₦airaland Forum

duke is corrupt, and a thief Fraud

duke did the right thing as per the tinapa idea Visionary

he was both a fraud and a visionary

for him to get sympathy and also try to get away unpunished for his fraudulent ways he devices a means of siphoning the money.

my view is at least he did something there whether it works or not, whether he embezzled or not, dats no to say make EFCC no still carry am cos i know say he sef steal plenty but give him credit for promoting the TINAPA idea. e still beta pass Ibori, Lucky and Odili

saw gladiator last night, 300 is like child's play to this movie
probably the best ever made, maximus, maximus, maximus

hard to tell but has to be an italian

davidif:
@don1demaco
Even though i am an avid soccer fan, i actually have a life and i have much better things to do like taking care of business, not going round scouring over old tapes of previous world cups watching people who don't know i exist. Also, i watch other sports like basketball or the NFL during my free time so soccer is not my only sport. By the way, i have my own religion and its called Christianity and football can't even compare to that.

im not just a footbal fan, i kinda see myself as a die hard sports fan, but football by far stands out.

ive seen ever grandslam final live from 1997, watch golf majors, F1, cricket, athletics b4 drugs took over, every major boxing bout what have u

seen old tapes of mike tyson, and ali's fights, watch highlights and documentaries on sports personalities, so pls dont be narrow minded

and think about it i should be doing ok to be able to afford dis habit, cos na only person wey get money dey get habit including person wey dey smoke N5 cigar.

so yes i have a life outside sports and football but i try to manage my time to get the max satisfaction like now im on nairaland, so variety is the spice of life my bros and like i said b4 for some football is not just a sport, passion but a religion stick to whatever u believe in

davidif:
@don1demaco
Yes FIFA is wrong for fielding awards like "World Player of the Year", the award is always in favor of attacking players: strikers and attacking midfielders, only twice has a defender won the award. Its even worse for goalies who have won it just once. Did you see how dominant Petr Cech was when he firs came to chelsea? or even Oliver Kahn in his prime? So don't come here telling me that the underrated defensive midfielders (the Michael Essien's and Gattuso's) are not getting overlooked. If there is going to be awards, there should be seperate awards for coaches, goalies, defensive players and attacking players. I played defense in secondary school and everybody can tell you that in soccer all the attention is on the goal scorers and not on the guys who work so hard to stop them.

never said anything about the fairness of the awards or which player is overlooked. all i said is u guys should not criticize the poster of thread cos its a really sensible question she asked.

dat doesnt mean i dont agree with u on the question of credibility of such awards just like in the comparism of taiye taiwo and martins. at least i wouldnt do it but if u asked me to choose i would rather have martins dan taiwo. its like asking me to choose who is the best player in liverpool or manure or arsenal, its by far gerrard, ronaldo and fagregas but they all play different roles and different positions for their team but we still know they are the best players, why

its simple some players stand out whether attacking or defensive. yes we are kinda partial/ sentimental 4 forwards but dont forget the aim of the game is to put more balls at the back of the net than the opponent and not the opposite.

this is the dumbest thread i ve ever read on nairaland. seems the originator just got out of the assylum. why people dey watch CNN instead of NTA news.

chai people stupid for this world o

[quote author=lai-lai link=topic=94662.msg1818495#msg1818495 date=1199408356]DeMaco, so u be liverpool fan?


why now? just join another club and stop walking alone[/quote]why?

do u have a problem with me supporting the best clubside in the world?

been a Liverpudian 4 as long as i can remember

For all u scousers, remember we coined the word "bouncebackability" so lets show dat spirit and charge on to win the league title. get behind ur team.

ThiefOfHearts:
Yea that was a great World Cup. Netherlands used to be my team.

match between Argentina & England was also great.

i think we finally agree on something, netherlands used to be my team too, thanks to the greatest striker that ever played football Marco Van Basten, though messed up at the world cup in 1990.

but i saw the light early enough, i be die hard Assurie fan now, the italians are the best.

no use style try be last
na me win

france 98 against belgium. Na orange man give am the red card

sorry but i dont share ur views about him leaving and dont think ur choice of coaches are better than Rafa either. Maybe Hitzfield but then i have my reservations if he would be able to do better with the current crop of players. Just my personal opinion.

