seunmsg:


Why can't EFCC or the AGF apply to the Appeal court to vacate the perpetual injunction shielding Odili from prosecution since 2007? I still can't understand why the injunction has not been vacated since then.

maybe because they don't have enough evidence to prove cause

paulolee:

lolz...help me loud am bro..
wen seaaon end, na trophies we go count...
alves is currently the player with more trophies in Football with 43 total trophies won, messi is just 38 behind n he promised to elips alves..
wen he is done, he would end up as the only player with Most balloon d or n most trophies won, Mk the other wan dey celebrate Dubai d or n making top4..
mayb na then dm go finally agree who d real GOAT is..

If them dey read and understand sef, they'd know there's no debate whatsoever anymore.
Even publications that are sympathetic to Ronaldo like Sky Sports, B/R Football, ESPN and they rest will only ever say "Ronaldo is one of the greatest in football history". While for Messi, it's written " Arguably the greatest to ever play football".
That's how they will be remembered when they both hang their boots. If He likes make he score 2000 goals, play in 20 different leagues, He will end up as one of the best.
Messi can stop playing now and will still be regarded as arguably the greatest ever.

moriss33:
U just sounded very stupid,even a toddler can't be this foolish.
What is the difference between Male soldiers proposing on Uniform & Female Soldiers being proposed to while on uniform too ?
Abi the males don't engage in indiscreet amorous relationships with those females they propose to ?
Una go just go school yet common sense will be lacking.

one is in mall where the soldier is obviously off duty.
the other is in NYSC Camp where the soldier is on active duty.

The only time they are not on active duty is when they lower that flag at 6pm. Was she proposed to after 6pm??

nnamdi640:
Am sure nothing will happen if assuming it was a male soldier that propose to a female coper. There is no justification to that harsh judgement. The poor lady just needed someone to call my love, which is not a bad thing in civilized countries. I watch a video were two families pay a surprise visit to their fathers at the point of duty in america and nothing happened. Assuming it was people that always run away when they sees Boko Haram, they will start taking.

are you sure you saw well?
American soldiers can not be deployed on American soil unless Marshall law is declared.
If an American soldier is on American soil then they are not on active duty

At this point Messi doesn't have to do anything in football again. Man is sitting comfortably on the Throne.

except there's more....
All I can deduce from these talks is that Shizzi undervalued Teni.
So He allowed her Teni to buy out her contract cheap. But him expecting credit for the song because it made rounds is low ball.

that's a private discuss

chrisj2:
Spanish folks especially male tend to be racist or jealous of the free spirit of most African men...

Spanish managers tend to have more problems with African players. There is always something - the more they stay at a club, the less blacks you see in their teams.

Guardiola, Benitez and now Arteta...

Lewis Hamilton has the most horrendous racist abuse at Spanish grand Prix especially when he was still competing against Alonso.

Aruba not so great in my view - always overrated but this treatment is not right! They will still have to pay him and pay him out... I bet the next club will enjoy him more than Arsenal has in the last 1.5 years

Maybe his free spirit has been affected by Covid thereby affecting his performance.

nkor Mahrez edi European player abi.

Auba, Arteta ake recommend for contract extension edi European player.

El Hadji Diop eke di European player abi

Nicholaspepe:


Pls try to have small sense na. How does "eating right, sleeping well and recharge" prevent a player from sustaining injury in football? So, good food can stop an opposition player from tackling you, when such tackle can result in injury?

you dey tell person to get sense but you're blind to the fact that good food aid your recovery rate.
He didn't say they don't get tackled... Have you not seen those players limp and get ice packed on their legs only to be available for selection in the next match?

Abdulmumin412:

Should we ask Hazard of real Madrid, Dembele of Barcelona or Bale of Madrid the kind of food they eat or they no get money no.

I don't know why y'all have a problem with what that guy wrote...
People's motivation are different.

Messi gave up meat a long time ago.
Evra said something similar about Ronaldo when he went to his house for dinner.
Ronaldo doesn't drink caffeinated drinks..

