Welcome, Guest: Register On Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / NewStats: 3,195,327 members, 7,957,874 topics. Date: Tuesday, 24 September 2024 at 10:46 PM |
Nairaland Forum / JUHABACH's Profile / JUHABACH's Posts
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (of 28 pages)
Politics / Re: Thugs Invasion: Sagay Blames Saraki For Missing Mace by JUHABACH: 7:42pm On Apr 19, 2018 |
TheUpsetGirl1: bruh, if the national assembly or the presidency do anything that can be considered unconstitutional, the judiciary has to interfere to set things straight. 1 Like |
Romance / Re: "Virginity Is Overrated": Quote Non-Virgins Use To Console Themselves by JUHABACH: 12:12pm On Apr 18, 2018 |
jawalis: so you base a your value and dignity on your virginity? smh. I weep for your self esteem. |
Foreign Affairs / Re: Who Is Invited To The Royal Wedding? by JUHABACH: 3:16pm On Apr 17, 2018 |
the real story. It's official: Barack and Michelle Obama are not invited to Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's royal wedding on May 19. Despite the former first couple's close friendship with Prince Harry, their connection to the White House has prevented them from landing a spot on the guest list. But it's not just the Obamas; political leaders in the U.K. and internationally also aren't invited to the nuptials. That includes the Trumps and British Prime Minister Theresa May. There will be no official UK or overseas guests at Prince Harry and Meghan’s wedding. No Theresa May, President Trump or Obamas. — Richard Palmer (@RoyalReporter) April 10, 2018 A Kensington Palace spokesperson told Daily Express' royal reporter Richard Palmer, "It has been decided that an official list of political leaders—both U.K. and international—is not required for Prince Harry and Ms. Markle's wedding. Her Majesty's Government was consulted on this decision, which was taken by The Royal Household." A KP spokesman says: “It has been decided that an official list of political leaders – both UK and international - is not required for Prince Harry and Ms. Markle's wedding. Her Majesty's Government was consulted on this decision, which was taken by The Royal Household.” — Richard Palmer (@RoyalReporter) April 10, 2018 Since Harry isn't a future king like Prince William is, "official guests" such as heads of state are not necessary. Palmer adds that all the guests present at St. George's Chapel on May 19 will know the couple personally. Essentially, it’s been decided that there’s no need for official guests, as Prince Harry is not likely to be a future King. Everyone inside the chapel will know Harry and Meghan personally. — Richard Palmer (@RoyalReporter) April 10, 2018 What about Harry's fellow royals from other countries? Palmer reports that foreign royals will be invited if they're friends with the couple, meaning their position alone won't guarantee an invite. On foreign royalty attending Prince Harry and Meghan’s wedding, I’m told it will depend if they are friends. Nobody will be invited because of the position they hold. — Richard Palmer (@RoyalReporter) April 10, 2018 We already had an inkling that the Obamas and Trumps wouldn't be invited to the royal wedding, since "there is precedent for US presidents not attending royal weddings," The Telegraph reported. In January, Trump admitted he had not received an invitation . At Prince William and Kate Middleton's nuptials in 2011, heads of state attended (since William is a future king), but most were from the Commonwealth and European countries. The Telegraph added that President Obama wasn't invited to that wedding "on account of the added security costs his presence would have brought." Sources told Daily Mail 's royal reporter Rebecca English that although the Obamas won't be present when Harry and Meghan say "I do" next month, they "are very much looking forward to seeing them soon." Will the two couples perhaps arrange a meeting after the wedding craze? After all, the Obamas did visit the U.K. less than a month after William and Kate's wedding in 2011, and dined with the Queen at Buckingham Palace. Who knows, maybe another meet-up is due this summer. Michelle and I are delighted to congratulate Prince Harry and Meghan Markle on their engagement. We wish you a lifetime of joy and happiness together. — Barack Obama (@BarackObama) November 27, 2017 https://www.harpersbazaar.com/celebrity/latest/a19732141/barack-michelle-obama-not-invited-royal-wedding/ 2 Likes |