but yes Rafa's tactics could be furstrating at times, imagine using one striker against wigan at anfield, it just doesnt make any sense.

cooljoe:
Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, and it's only sensible that one respect the opinion of others, no matter how stupid they may look.

believe me i totally agree with u on dat, and dats why u wouldnty see me argue about someone else's chopice of the best world cup.

so which opinion is this person

davidif:
I love it when guys talk about old world cups just to feel special and knowledgable than all of us whereas some of them were not even born. In fact, NTA back in the day, barely broadcasted this world cup matches, it wasn't until USA '94 that most nigerians were introduced to the world cup and it was because that was our first tournament. So you guys who just read magazines, newspapers, watch highlights and old films and then decide that it would be a good idea to come and fool us should just go sit down somewhere jare.

really trying to make other than trying to rubbish other people's choice. na me say make them never born am when Maradonna dey dazzle? or the likes of platini, zico, socrates abi na me say make e dey fully dependent on NTA wey he come dey talk say na 1994 nigerians know about world cup, cos dats when we first qualified.

think about it, does dat make sense to u?

why the guy no just respond by saying his best world cup and leave others with theirs

true

guys u have no right to criticize the poster cos its a really sensible question
who is the better footballer Taye Taiwo or Martins
just make ur choice who cares the position they play

so is FIFA now stupid for giving awards to the best player in the world
so tell me is Kaka a better goalkeeper than Casillas? how come he is being honoured as the best player in the world, when we all know they play different positions . or is it dat everybody was rated with him in his position? can anyone of u critics answer the question?

even though i share ur views as to them playing different positions, i beg to disagree that the question is wrong. we should be careful when we criticize people especially when we dont know better. so whats the basis for choosing african footballer of the year or the golden ball award at the end of a tournament, do all the player4s play in the same position?

for me Martins is a better player cos the impact he makes in his position as a striker for both club and country is more than that of taiye taiwo. simple

Godfather 1&2
As good as it gets
english patient
LA confidential

gotta get back to work will give u the rest later in the day

sorry but i just couldnt believe somebody could even say something worse dan Chukwu, what has utaka done that would make him at par with drogba or even better than kanu, whether on past or present form.

dont u have to prove urself as being good b4 a good team comes 4 u, till he attains dat height where by he'll be consistent all thru the season i dont see dat happening.

u think say Kanu and Drogba fluke am reach where them dey

sorry 4 my initial comment. pls accept my apology.

hope we can sustain or second half of the season form we've been having for the past 2 seasons, if we can beat the big 3 away which im really not optimistic about cos we've not under Rafa, then the title might not be outta reach

my problem is the lads drop their heads too easily, them no dey fight, i don tire

but still u'll never walk alone

davidif:
I love it when guys talk about old world cups just to feel special and knowledgable than all of us whereas some of them were not even born. In fact, NTA back in the day, barely broadcasted this world cup matches, it wasn't until USA '94 that most nigerians were introduced to the world cup and it was because that was our first tournament. So you guys who just read magazines, newspapers, watch highlights and old films and then decide that it would be a good idea to come and fool us should just go sit down somewhere jare.

u shouldnt be so proud of displaying ur ignorance in public esp on the net where the whole world can see. whats wrong with watching old tapes of world cup matches and enjoying them. whats wrong with being knowledgable about something u love. for some of us football is a way of life if not a religion, and so u cannot get enough.

na my fault say u dey ignorant or say na NTA u get access to? some of us invest in buying DVDs, tapes, world cup history, invest time in doing research while u sit in ur sitting room watching the super eagles.

and by the way point of correction the 1990 world cup was beamed live in Nigeria, i wonder how old u were then so u probably wouldnt know, mexico 86 im not so sure but i have seen almost all the world cup matches and have most of them on tape so sorry to depress u for ur limited knowledge.

instead of feeling bad u are ignorant why dont u try to do something about it?
NOTE: for some football is a passion and a religion, for others its just 22 men chasing a round object.

if u still have it by next week i ll get in touch with u. im currently outta town now should be back sometime next week.

would dat 8% or is it 13% population u are talking about not be more than the less than 1% we have in Nigeria today and of course they are nigerians so which is actually worse.

at least the white man go provide electricity, good road, medical facilities, water dat we nigerians of today are clamouring for, or are we making all this noise to share the wealth?

