.

wirinet:
When I said most, I meant at the lowest point of Russia during the war when they were on the verge of defeat. If those supplies had not come in on time, they most probably would have lost the war.
What was the state of the Russian military in terms of arms, resources and money as at October 1944? Yes, throughout the duration of the war, the Russians were able to manufacture 106,000 tanks, but over 76% was destroyed by the Germans. They had only about 16,000 at the start of the war, but the Russians ramped up production to meet war demands. The problem was that by winter of 1944, the Germans had taken out most of Russian war manufacturing infrastructure, so the Russians had to import.

Fair enough.

wirinet:
Even the Russians themselves cannot underplayed the important role the US played in helping them defeat Nazi Germany.
Google the lend-lease Act of 1941and how much material was sent to Russia under the act.

It cannot be underplayed. Its just not "most" as you claimed.

See below.

DeepSight:
Money
Total Russian Military Expenditure - $192 Billion
Total spent by the US on Russia - $11 Billion.

Most?
Think again.

DeepSight:
Aircraft - Russia used over 170, 000 aircraft in WW2.
The US sent them about 15, 000.

Most?
Think again.

Money
Total Russian Military Expenditure - $192 Billion
Total spent by the US on Russia - $11 Billion.

Most?
Think again.

Aircraft - Russia used over 170, 000 aircraft in WW2.
The US sent them about 15, 000.

Most?
Think again.

And how did they survive after the Nazi's had penetrated so far?
Surely you are aware they uprooted their factories and moved them far into the East.

wirinet:
I am very sure about that. How do you think stalin that lost so much men and material at the beginning of the invasion was able to recover and push the Germans back. The German were already at the gates of Leningrad. Even petrol to prosecute the war was provided by the British as the oil rich caucuses had been cut off. Germany ran out of petrol whil Russia had excess supply from Britain.
The US supplied Stalin with weapons and ammunition.

No one says they didnt help, but to quantify that help as constituting most of Russia's resources is plain wrong.
We can start with small statistics.

Tanks - Russia had over 108, 000 tanks produced in WW2.
The US gave them a total of 15, 000 tanks.

Most? Think again bro.

wirinet:
No dispute here. Russia bore most of the brunt in terms of loss of soldiers and physical destruction. But US and Britain bore most of the financial, intelligence and military hardware brunt.

I am not even sure about that. To say that they helped Russia with those factors you mentioned is unquestionably true, but to say that their contribution in that regard constituted "most" of Russia's resources would be debatable.

wirinet:
Ironically, it was the same US and her allies that provided arms, logistics and money to help the Russians defeat Germany.

Russia bore most of the brunt of defeating Nazi Germany. They did the heavy lifting, and paid the highest price by far.

benalvino3:
Mad Putin is Annexing so part of Ukraine again to give the federation an excuse to use nukes. Ukraine's President is signing documents to Join Nato to drag Nato into the war actively.

things are getting really Volatile

NATO will not take them in at this time.

GeneralPula:
Blood sisters was good at the beginning but trash at the end..

Well, not sure I entirely agree, but having said that, I guess the ending of a story is the trickiest part for most writers / screenwriters.

NoToPile:
So only full time house wives watch Nigerian movies? I thought Nairalanders said it was Telemundo ?


@Fred166 I laughed throughout your post, a lot of those Africa magic Nigerian movies are wack very very wack.
Sometimes I feel they are insulting the intelligence of the viewers.

There are good Nigerian movies though, watched some recently and I was impressed, the one I am targeting next is 'Anikulapo' by Kunle Afolayan his movies are top notch. I know I won't be disappointed and I love culture inclined movies.

Some I have watched in recent times that makes sense
Breaded life
A Naija Christmas
Meet the kujos is quite okay too


You can recommend/download some for her.

I dont watch them either. But I saw Blood Sisters on Netflix. It was quite good. I recommend. I have seen a snapshot of Anikulapo as well. There are a few well made ones.

bhella10:
Melting pot talks about people with different backgrounds and ideas coexisting. From your write up I think melting pot is what you drove at

And what does "melting point" mean to you?
When you saw that in my sentence, what would you say it meant?

PS: I am very familiar with the term thank you very much.
This is inconsequential.

bhella10:
Melting pot is the right word.

No disputing that. I know that. I asked what the practical difference is. As used in my sentence. I hope you do know that language is fluid especially with usage and context. A place in space is a point, and I made a deliberate choice to play the phrase that way.
Anyhow, this is unimportant.

SugarGirl44:
You're not more Lagosian than any Yoruba person, if you like, let your grandfather be born at island maternity, you're still a migrant.
Y'all should stop the obsession abeg.

You don't see us obsessing about your backward regions or even the current FCT, but y'all still live in the past glory of lagos being the capital decades ago.
Go back home, and let your children know Lagos isn't theirs before they too start this assumption.

Ok. Tell me where I am from.

And while you are at it, please tell me, if you can, where Joe Biden is from.
And Pritti Patel. And Rishi Sunak. And Kwasi Kwarteng.

Tell me where these people are from, and why they hold roles such as President of the United States, Home Secretary, Chancellor of the Exchequer and Chancellor in the UK.

Thank you.

OsunOriginal:
I hope you're not a high BP patient... don't kill yourself oooo over nothing. Obi can't come 3rd in the coming election - it is obvious

How do you know if I support Obi.
Grow a brain, little kid, and stop making silly assumptions.

SugarGirl44:
Since you're so good at developing places, why not go and do it at your place?
Y'all forget that you can only thrive at a place when its people are peaceful and welcoming.
But you never want to give that credit to the Yoruba people, you sound like you did us a favour instead.
So that's we say you should go to your place and 'develop' it if e easy.

Now that other ports are working in the SS, their people still prefer to come to the so called slum to transact biz.
That alone should tell y'all that there's something positive about SW and its people.
But jealousy won't let you see clearly.

I am tired of listening to you kids make this silly assumption. Do you know where I am from? ? ?

Whoever you are, you cannot be more Lagosian than I am.

And why must you tribalize everything. If Lagos is the exclusive creation of the Yoruba, I should assume Abeokuta, Akure, Ibadan, Oshogbo, Ado-Ekiti, should all be similarly developed.

Please grow up and stop this nonsense.

KINGinVAHALA:
Bad for you and I wish you evil just as you and your ilks wishes Lagos

You cannot possibly be more Lagosian than I am. Or given a fraction of what I have given to my wonderful town, Lagos.
And here you are saying you wish me evil.

Seriously, you should take a moment to reflect on your words and your attitude.
What is driving your hatred for perfect strangers.
It is well.