₦airaland Forum

MangekyoAlt:
I'm not anti-west. My 5 favorite countries are Israel, US, UK, Russia & Canada. It's the western propaganda that I'm against. I have nothing against the west.

Meanwhile, you still don't get it, do you?
Russia has more nuclear weapons than USA, UK and the entire NATO combined!

The fact that China got them as allies means a lot. If China attacks Taiwan, Russia won't do anything neither will they send any help or reinforcements. But the moment USA intervenes and give Taiwan a helping hand, Russia is likely going to do the same and that would spell doom for the US

LMFAO Air defence system for nuclear warheads? What joke
Look let me tell you something. ICBM's that carry warheads now carry decoys too. The possibilities of defence system intercepting warheads isn't more than 30% at best


The reality here is, US would get dismantled and annihilated if them chuck mouth for another person matter

Where did Russia sign any Defense treaty with China to come to her aid in case of an attack It doesn't exist. They collaborate but there's treaty whatsoever.
You keep dodging facts just to laugh for nothing sake. Why would Russia risk her own citizens for China? No answer from you..
Dude you really need to read a lot. I really thought you were good on these military, history ish but so far, not good enough.
ICBM do not deploy decoys until their terminal stage after re-entry. THAAD system takes out ballistic missiles in their intermediary stage (in space when it hasn't deploy the decoy yet or hasn't separated into different warheads).
The Aegis SM-3 if spotted early enough can take out ballistic missile before it gets to the intermediary stage.

MangekyoAlt:
Your reply shows that you clearly domt know what happened in the world War.


The Philippines, China, and and other country were the first 3 countries that Japan conquered. The United States sanctioned them for this barbaric act. The replied by attacking pear harbor. Us declared war on them. Now, Philippine & Chinese troops joined the US in the battle against Japan as they were already conquered. Japan fouht against 4 countries. The US, the remaining troops from Japanese and China, and a few battalion of British troops too. If you think the battle was strictly between us and Japan, then you're wrong.


that is what they made you believe
The US fought alongside the philipino for that island mate. Don't worry, I'll post a video later in the night when I've data again and tag you.... It seems you need some enlightening


While this is true, the island never belonged to Japan at first. That was just an island that they built a military base on after forcefully taking it from some other country


US had just little troops in the battalions that invades Italy. Those troops were dominated with British troops as well as troops from Canada and other European countries.


The Germans had cut off 500k British soldiers from Britain after they lured them out.
The same Germans decided not to attack them. Those troops were literally stranded and would been annihilated had Germany focused on them. The British later sent a rescue team with destroyers, and even normal transport ships to bring those troops back. They successfully brought back those troops after 2 days. Germany attacked Britain with fighters jets and they were getting shot down with anti aircraft guns from the royal navy battle ships
Had the Germans supported their aircrafts with battleships, those battle ship would've kept the royal navy busy while the aircrafts laid seige on Britain. In spite of this, the German airforce still managed to destroy a quarter of Britain.
You think Germany wouldn't have been able to bring their ground troops into Britain if they wanted? What a joke. They had destroyed a part of Britain already. They would've been able to transport their troops via ships into the destroyed rejion and then launch attacks from there. But they went after russia instead


The soviet union were allies with the Germans? Hahahahaha lmfao this is the biggest joke I've seen in a very very long time!
The soviet union were never allied with the Soviets man are you high?
The Soviets signed an agreement, more like a treaty with the Germans never to attack each other. There was, no alliance. The only alliance Germany had were with Japan and Italy. Whoever told you they were allied with soviet union properly lied to you.
Meanwhile, if you're not give me a source that captured the USSR saying they would've lost without the military equipments they received from us, then I'll take it as one of your jokes

The problem with your kind is that you try so hard to downplay America involvement in WW2. So I'll leave you with the photos below.
Photo 1: the island I was talking about. It was clearly America and Japan. No Britain or Phillipine. The Philippines you keep going on and on about didn't even the capable to sail for that island in the first place as at WW2.