yeah i agree with u about the Red Indians, was trying to make a correlation, maybe i was outta line, like i said in my first post, its meant to educate not for people to start trading words, and im not interested in sentiments either, just plain facts.

like i said ive not done my complete homework on the topic reason for posting this thread, hoping people like u with facts/info would make my research easier. i know its a sensitive topic one of the reasons why i pointed it out in my first post. ur opinion and ur reasons is all i m interested in really, no be say i be german or i dey related to the guy. just want to know what people think dats all

my thoughts exactly, couldnt own up to it.

dont worry u did the right thing apart from the crying part sha

since u no fit fight try not to dey follow woman wey get sharp mouth cos e go still happen again

Seun:
Why should the number of times a girl is having sex concern you? Don't be a busy-body; live your own life.

na wah 4 this guy o, so cos u be moderator/ site admin no mean say make ur mouth come dey menstrate, if u no get answer or anything good to say why u no fit just shut up or wetin concern topic concern busy-body

na u dey encourage people to dey insult 4 this forum. did u know why i asked the question in the first place?

a girl that has had many boyfriends and has had a healthy sexual relationship with them i.e has not slept with any man outside her relationship but has had it countless times if meter dey na out of count e go read or

a girl that has a lot less sex compared to the first girl but not in any relationship she is more of a no strings attached girl, note more of an independent lady has it anytime she feels like but not often like once in a while kinda thing.

pls no they are both bad response

ifyalways:
do you really mean that?
can you explain better please .

well from my understanding cheating is when a man gives the affection and trust( what u guys call love) meant for his partner to someone else, while sex could just be a physical thing

now the danger is cheating can eventually lead to sex and sex can also lead to cheating in the long run
lets see, okay imagine this scenerio
lets use a man

a man that spends time with another woman, shows her more affection, listens to her, takes her opinion whether right or wrong over his partner's, u know does all them lovely stuffs for the other woman but does not sleep with that woman is  4 me a cheat and is worse than

a man that does the opposite but his only fault is the having sex part, i mean we are only human and no human being is perfect.

cheating is a continious thing and most times brings about a rival while sex could be a one off thing either out of boredom, curiousity, drunkeness, habit etc but no harm intended but the other one is a bridge of what u guys call love which 4 me is trust

just think about it and try to be objective, don't cloud your reasoning with sentiments and use the society we live in today as case study. ofcourse there are exceptions to this rule of men/ women who not only love their partners but also have sex with just their partners.

Again its just my take and a personal opinion, u don't have to agree with it.

probably distraction from another man. most likely. give her the space but put ur ears to the ground, though i dont think there is anything u can do about it if dats the case cos my people usually say dog wey wan lost no dey hear hunter's whistle.

too bad ur in love, wish u luck

and b4 i forget, pls dont start making female friends esp. nigerians just because u want to understand ur husband, believe me thats the first step on the road to Perdition.