Foreign Affairs / Re: Who Is Invited To The Royal Wedding? by JUHABACH: 3:13pm On Apr 17, 2018 |
OP peddling fake news. what else is new? 3 Likes |
Foreign Affairs / Re: Syrian Air Defences Activated And Respond To Strikes by JUHABACH: 1:34pm On Apr 17, 2018 |
Just30:where in my post did I mention anything related to the military? smh. >claims I m using Hollywood sense >thinks China has all the cards in world trade >thinks the Syrian war matters in the grand scheme of world trade >thinks oil will be the future of global trade. yeah... this isn't worth it. |
Foreign Affairs / Re: Syrian Air Defences Activated And Respond To Strikes by JUHABACH: 12:58pm On Apr 17, 2018 |
Just30: from your reply I have gotten three things; a) you know nothing about Asian societies (particularly china) b) your knowledge of economic and foreign affairs is painfully lacking at best c) you are one of those automatic Anti-American trolls thus it's impossible to have an intelligent discussion with you. 1 Like |
Foreign Affairs / Re: Syrian Air Defences Activated And Respond To Strikes by JUHABACH: 11:10am On Apr 17, 2018 |
Just30: brother, the u.s. is also a heavy manufacturer of products and has Canada and Mexico as neighbours, who also have thriving manufacturing sectors. saying that without china, u.s. supermarkets will become like Venezuela is a completely ignorant statement that requires ignoring every other economic factor. fact is China while the largest place for cheap labour, isn't the only option whereas no other nation on earth comes close to. the raw spending power of the u.s. fact is China needs u.s. trade more than the u.s. needs china as its income is largely dependent on its trade relationship with the u.s. fact is an economic instability is far more detrimental to China than it is to the u.s. and the Chinese government knows this. the u.s. will probably suffer some inflation (nowhere near hyper inflation) but with a few steps such as investing in the energy sector and making a manufacturing pivot to African countries with cheap labour, the problem can be remedied in a few years top. the u.s. economy recovered in record time from the worst economic crisis since the goddamn great depression. it's economy is far more resilient then people think. it has been throughly tested by some of the worst economic disasters and had consistently recovered faster and stronger than anticipated. China on the other hand has faced no such tests and is run by a neo dictatorship which means that should economic conditions worsen to high degrees, there is a far greater chance for an uprising against the institutions and the central government itself. the u.s. has no such fears. it's always good to look at the big picture rather than a single pixel. |
Foreign Affairs / Re: Proofs that Missile Interceptors Fired Blindly, Failing To Stop US Missiles by JUHABACH: 10:53am On Apr 17, 2018 |
Patriot9: yet so many people here will be buying into their propaganda. smh. they should go and bring their s400 so we can see if it truly lives up to the hype. |
TV/Movies / Re: Bbnaija: Voting Results That Got Lolu, Anto And Khloe Evicted by JUHABACH: 5:27am On Apr 16, 2018 |
Itzonlyme: you know you could just go online and vote for free right? 1 Like |
Foreign Affairs / Re: Russian Military Provides List Of Targets, Details Of ‘repelled’ Us-led Strike by JUHABACH: 4:37pm On Apr 14, 2018 |
jnhmaxxwell: if it's a sham, then show me the facilities targeted still intact. it's that simple. satellite maps and even Syrian state media shows the facilities were destroyed. let russia sell s300 or even s400 to the Syrians so that we can finally know how far. and lol, they couldnt even get their story straight. first they were saying 13. all of a sudden it's 71. lol. |
Foreign Affairs / Re: Russian Military Provides List Of Targets, Details Of ‘repelled’ Us-led Strike by JUHABACH: 3:40pm On Apr 14, 2018 |
jnhmaxxwell: >sends me a video on repeat showing a few missles intercepted >somehow thinks that equates to 71 missles. you don't believe anything except it's live right? why don't you give use live pics of those facilities to prove they are still intact. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/04/14/footage-shows-destroyed-chemical-weapon-research-facility-syrian/ https://syria.liveuamap.com/en/2018/14-april-more-photos-showing-extent-of-damage-following-strikes the u s. used bombers to deploy the missles btw (the B1 lancer). not fighter jets. and definitely not their high end stealth jets. |