Hazard turned up to Madrid training overweight.
We have seen players add weight during off seasons.

Have you ever seen such from Ronaldo or Messi.

Messi and Ronaldo wants to be the best, those guys are oh!kay with just being great. Different motivation

Moreign001:

If truly u have been watching football, you would have notice how conscious Messi and Ronaldo plays. Specially Messi.

Messi that's one of the most fouled players in football... you probably need to watch football

MangekyoAlt:

Both are combat proven

T-90 is
T-90MS isn't

MangekyoAlt:


It would be an easy win for the T-90.

sure why don't we award the winner to the paper tiger over the combat proven rival.
Good choice

GardenOfGod:
Good! The most secure state in 9ja, they need a conducive environment for training devoid of any tendency for security breach. There is no other place than UYO... You are welcome to the LAND OF PROMISE. GO EAGLE GOOO!!

LAND OF FULFILLMENT!
we don't do promises no more. It's talk and do now

NFF finally made the sensible and reasonable choice of Uyo. Politics aside, things should be done base on merit in this country.

The "This is just Western Propaganda" crew haven't arrived yet

MangekyoAlt:
Emae009
I know you'll end up being biased, as always, but go on, go on. Let's have it.

with their latest upgrades, both are similar. it will likely come down to the skillset of the crews

MangekyoAlt:

Israel is going to attack Iran in the next few months if not even weeks. They will attack their production sites. This information, I got from Israelis on reddit.

If and when that happens, I hope I don't see you here defending their actions?
Normally I wouldn't see defending their actions as something bad. I personally will when that time comes. But you! You claim my best country in the world, Russia should do nothing and allow Ukraine bring in their enemy USA in, who would then bring short ranged nuclear ballistic missiles just outside their borders bEcAuSe ThEy'Re A sOvErEiGn State. So defending them would be extremely hypocritical on your side

Meanwhile, you still skipped my earlier question. Who sanctioned the USA when they pulled outta the ABM Treaty?

FYI, I don't follow other people opinions. I make my own because of that I can defend it.

Israel is going to attack Iran in the next few months if not even weeks. They will attack their production sites. This information, I got from Israelis on reddit.

It's not the first time, Israel will do that. If this is your first time of hearing about it. Good for you.

Russia made a mistake with handling Ukraine and just like your country, you're so focus on the West without seeing your own mistakes. start inward first, it helps.

Meanwhile, you still skipped my earlier question. Who sanctioned the USA when they pulled outta the ABM Treaty?

if I say you don't read now, you'll come back with an abusive word. If you read the comment I made on the post you wrote that statement. I said, I'd clearly give you an answer to all your questions but you have to create a thread and be specific about what you're asking. Simple and straightforward but somehow you missed it

MangekyoAlt:


Oga the truth is you're dumb..... Clearly.
Who is going to stop Iran and with what?

The west that cut Iran off and meted sanctions upon them?

And yes, a country can decide to not sign such a Treaty. Ask Israel and China. The highest the international community can do is wail.

Upon all the wailing, China still keeps the one they have and keep addidnt to their nuclear arsenal.

Like I said before. Iran is a sovereign state. they have chosen to snub the Treaty (otherwise they wouldn't be building nuclear weapons).

And because they're a sovereign state, the USA, Israel and international community shouldn't do more than Wail.
They shouldn't even contemplate invading Iran, or attacking them. If they do, theres no way it would be accepted by you, right?

there you go again calling me dumb and then envisioning something that isn't going to happen to create an argument out of it.

Have I said anything about invading. I said sanctions will be issued. That have been done .
North Korea even under sanctions have increased their capabilities. Did anyone invade them?
whether Iran finally do have a nuclear weapon or not doesn't really concerns me.

If you're looking for who to have imaginary scenarios argument with.. I've past that level. You'll have to find someone else

MangekyoAlt:


Look bro. I'm not against the USA & Israel trying to make sure Iran doesn't create nuclear weapons.