how do u reply to this


sphinx_g
Posts: 26

Offline

The Concept Of War
« on: Today at 02:16:59 PM »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAPTER ONE
1.1 THE CONCEPT OF MILITARY EDUCATION
The history of a military academy such as the Nigeria Defence Academy (NDA) is rooted in the history of structured military education and as the latter is rooted in the history and nature of armed conflict, an overview of the history of armed conflict is indispensable to this project. A brief outline of the earliest origins of war and the circumstances which have prompted statesmen and leaders throughout history to wage war will be attempted here.
Warfare is as old as man. The earliest primates fought over fruits and berries, and possibly over women. Undoubtedly, those clashes were less sophisticated than a bar room brawl and the outcome were often as inconclusive as that.
As the human population grew, communities grew, and began to hunt for resources in numbers. Large hunting parties would go after meat and fruits for the tribe while the women and children camped near sources of fresh water. This is probably the stage where large scale fighting between humans first started. Tribes fought over the proceeds of hunts and particularly productive fruit trees.
At this point in human history, warfare was nothing more than a mass brawl which in contemporary military terms is known as a melee. The weapons used were only as sophisticated as stones and clubs. This changed rapidly though.
Beginning in Mesopotamia, states produced sufficient agricultural surplus that full-time ruling elites and military commanders could emerge. While the bulk of military forces were still farmers, the society could support having them campaigning rather than working the land for a portion of each year. Thus, organized armies developed for the first time. These new armies could help states grow in size and became increasingly centralized, and the first empire, that of the Sumerians, formed in Mesopotamia1.
As human communities grew increasingly sophisticated, the reasons for conflict accordingly expanded. Economic reasons were chief of these. Trading disputes and acts of criminal competition often drove clans to wage war against each other. Another reason was personal aggrandizement. Military leaders who led their communities to victory in war could expect generous office and awesome power. The legendary founder of Babylon Nimrod was famed as a hunter, leader, warrior and pioneer. He led his people to victory over neighbouring tribes and then established the city of Babylon. Needless to say, he was the ruler of that city.
As wars became more frequent, the need for devoted military organization arose. Initially, the earliest organised states like Egypt, Assyria, and Mesopotamia had no standing armies other than the personal bodyguard of the ruler. These troops were the only trained weapon bearers in antiquity; they were also entrusted with the task of mobilizing and disciplining civilians and slaves mustered to arms in time of war.
Organized battles emerged around the year 6000 BC. The first archaeological record, though disputed, of a prehistoric battle is about seven thousand years old, and it is located on the Nile in Egypt, in an area known as Cemetery 117. A large number of bodies, many with arrowheads embedded in their skeletons, indicate that they may have been the casualties of a battle2.
However by 3000 BC, the Egyptians had begun to organize a standing military force within her borders. This was the precursor to expansionist wars against such states as the Mitanni, the Hittites; and larger confrontations with the Mesopotamians and the Assyrians.
At that time however, warfare was still proto-primitive. No armor was used during the 3rd and early 2nd Millennium BC. War was crude, in tactics and weapons. Ancient strategy focused broadly on the twin goals of convincing the enemy that continued war was more costly than submitting, and of making the most gain from war as possible3.
Forcing the enemy to submit generally consisted of defeating their army in the field. Once the enemy force was routed, the threat of siege, civilian deaths, and the like often forced the enemy to the bargaining table. However, this goal could be accomplished by other means. Burning enemy fields would force the choice of surrendering or fighting a pitched battle. Waiting an enemy out until their army had to disband due to the beginning of the harvest season or running out of payment for mercenaries presented an enemy with a similar choice.
The first weapons of war were the fist, clubs, spiked clubs, crude spears and stones. These were not to change for another 1000 years. Early armies in Egypt and China followed a pattern of using massed infantry armed with bows and spears 1500-1000 BC. This was to change rapidly too.
From 1000BC, as states grew in size and the implications of war expanded, military planners began to develop tactics and weapons which would increase the likelihood of victory. Chariot mounted bow men emerged, followed by advanced tactics.
The first dateable recorded sea battle occurred about 1210 BC: Suppiluliuma II, king of the Hittites, defeated a fleet from Cyprus, and burned their ships at sea4
In the Far East, the Chinese under the Chou dynasty 1122 -1121 had begun to develop a well organized and powerful military. Concepts of military planning were introduced to Chinese society during the Warring States period; during this time Sun Tzu penned the world’s oldest military treatise - The art of war.
The first account of siege warfare dates back to the Protodynastic Period of Egypt. The major advance in weapons technology and warfare began around 1600 BC when the Egyptians fought and finally defeated the Hyksos people who had made themselves lords of Lower Egypt. It was during this period the horse and chariot were introduced into Egypt. Other new technologies included the sickle sword, body armour and improved bronze casting.
In the 4th century BC, the Macedonians under Philip II of Macedon and his son Alexander the Great successfully integrated horse-borne warriors and the traditional Greek infantry, creating a military force of unmatched power.5
It was in this era that a serious attempt was made to inculcate matters of military studies in the education of the young. Greek philosophers like Herodotus began to make records of battles within the memory of living persons. From his pioneering work, traveling tutors began to teach the sons of the nobility of warfare and the considerations that surround it.