Photo 3: Stalin own admission claim or are you going to come up with Western propaganda as I suspected. Even Churchill in his memoir said He was happy when America formally entered WW2 because Britain being defeated or not, the end of Hitler was near.

Lastly, what do you call someone you share spoils of war with and a treaty not to attack one another? Foe or Ally?
I didn't want to answer any of your "questions" this time around because it's clear you only want to twist facts to suit your agenda.
I asked a simple question and still now you haven't answered. Why did Hitler that was so close according to you of defeating Britain suddenly turn around and decided to attack SU that he had treaty with? When from the beginning Hitler's aim was to cleanse Austria, CzechSlovakia and Poland. It's either you know why and don't want to or you're actually ignorance of what actually happened in WW2

MangekyoAlt:
I should not be replying comments like this
But I'll just try to reply.

Britain and France declared war on Germany but they never attacked Germany out of fears

Poland was strong allies with Britain and France. When Germany attacked them, the president of Poland then said they were allies with 2 very strong nations in Britain and France and that they would send troops for them to flush the Germans who were already laying seige on Poland out.

Las Las, neither Britain nor France sent any help
Two countries that had declared war on Germany oo... They decided not to help Poland so as to avoid a direct confrontation with Germany. But Las Las Germany still brought the war to them, and whooped France

If they had helped Poland then, they would've stood a chance as it would've been 3vs1 but fear no let them.

The moral lesson here is. No country would help another country if he realizes that the price he'll pay would be too much.

China is a nuclear country. If they attacked Taiwan, the US knows that if they intervene, it would escalate into a full blown war and no nuclear country would want to fight another nuclear country.

Even if us were to end up winning chiba, which is very unlikely since Russia is likely going to help China, then the US would know that the price they'll pay is millions of their citizens dying, and also part of American infrastructure being destroyed.
A single nuclear weapon fired from China would wipe out a full city in the US. A full city could contain a few thousand to millions of citizens.

The US would have to come to a decision. If they're willing to pay the price, then they would intervene. But if they aren't, they'll let won't.

But me personally I dont see how US would take any risk for Taiwan. They'll just issue threats and maybe sanction China as they did to Russia when they annexed Crimea

Like always with the Anti-West people, it's just vibes and inshallah with you guys.
So from your beautiful crafted analogy, the US with more than 10times nuclear stockpile of China adding to the best air defense system again ballistic missile will be crush by China because they have nuclear weapons.
If we want to have a nuclear show down.... China arsenal will finish and the US will still have enough left to go against any other County Bar Russia.
Also from your analogy, why would Russia risk it's own citizens for China (same thing you're saying for Taiwan).
It's like when you guys want to praise China and their likes, you guys tend to forget that the US is also nuclear armed.
Aside Russia they are the only country right now with first strike capabilities.
Make it make sense

Mftivi:
why would they attack Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Libya ?

Attack Iraq first for invading Kuwait. Second because Saddam Hussein.
Iran is only sanctioned by the US just like North Korea. Haven't heard of any full blown war attack.
Afghanistan under the Taliban government was a breeding ground for terrorist groups (Osama planned and executed 9/11 while in Afghanistan). Invade Afghanistan to flush out the terrorists network.
Same with Libya.
Not saying the above are all true but that's the reason you'll get unless you have top secret clearance.
I have answered yours. Now don't be a child answering question with question. Answer mine?