I'm a Christian. Our holy site is in Jerusalem which the capital of Israel.

Iran possessing nuclear weapons is a threat to jews and us as a whole.

Now, the question I asked in my first question read: if people exoect russia to sit and allow Ukraine take decisions that would undermine their security because they're a sovereign state, why then do they exoect the US and Israel to allow Iran do whatever they like despite are a sovereign state. You claimed it is because of the Treaty. Treaty that they didn't sign? They're not currently bound by that Treaty.

Meanwhile, Iran having nuclear weapons is a threat to Israel. Israel should do whatever is within their power to make sure they deter them from building it. If that is okay with you.

Then russia doing everything within their power to make sure Ukraine doesn't bring in weapons that could be used to harm them shouldn't be viewed as something stupid to you

sometimes I do wonder if it's two people handling this one account. One isn't ........ let me stop there.

Apples and Oranges... You're saying two different things entirely and trying to lump them together using sovereignty.

I wonder how many more times I have to say this. Yes Iran is a sovereign state, they are building drones, fighter jets and conventional weapons, nobody is stopping them from doing it. You just can't build nuclear weapons. You don't have to be a party to the treaty itself. There's another act on the sales and use of radioactive materials. I mentioned the UN warning of China to show to some extent that it wasn't just an Iran thing. Even if say Brazil that isn't part of the Treaty wants to, they will be advised to not. Failure of not following that advise will lead to sanctions.

This is totally different scenarios from Ukraine. Ukraine joining NATO is bad news to Russia, nobody has said otherwise but Russia allowed it to reach the level that their brother will chose to align with a foreigner over them.
Russia had multiple chances to remedy the situation but because they're so focused on showing the West how mighty they are, they keep choosing the wrong path.

MangekyoAlt:
.
What level I'm I? Well a few billions higher than you mate

Well read the screenshot, try to comprehend the statements, and tell me why Israel chose to NOT sign the Treaty...

and why do they hate Britain, USA, France and love the others? Tell us.


Countries hand nuclear weapons to other countries? Since when?


I do. Same cannot be said for you

omo guyyyyy
Countries hand nuclear weapons to other countries? Since when?
this just showed me what I needed to know.
Did you even understood what I wrote there before jumping to reply.
No offense but you lack basic understanding of simple sentences yet you're billion miles higher than me
maybe you should check yourself

MangekyoAlt:

The bolded
Who thought you history abeg?
You need proper schooling mate

Since you don't know how to use your phone, let me help you this once.
the bolded should answer your laughter:

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was an agreement signed in 1968 by several of the major nuclear and non-nuclear powers that pledged their cooperation in stemming the spread of nuclear technology. Although the NPT did not ultimately prevent nuclear proliferation, in the context of the Cold War arms race and mounting international concern about the consequences of nuclear war, the treaty was a major success for advocates of arms control because it set a precedent for international cooperation between nuclear and non-nuclear states to prevent proliferation.

After the United States and the Soviet Union signed the Limited Test Ban Treaty in 1963, leaders of both nations hoped that other, more comprehensive agreements on arms control would be forthcoming. Given the excessive costs involved in the development and deployment of new and more technologically advanced nuclear weapons, both powers had an interest in negotiating agreements that would help to slow the pace of the arms race and limit competition in strategic weapons development. Four years after the first treaty, the two sides agreed to an Outer Space Treaty that prevented the deployment of nuclear weapons systems as satellites in space. Of far greater import, Soviet and U.S. negotiators also reached a settlement on concluding an international non-proliferation treaty.

By the beginning of the 1960s, nuclear weapons technology had the potential to become widespread. The science of exploding and fusing atoms had entered into public literature via academic journals, and nuclear technology was no longer pursued only by governments, but by private companies as well. Plutonium, the core of nuclear weapons, was becoming easier to obtain and cheaper to process. As a result of these changes, by 1964 there were five nuclear powers in the world: in addition to the United States, the Soviet Union, and the United Kingdom, all of which obtained nuclear capability during or shortly after the Second World War, France exploded its first nuclear bomb in 1960, and the People’s Republic of China was not far behind in 1964. There were many other countries that had not yet tested weapons, but which were technologically advanced enough that should they decide to build them, it was likely that they could do so before long.