Empires have come and gone, wars have been waged endlessly, history has been written and re written several times. From all his battles, man learnt only one important thing; the business of war is serious business. In the words of Sun Tzu,
The art of war is of vital importance to the State. It is a matter of life and death, a road either to safety or to ruin. Hence it is a subject of inquiry which can on no account be neglected6.
Which is why statesmen since the time of the Greeks have devoted time and resources to train the future generals and statesmen in those arts that are essential to the strategic balance of state power. In time, societies came to realize that 300 men armed with clubs and spikes fighting a force of aggregate size and arms could not assure any victory for either side. The need for winning strategies and or weaponry soon arose. Part of the strategy of antique warfare included having a larger and better trained population to sustain long periods of internecine conflict. This necessarily included the need to train upcoming generations in the skills of battle (as distinct from war). Hence originated military education. The earliest report of organized military instruction dates back to the Egyptian civilization where the pharaoh conscripted slaves into his army and forced them to receive military instruction.
By 500 BC, the strategic concept of war had made great advances. Military philosophers like Sun Tzu and Chanakya were redefining the way generals thought. Sun Tzu wrote that:
"Do not repeat the tactics which have gained you one victory, but let your methods be regulated by the infinite variety of circumstances." 7
He is thought of as the father of military philosophy.
By the 10th century BC, organized military instruction was developed extensively by the Greek state of Sparta. In antiquity Sparta was a Dorian Greek military state, originally centred in Laconia. The Spartans trained their citizens from birth to become warriors. This process involved both physical and leadership command training. As a city-state devoted to military training, Sparta possessed the most formidable army in the Greek world, and after achieving notable victories over the Athenian and Persian Empires, regarded itself as the natural protector of Greece. The Spartans fought in a tight formation called the phalanx. They used longer spears than had been seen before and wore more armour than others. When confronted with the massed infantry tactics of the Persians in the Persian Wars, the Spartans emerged victorious despite far smaller numbers.8
The impressive military standing that Sparta achieved inspired later states to give heed formal training for their armed forces. The Romans began training legionnaires in the skills of war. Romans of noble blood also received instruction in fighting skills and military command. In this regard, the tutors relied on examples drawn from Greek military history.
However, most forms of military instruction available before the 15th century BC placed higher emphasis on tactics of battle rather than the overall strategy of war. Strategy and tactics are closely related. Both deal with distance, time and force but strategy is large scale while tactics are small scale. Originally strategy was understood to govern the prelude to a battle while tactics controlled its execution. As Clausewitz stated, a successful military strategy may be a means to an end, but it is not an end in itself.9 There are numerous examples in history where victory on the battlefield has not translated into long term peace, security or tranquillity.
In a rapidly changing world, the need was felt for capable persons trained in the requirements of leading not only armies but entire nations. Conventional military training was highly deficient in this regard.
The father of modern strategic study, Carl von Clausewitz, defined military strategy as "the employment of battles to gain the end of war." Hence, he gave the pre-eminence to a triumvirate of "arts" or "sciences" that govern the conduct of warfare; the others being tactics, the execution of plans and manoeuvring of forces in battle, and logistics, the maintenance of an army.
By the 15th century, European leaders had recognized the need for training of military personnel to conduct organized warfare. As French statesman Georges Clemenceau said, "War is too important a business to be left to soldiers."
In the 18th century military strategy was subjected to serious study. In the Seven Years' War (1756-1763), Frederick the Great improvised a "strategy of exhaustion" to hold off his opponents and conserve his Prussian forces. Assailed from all sides by France, Austria, Russia and Sweden, Frederick exploited his central position which enabled him to move his army along interior lines and concentrate against one opponent at a time. Unable to achieve victory, he was able to stave off defeat until a diplomatic solution was reached. Frederick's "victory" led to great significance being placed on "geometric strategy" which emphasized lines of manoeuvre, awareness of terrain and possession of critical strong points.
Political leaders therefore sought institutions capable of training not only field generals but thinkers and leaders of nations. This led to the establishment of modern military universities.
The RMA Sandhurst was formed in 1947, from a merger of the Royal Military Academy in Woolwich (which trained officers for the Royal Artillery and Royal Engineers from 1741 to 1939) and the Royal Military College at Sandhurst. Following the ending of National Service in the UK, the RMAS became the sole establishment for initial officer training in the British Army as the Mons Officer Training School in Aldershot was closed.
The Royal Military College opened its doors in 1802; coincidentally the same year as Saint Cyr and West Point. Amongst the current Military Academies only the Dutch Military Academy is older
The Koninklijke Militaire Academie (KMA) is the Royal Military Academy of the Netherlands. It is located in the castle of Breda. The KMA takes care of the education and training of the officers of the Dutch airforce (KLu) and the Dutch army (KL). It has done so since the early 1800s. The training of the officers of the navy and marines is mainly done by the Koninklijk Instituut voor de Marine (KIM) in Den Helder.