MangekyoAlt:
Russia is actually the reason why China can talk today. They know russia got their back.
Also, the US would have a very difficult decision to make if China eventually invades Taiwan. They will have to choose whether to help Taiwan and meet a miserable defeat, or just snub them out of fear and live, the same decision great Britain and France took when they betrayed Poland in the ww2 after the Germans attacked them.
I just they laugh all those who think the US would risk their neck for small Taiwan

Why did Britain and France declare war on Germany Did they not fight the war??
So if America is so afraid of defending Taiwan, why is it that more than a decade later, China hasn't unified with Taiwan.
Imagine if it took this long for America to initiate the Gulf War.
China said if Japan still support the defense of Taiwan, they'll bomb Japan during the Olympics. Olympics has finished, they have even concluded the paraolympics as a side bonus. Japan is still supporting the defense of Taiwan. We never see any smoke yet. Abi they meant the next Olympics Japan will host which is like decades from now??

Mftivi:
is that the point is this whole thing ? US simply don't want them having nukes cos if you attack a nuke having country they will nuke you back. Why can USA have nukes and North Korea can't ? If any country shouldn't have nukes it's USA cos they are the only country that have ever droped nukes on civilians wiping off a city in Japan.

and why would the US attack North Korea?

Popesuccess:
But truly, the UN will always rise when it comes to small nations. But nations like US, UK, CHINA and RUSSIA do as they like.

The UN Security Council does not rise because it's a small country that's involved. Nuclear weapon is no joke. It's not conventional weapon that if dropped in a certain place or building, within a year or two that place or building will be back to normal. A nuclear weapon if dropped on a building doesn't only affect the building but goes to a certain radius contaminating the air and water for close to "50years".
Those country you mentioned already had Nuclear weapons before the Nuclear treaty was signed. Right now, the US and Russia are reducing their Nuclear stockpile. China is being warned about increasing their Nuclear Arsenal so it's not only the small countries.
The large effect of radiation from these weapons is why the UN don't want countries that doesn't possess it yet from having it. You can go being trigger happy with a nuclear weapon

MangekyoAlt:
I'll agree with your first paragraph.
Meabwhile, I know of the Island you're talking about (can't remember the name). That island didn't belong to the Japanese to begin with. I think they belonged to the Philippines. The Japanese captured it and moved some of their troops there.
US, alongside some Philippines troops and British also decided to attack it, take it, and then launch attacks from there to Japan. That island was very important to them since it would serve as their final base. It was the only close island that any military could stay and launch attacks from.
Meanwhile, US had attacked that island earlier, but they were captured alongside some Philippines and tortured.
US later attacked it again but this time with almost everything in their arsenal. They captured it but with a cost of 2k American troops.
US began bringing their military hardwares into the island.
They started using fighter aircrafts and bombers to seige Tokyo. But the island was still too far from Tokyo, so most of their aircrafts were always running out of fuel and crashing before they even reached their targets. Las Las us had to move their aircraft carriers forward, attacking with battleships too.

US never captured any inch of Japan. They were receiving it hot. Japan was even using suicide bombers who would load their aircrafts with bomb and then crash it into us battleships. They sank many of their battleships and would've sank all of them. Us lost thousands of troops and the only way they could get away with a win was to use nukes.

Give me the source that states that USSR said they would've lost had us not supplied them with military equipments that were barely even needed....

Nonsense! Germany would've destroyed great Britain had they not shift their attention to USSR. They destroyed half of Britain already. The British were just holding on. The home of queen Elizabeth was even destroyed.

Hitler didn't even attack Britain with everything as he did with France. All he attacked Britain with was with only fighter aircrafts. No battleships, no ground troops, just aircrafts. I bet you if he had attacked with everything, Britain would've been wiped out.

Yes, they really needed that oil fields. But that also could've been done later. They were getting supplies from France, Poland and other captured territories. Just defeat Britain first before turning your attention to USSR, the man say no.