The spread of nuclear weapons technology meant several things for international lawmakers. While the only countries that were capable of nuclear strike were the United States, its close ally Britain, and the Soviet Union, the doctrine of deterrence could be reasonably maintained. Because both sides of the Cold War had vast stocks of weapons and the capability of striking back after being attacked, any strike would likely have led to mutually assured destruction, and thus there remained a strong incentive for any power to avoid starting a nuclear war. However, if more nations, particularly developing nations that lay on the periphery of the balance of power between the two Cold War superpowers, achieved nuclear capability, this balance risked being disrupted and the system of deterrence would be threatened. Moreover, if countries with volatile border disputes became capable of attacking with nuclear weapons, then the odds of a nuclear war with truly global repercussions increased. This also caused the nuclear states to hesitate in sharing nuclear technology with developing nations, even technology that could be used for peaceful applications. All of these concerns led to international interest in a nuclear non-proliferation treaty that would help prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.

Although the benefits to be derived from such a treaty were clear, its development was not without controversy. A ban on the distribution of nuclear technology was first proposed by Ireland in a meeting of the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1961. Although the members approved the resolution, it took until 1965 for negotiations to begin in earnest at the Geneva disarmament conference. At that time, U.S. negotiators worked to strike a delicate balance between the interest in preventing further transfer of the technology that it shared with the Soviet Union and the desire to strengthen its NATO allies by giving several Western European nations some measure of control over nuclear weapons. The plan for a nuclear NATO threatened to scuttle the talks altogether, and the United States eventually abandoned it in favor of reaching a workable treaty. A more difficult problem involved the question of bringing non-nuclear nations into line with the planned treaty. Nations that had not yet developed nuclear weapons technology were essentially being asked to give up all intentions to ever develop the weapons. Without this agreement on the part of the non-nuclear powers, having the nuclear powers vow never to transfer the technology would likely not result in any real limitation on the number of worldwide nuclear powers. After two years of negotiations, the nuclear powers managed to make enough concessions to induce many non-nuclear powers to sign.

The final treaty involved a number of provisions all aimed at limiting the spread of nuclear weapons technology. First, the nuclear signatories agreed not to transfer either nuclear weapons or nuclear weapons technology to any other state. Second, the non-nuclear states agreed that they would not receive, develop or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons. All of the signatories agreed to submit to the safeguards against proliferation established by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Parties to the treaty also agreed to cooperate in the development of peaceful nuclear technology and to continue negotiations to help end the nuclear arms race and limit the spread of the technology. The treaty was given a 25-year time limit, with theagreement that it would be reviewed every 5 years.

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was, and continues to be, heralded as an important step in the ongoing efforts to reduce or prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. Still, it had one major drawback in that two nuclear powers, France and the People’s Republic of China, did not sign the agreement, nor did a number of non-nuclear states. Of the non-nuclear states refusing to adhere, and thereby limit their own future nuclear programs, of particular importance were Argentina, Brazil, India, Israel, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and South Africa, because these powers were close to being capable of the technology. In fact, in 1974, India joined the “nuclear club” by exploding its first weapon. Pakistan tested its first atomic bomb in 1983.

YOU'RE WELCOME!

MangekyoAlt:

Ogbeni you claimed Iran (despite being a sovereign state) should NOT be allowed to build nuclear weapons because of some Treaty (a Treaty they don't recognize, nor agree to).

You even went on to say they should be sanctioned on failing to comply with the Treaty. Do you not remember saying that? Or you want me to quote your own words to you?

Go back to my very first comment and read all your replies. You'll be surprised by how dumb you actually are.

when you start laughing unnecessarily then I don't have a conversation with you.

I answered your question and you said I claim. You asked why, I gave you the reason.
And you want to turn it around on me.