1.1 BRIEF HISTORY OF NIGERIAN MILITARY
The Nigerian military began as a detachment of the British colonial regiment. With the conquest of Lagos in 1861, the British administrator of Lagos, Captain J. Glover RN raised in 1862 a force of 100 men known as the Lagos constabulary11.
After the royal Niger Company was granted a charter which enabled it to establish its government over the delta and the valleys of the Niger and Benue, it raised the royal Niger constabulary. This force grew from 150 men in 1886 to 1000 men at the end of 1889.
The title of constabulary as applied to these forces belied the fact that they were essentially military forces trained along military lines, officered by military officers, equipped with artillery and used to fight colonial wars12. An important step in the development of a modern army was taken in 1897 when the British government needed a more effective military force to counter French incursions in parts of northern Nigeria already claimed by Britain. Consequently col. F.D. Lugard was sent wit a team of officers to raise two battalions which they did in the same year. By December 1898, 1 battalion had 907 other ranks while 2nd battalion had 800 other ranks13.
By 1900, the total number of men in the Nigerian army had risen to 415314.
With the amalgamation of northern and southern Nigeria in 1914, the reorganisation of the military in Nigeria became necessary. All the army battalions in the two parts of the country were amalgamated and designated the Nigerian regiment with Nos 1 and 2 battalions stationed in the north while 3 and 4 battalions were stationed in the south15.
It is noteworthy that up till the eve of independence, the Nigerian army was still designated the Royal Nigerian Regiment of the West African frontier force. At independence, there were 228 British officers and 80 British NCO’s in the regiment which was commanded by a British general until 196516.
The history of the NN is traceable to the activities of the royal Niger Company which established a small navy to protect its interests in the Niger area. It established the first colonial naval force in the hinterland in 1886 with its HQ first at Asaba and later at Lokoja while Akassa to the south remained an important navy station and a repair base17.
Some of the company’s vessels like the Empire and Liberty were armed with 21/2 pounder guns in addition to their complements of small arms and machine guns. When the charter of the RNC was abrogated in 1900, the British government took over the ships and paid compensation for all the war materials from the company. By 1914 however, most of the vessels which formed part of the RNC naval arm were already out of commission. That same year, the Nigerian marine department was formed and it took part in military action against the Germans in Cameroon. However the department was not assigned any combat roles and performed only auxiliary functions like dredging and ferry service18.
The British government did not feel the need to provide a fully functional navy for the colony especially bearing in mind that the royal navy could always fulfil any of the duties which such force would be required to do. In 1956, the Nigerian marine department gave way to the Nigerian naval service which was charged with the naval defence of Nigeria within its territorial waters as well as related functions.
By Independence Day in 1960, the Nigerian military had two arms; an army and the Nigerian naval service. Both services were heavily dependent on Britain for weapons and officers. By January 1960, there were 228 British officers to 48 Nigerian combat officers.
However in 1965, the last British commander of the Nigerian army Major general Welby-Everard left the country and was replaced by Major General Ironsi. By 1966, there were no remaining foreigners in the Nigerian military19.
The last military service to be established for Nigeria is the Airforce which was established in 1964.



THE MILITARY TODAY
Presently, the Nigerian military is comprised of about 85,000 officers and men in the three services.
The army is structures as follows: 1st mechanised division Kaduna is allocated the north-west sector, the 2nd mechanised division based in Ibadan controls the south-west sector, the 3rd armoured division Jos is assigned the north-east sector while 82nd mechanised division Enugu controls the south-east sector.
The navy is structured as follows: Eastern naval command with HQ at Calabar, Western Naval command with HQ at Lagos, and the Naval training command with HQ in Port Harcourt.
The air force is divided into three commands: the tactical air command based at Makurdi, the training command and the support command.


The full article can be viewed at www.effikoland.com/blogs

credit to Igwe Uchenna. University of Abuja


someone actually opened 3 threads 4 this (2 in the same section and one in another section), why i dont know, what he wants i dont know, the only reply this person should get is insults which 4 me is worse than u ignoring it.