Britain is highly overrated. The US is the reason why they can talk. Any country with a good military would give them a run for their money

Really, the Phillipines and the Britain? The Island was a war that was purely America against Japan. It had no strategic relevance in the grand scheme of things to both sides. Japan was occurring the Island before the US decide to take it. The US didn't fight for the Island with anyone alongside them. While fighting there, they were also fighting in North Africa and later Italy. Like I said, one of the reasons that delayed the Normandy landing.
I don't get what you said by Germany didn't attack Britain with everything they had. Do you even know Britain?? it's an island (i.e surrounded by water) how will you get boots on ground if you don't defeat their Navy??
The largest battleship of WW2 was German, guess which country sunk it??
I told you to check about the Soviet admission yourself so you won't call it Western propaganda on my part. But if you still want it, I'll get it for you if you answer this question:
Why did Hitler declare war on the Soviet Union all of a sudden that was his ally at the beginning of the war?? They shared the spoil after the invasion of Poland.

MangekyoAlt:
Try not to insult me man. You won't like it if I decide to.

Meanwhile, The truth is, the Nazis brought the defeat upon themselves.

After defeating France, they were making progress with their seige on great Britain.
I think they should've focused on Britain, won them, then before switching their focus to soviet union.

The soviet union were never going to enter the way, since they had a treaty with the Nazis already never to attack each other.

Now Germany, Italy and Japan signed their alliance. Japan attacked China and Philippines.
The US imposed sanctions on them because of it. Japan reacted by attacking pearl harbor, sinking several us battleships and also destroying many aircrafts.
US reacted by declaring war on Japan the next day.
Germany seeing that US declared war on Japan, an ally, also declared war on USA.

USA and Soviet union were the two biggest country remaining. France was defeated, england was almost defeated.

If Germany had left the Soviets and destroyed Britain, then launched simultaneous attacks on the US with Japan, they could've easily won.
Now they left Britain and Britain got their shit together and joined the US who gave them supplies too.

Also, stop the crap man. The Soviets beating the Nazis ended everything. The US were just too lazy to win Japan. They were literally getting their ass whooped.

The Soviets were alongside the polish battling the Nazis for 3 years and ended up winning and you're telling me it's "just because they got to Berlin first" what a joke. You expect the US to get to Berlin ahead of Soviets that had been battling the Nazis long before they even joined the war. If this isn't laughable

Meanwhile, stop trying to give us all the praise here.
US alongside Britain and other European countries all attacked Italy and Africa. Nothing like it was the US that won the battle.



Anyway, I'll be honest. If either of USA or Soviets hadn't joined the war, the world would've been conquered.

Few things you gross over. Japan declare war on USA after attacking Pearl Harbor (they were supposed to declare before attacking). The next day Germany did same. The US formally entered WW2 after receiving Japanese communique. The US was a major supplier of millutary equipments to the Allied countries during the war.
Again you said The US never defeated Japan, there's this island they both were fighting over (which caused the delay of Normandy invasion), guess who won there
Again, even the Soviet Union acknowledged that without the "Lend and Lease" program the US did for the Soviets, they might have lost to Hitler. Check the records, please use Yandex search not Google so you won't say it's Western propaganda.
Lastly, Germany were never going to get a Britain surrender without unlimited oil supply (something they were getting from the Soviet but only as per agreed). One of the reasons Hitler attack the Soviet Union was the oil field in Ukraine, that was the goal of the war again the Soviet Union.
You can check also, Britain is one of the hardest country to invade because it's a fortified island with one of the best Navy. Their wars against France, Spain and Portugal taught them a lot about securing the island against foreign invasion.

what's a bus to a train??
smh... you do realize they serve different purpose right?
how do you start comparing a Fold to a normal phone??

FunnyDude:
This is what happened. She used banking code. So she just sent it hoping it was correct.

But I don't mind to spend money to track that person

I don't know of any bank that won't show you the account name right before you input your transaction pin. It's a requirement for them to do that. Banking code or not

MrPaul2:
What stupid privacy are you talking about? He sent them money for rent yearly, he should save up three years rentage and get them a land for a start. They’re even helping him to save up

I see it as a family matter which is why I wrote two statement. If you read the first one, it correspond with your statement. But we still can dismiss OP's feeling because be it as it may once you get older, your parents shouldn't just come to your house or open your room as they like, they have to ask for your consent first.