Since you're so knowledgeable on what I said, why haven't you talked about China which I mentioned earlier to show it wasn't just Iran that aren't allowed. That any country will come under sanctions if they possess weapon grade Uranium.

MangekyoAlt:




Leave the guy. Israel does not deny having any nuclear warhead. If this was Iran, the US would have invaded already to confirm "if they're a threat to world peace"

seriously, let's leave everything. What level are you??
Just so I know who I'm dealing with. I don't mean that as an insult just a genuine question.

Do you know why I asked that? your level of questioning leaves me baffled.
Israel are alleged to have it, they haven't tested anything to indicate they do at least not that the world knows of.
This country is an ally to United States, isn't that in US favor if they do?

Iran isn't an ally to the US. They having it is a threat to national security. I haven't heard any of those terrorist groups or Middle Eastern states agitate and sing "Dead to Russia" or "Dead to China". Even " Dead to say Spain or Portugal".
Their attacks and hate are usually channeled the US mostly followed by Britain and France.

When someone wants you dead, Goodluck handing them nuclear weapons.

you should at least reason some of the stuff you typed. it will do a lot of help to you

Krismas:
Why does NPT not affect Israeli Nukes?

I don't know why you guys can't use the Internet for once.

Israel is alleged to have Nuclear capabilities.
The ones that are known are US, Russia, France, Britain, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea etc.
before the treaty if you had bothered to read about it instead of coming here to laugh ignorantly. Countries were in a race to acquire nuclear capabilities but seeing the effect of what that did you Japan.
The Treaty was drafted to prevent countries from having it. Because unlike conventional weapons, the effect of the radiation to humans and the environment is alarming.
With the way terrorist are acquiring weaponry, do you think if they got their hands on something like that, they would care about the damages it would cause before using it??

So Countries that had nuclear capabilities still had them even after the treaty.. Those that didn't are they ones that are being prevented from having them.

MangekyoAlt:


You claimed Iran MUST follow the every Treaty. Have the USA been following every Treaty that they were supposed to comply with? No.

You claim Iran wouuld get sanctioned if they don't follow the Treaty. What sanction could they possible met upon Iran this time? Iran's has been living in sanctions for a long time now. So I guess what they'll say to idiots like you is "bring it on".

Meanwhile, if Iran would get sanctioned, why was the USA not sanctioned when they pulled out of the ABM Treaty and all other treaties they've broken before? They're immune to sanctions aren't they?

where on earth did I claim Iran or any other country must follow treaties??
are you oh!kay?
no, it's a serious question?

You will just invent argument and then expect me to join you in it.
No thank you.

MangekyoAlt:

Hahaha I didn't know that the US and Russia had a pact to reduce their nuclear stockpile. You must think I'm a kid, don't you?

The soviet union had at least 40k nuclear weapons after the cold War. After their disintegration, majority of it went to Russia with the rest Goin to Ukraine.

USA immediately had Ukraine get rid of theirs, and then created a pact with Russia to reduce their stockpile. Good, I know about all that.

Now, that's one of the Treaty they've compiled with. Now you tell. What about other like Anti ballistic missiles that they've pulled out from?
They can decide that they don't want to comply with a Treaty whenever they like, while other who also decide to do the same are some sorta animals?

Are those who aren't Americans some sorta subhumans to you?

The only reason the US pulled out of that ABM and short range ballistic missile Treaty is because they've built base in many countries around the world. So placing ballistic missiles in those bases would be in their interest.

Iran have chose that they won't follow the Treaty. If you have a problem with it, you can go kill yourself.

Since you can't keep your thoughts one place. it's hard to follow what color is your problem.

You said some morons said Ukraine is a sovereign nation so they can do as they like. Then since Iran is a sovereign nation why can't they have nuclear weapons..

I gave you the reason why but as usual. you'll go off course. Bring stuff that don't even relate to your original question and then go laughing with your ilk.

I can definitely answer all your questions but you'll have to create a thread for that and be specific about what you are asking.
Not this hide and seek you want to drag me into.

MangekyoAlt:


The USA can pull out of any Treaty whenever they feel like, but you get mad whenever other countries try to do the same.
What's really with you licking the arse of the US everytime on this forum?
You are a hypocrite and you're extremely annoying

did I say the US can pull-out of treaties and others shouldn't?

there you go again, inventing what I never said or implied then get all worked up on your own imagination.

The treaty is why countries are not allowed to have nuclear weapons.
If you defile that, you get sanctioned. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less.

Isreal and Iran is a whole other ball game. Even Israel was complaining that the international community should do more than just warn and sanction Iran.

MangekyoAlt:

You are dumb, very very dumb!
Did Iran tell you that they're bound by that treaty? Do they agree to it? Don't be foolish. The USA and international community turned their backs on Iran. They imposed thousands of not even millions of sanctions on them and let their people suffer because they had some differences. Yet you expect them to continue adhering to some stupid treaty

Meanwhile, China & India possess nuclear weapons, but NONE of them agree to that stupid, idiotic treaty that was made by the US.

Also USA recently pulled out of the anti nuclear ballistic missile treaty in 2019. Why don't you go and pressure the international community to force the United States back into complying with the treaty? Village man

you're too emotional about a Country that doesnt know who you are. Whatever America did to you, I hope you heal from it.

Like I said before, I don't do personal attacks. It just shows how childish you are.

Did you know America and Russia has a pact where both of them are lowering their Nuclear weapons stock? I bet that didn't fly by your radar because it's not making America the bad guy.

Did you also know that the UN warned China about increasing their Nuclear stock? That didn't register on your radar either.

All the Countries that have Nuclear weapons had it before the treaty came into enforcement. After that you can only use nuclear for other things but not creating weapons of mass destruction.

chymeze:
Some people don't really know what's going on. This is setting the stage for the coming of Christ. Let me elucidate scripturally what's going on and what will happen.
These things have been orchestrated spiritually by God to happen in order to expedite the coming of Jesus. God placed an anti Israeli president in US to take away the support from Israel, so that the Antichrist who is coming will have an easy path to attack Israel.
This is what will happen. Joe Biden will be succeeded by a woman, most likely Harris. At this stage, US support for Israel will be very low. She will lead America to destruction in a nuclear battle. New superpowers will arise, from which the Antichrist will assume control. With America out of the picture, Israel will seemingly be defenceless and this is cause belligerent nations to attack them. That's when the Antichrist will make a pact of peace for 7 yearswith Israel which will keep them safe from the hostile nations. But in the middle of the 7 years he will break that peace pact and the great tribulation will now occur. Now we are at the stage where support for Israel is at its lowest. This simply tells us that the rapture is very imminent because believers won't be around when all these events will happen, according to scriptures.
Surrender your life right now to Jesus and get saved. I don't think we have much time left anymore before the rapture and tribulation. Observe the things happening around us and compare with scriptures and you'd see that the end is near

so the $1billion that was given to Israel recently by the "Anti-Israeli Biden" is not supporting Israel abi.
Those tankers if you even cared to read will be ready for delivery by 2023. You can just speed it up. It's not a car stand you just walk into and buy a car.
Israel was the first nation outside US to fly a combat ready F-35 stealth aircraft and they weren't even among countries that paid for the aircraft to be built but that's not supporting Israel abi.

You're be alright las Las

MangekyoAlt:
According to some mórons on this forum. Ukraine wants to join NATO, and then thereafter allow US to go in an place missile at russian borders. Russia should fold their hands and do nothing because Ukraine is a sovereign state.

Meanwhile, is Iran not also a sovereign state? If yes, then why are Israel and US trying to pressure them to not create Nuclear weapons?

"The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, commonly known as the Non-Proliferation Treaty or NPT"

The answer is very simple but since you don't use the Internet as you're blinded by hate which I don't know the cause.
Something so simple and straightforward is usually more difficult for you to understand