RZArecta:
he sent them rent and they collected the money. You don't understand where he's coming from, normally you wouldn't like people making use of your property without your permission. Their moving into his house wasn't in any prior discussion, they should have granted him that courtesy if not as their child then at least as a human being. He shouldn't shout but they should have told him first. That move if theirs has completely altered his plans because we don't know what type of jobs he's doing in that foreign land

please read the part where I wrote "on the other hand". At the end of it all, it's a family matter and the right thing to do is discuss it among themselves instead of following outside opinions.

Taich:
I think the problem is clash of culture. As Africans, your parents plays a vital role in all your life choices to death. That's why mother and daughter inlaw squabbles is a common occurrence around us.

Op should recognise the fact that he is still that suckling toddler in the eyes of his parents and he has to pay black tax till death.
The earlier he recognises this fact and negotiate his tax rates, the better for him.

yeah... that's why I said to his parents, the move wasn't wrong because they see it as helping him

Aethiops:
saw ur ad

are you interested??
Message on Whatsapp

you didn't consider your parents while planning your new house??

if this story dey true sha because.............
to them they are not wrong though. Why pay rent when they can live for free while you save up heh rent money.
On the other hand, you're also not wrong, invasion of privacy

SavageResponse:
As far as other Nigerians are concerned anyone from Akwa Ibom or Cross River State is regarded as a Calabar person. We don't have time to start separating you guys into Efik or Ibibio etc

Well I'm not a Calabar person. Thank you very much. I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate being call what you're not so please make an effort. No offense

Nebes:
Take it easy. In the north, almost all southerners are referred to as Igbo. If you are from the south it’s either you are Igbo or Yoruba.

like I said it's prerogative that in such scenarios, corrections be made. I even said it right there that I correct people when they make that assumption.
You never know when you might get caught up in something that doesn't concern you because you're perceived to be who you're not

7victor:
They call people from Akwa Ibom and Cross river "Calabar people"

At least that is what other tribes call us.

Akwa Ibomites = Akwa Ibom

Cross Riverians = Cross River (where Calabar is).

The Europeans used to refer to the black race as monkeys. Would you prefer being called that because "that's what other tribes call you" no offense

I always do well to correct people when they make that mistake no matter how trivial it may seems. You never know what might happen tomorrow and something that was meant to go to Akwa Ibom gets channeled to Cross River and the reason might be "sheybi they are all Calabar people"

ppogba:
That he was or was not bang average is debatable.
His exploit in the German leaguec would not have earned him so much acclaim if he were a non british palyer.

Aside that, take away the stats and focus on the technical ability of the player and you will agree he is average. Comapre hil with his age mates like foden, greenwood etc and you will see he is far behind.

Maybe the only time you have since him play is at Man Utd because it's clear you don't know the player you're talking about

When did Senator Godswill Akpabio become a Calabar man?
Essien Udim in Akwa Ibom sounds like Calabar to you??
Please next time do the right thing and stop dragging people that are not from your tribe into it.

ppogba:
It is not about the media alone.

It is all British conspiracy. From the media to the ex-footballers to the once underground that you know not about. They all know that he is bang average but of course the conspiracy superceeds.

He wasn't bang average.... Stats and eye test are there to prove that.
Different players adjust differently to new environment

emmnprince:
Abi o! Every relationship is unique.

But there's this kind unique bond between couples when they settle down together to eat at the table—even eating from the same plate.

sure...

ashewoboy:
won't the husband find it disrespectful? "like are you supposed to be eating before I return?" what if that is what the husband wants? what should the wife do?

like I said... discuss it with your partner and come up with what works for the two of you instead of listening to strangers and doing more damage than good

Marriage or relationship is not a script... This is why there's a high rate of divorce these days. Everybody wants to follow what everybody does when the fact is that every relationship is unique.
If eating alone is what works or waiting for your husband, discuss it and do what works.

Aethiops:
hi are u in Benin republic?

why are you asking?? no offense

seunfly:
This is not sterotype buddy, it is a fact. Alphabet also intrude into users privacy to make money it is also a fact which are both negative in their own ways

Defending both of them is nothing far from fanatism like I v said before.

The situation is like Nigeria's political system where the two political parties are evil we just have to go with any one our sentiment is attached to.

I wish we have the third force which is not on the extreme like Apple ripping it's users off and Alphabet stealing data, i believe they both could do this in moderation and still makes ton of money.

Again with the stereotypes. Google is not stealing your data, you gave them permission to mine it with you sign up with them. You can limit the amount of data the collect but you can't turn it all off.
Apple is not ripping it users off. Apple is currently the most recognized brand in the world. That brand value is everything. If you have any idea what brand value means for business you wouldn't join the band wagon.
A leather airtag case cost about a $1000 just because it produced by LV. There's no where that little amount of leather cost that much but because of the brand behind its production. If LV ripping it users off, absolutely not. They are not forcing anybody to get it. whoever buy it knows what they are getting. An LV airtag case. "Brand Value".
Anybody with an idea of how that affect a business OM will know that.

Topmaike007:
kirin above all of them... Huawei does it better but as of late I have been reasoning g90 chipset

if that's your poison... cool

seunfly:
It simply means what I meant in my original write up and it is a weakness or con on the side of apple just like marketing data is a weakness or con on side of Alphabet Inc.

People living with those cons does not make it right and it will always be point of talk. Infact it will always be used as point of marketing by all party involves, however getting offended by is nothing short of fanatism like I v said b4.

You're perpetuating a stereotype and that's what I'm talking about. We see this everyday. From Apple is ripping it's user off to iPhone is too expensive. It's 2021, can we stop with it. The S21 Ultra is literally more expensive than the iPhone 13 pro max that's is the same price as the 11 pro max but I haven't seen anyone said anything on that with Samsung but immediately Apple announced the iPhone 13, everywhere was filled with iPhone is too expensive and all that.
I mean they don't want you to use 3rd party repair, that's their business model. Can you respect that? Apple is not the only company that follows that philosophy.
I really have no idea why you trying to push this to fanatism when it's clear as day that you're just perpetuating a stereotype

You're asking a broad question.. the best phone to buy is a subjective answer base on each person's preferences..

More accurate one should be something like. I want a phone that does this and this and have so and so. My budget is 200k. This will tailored the answer more to what you actually one instead if choosing randomly

seunfly:
How has this turn to Apple vs Android fan boy War?

This is my problem with people who use things based on fanatism instead of experience and benefit.
@Denn as really explain the true situation which is plausible reason but many believes it is just an excuse to make more money.

Every company has their weaknesses and pro but trying to feel attack or offended when people point out the weaknesses is nothing short of fanatism.

@Denn u are partly right, infact privacy is not the only tenable excuse apple gave but uses of cheap inferior third-party spare part which could cause damage to other parts. However we all know it is to make more money at it was seen in a case of Norway repair shop, the repair shop owner get his spare directly from same Chinese factory but at far less price compare to what Apple gave him and he repair for far less price than what Apple normally charge.

Well that is Apple business model and that is where they makes their own money.

it's not no fanboy war or anything...
can you explain "My own is that people allow Apple bound them too much" without making it seem like the people that buy Apple products don't know what they are getting into??

seunfly:
I think they v always discouraged self repair in the past, people finds a way to break that software in the past and they will still do same to iPhone 13.
My own is that people allows apple to bound them far too much.

you guys say Android gives you choices and complain how Apple is limiting those choices with their platform.
How is it that when people now decide to use their right to choose (choices) and they choose the iPhone, suddenly Apple is slaving them.
isn't that low key hypocrisy??