Foreign Affairs / Re: Russian Military Provides List Of Targets, Details Of ‘repelled’ Us-led Strike by JUHABACH: 3:11pm On Apr 14, 2018 |
Mille: both Syria and Russia knew the target of the strikes and thus evacuated all personnel beforehand. the sites were within areas strongly held by the Syrian government. why the hell would they send soldiers to guard sites that are about to be blown up and within Territory firmly in their control. use common sense please. according to the u.s. sec of defense, none of the missle fired by the u.s. were intercepted and all hit their targets. can't speak for Britain and France though. the goal of the operation was to diminish assad's chemical weapon program and avoid any civilian casualties. based on reports, the targeted sites were destroyed or severely damaged and there were no fatalities. I would call that a rousing success. the u.s. used JASSMs which are smart, stealth missles with range over 300 to 1000 kilometers. none of their planes even needed to get near Syrian airspace. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-158_JASSM it's called precision, mate. |
Celebrities / Re: Davido And His Girlfriend, Chioma Alvrid In Barbados (Photo) by JUHABACH: 4:03am On Apr 13, 2018 |
NwaAmaikpe: nigga chill. it's her life. she is a full grown adult who can think for herself and is responsible for her choices. I certainly wouldn't let my family's opinion influence who I date and don't see any reason why she shouldn't have the freedom to do the same. 1 Like |
Foreign Affairs / Re: Russia Puts Army On High Alert As Anglo-american Axis Readies To Attack Syria – by JUHABACH: 4:42pm On Apr 12, 2018 |
a) russian would never knowingly shoot down a u.s. plane b) not sure how military drills will help against aerial bombardment but sure, whatever floats their boat. |
Celebrities / Re: Uti Nwachukwu Supports Cee-C: “I Pray She Enters Finale" by JUHABACH: 4:39pm On Apr 12, 2018 |
onupeter: 4 Likes
|
Foreign Affairs / Re: Trump Tells Russia To 'get Ready' For Syria Missile Attacks by JUHABACH: 2:26pm On Apr 12, 2018 |
obrigado080: sure. |
Foreign Affairs / Re: Trump Tells Russia To 'get Ready' For Syria Missile Attacks by JUHABACH: 2:24pm On Apr 12, 2018 |
MrMystrO: 1) not saying u.s. handling of the war was alright but the country was far from disstabilized when the u.s. left it. the u.s. left based on an agreement with the Iraqi government and the u.s. left same government with weapons to defend itself. due to the ineptitude of the Iraqi military said weapon went to ISIS. again, not saying the invasion of Iraq was just (easily one of the worst foreign policy decisions in modern history) 2) whelp, they got rid of saddam hussein who would definitely have been detrimental to their interests in the long run. they only put up with him for so long cause he was an effective check on Iran before his foolhardy attempted Kuwait invasion |
Foreign Affairs / Re: Trump Tells Russia To 'get Ready' For Syria Missile Attacks by JUHABACH: 2:14pm On Apr 12, 2018 |
Flye: an election where there was functionally only one candidate where the candidate *won* by over 95 percent of the voting population and you think that is not a sham election. these russian hacks will not kill me. lol� |
TV/Movies / Re: BBNaija: Juliet Ibrahim Insulted By Miracle’s Fans For Saying He Is 'Boring' by JUHABACH: 10:21am On Apr 09, 2018 |
IgbosAreOsus:... OK. Please take it easy. |
Sports / Re: Cristiano Ronaldo's Goal Against Juventus Poised To Win The Best Goal Ever by JUHABACH: 3:34pm On Apr 04, 2018 |
uwajeh: not hating on ronaldo but even EMRE KAN scored a better bicycle kick goal. don't understand the hype tbh. |
Foreign Affairs / Re: Ghana Is On Fire Over Proposed US Military Base. by JUHABACH: 6:45pm On Apr 02, 2018 |
I would ask for an intelligent debate (based on actual facts) on the pros and cons of allowing a u.s. military base on a sovereign state but I am well aware that this particular crowd isn't exactly for intelligent debates. it's sad what the Foreign Affairs section is turning to these days. |
Foreign Affairs / Re: WATCH: The Moment That An Israeli Sniper Shot An Unarmed Palestinian Boy by JUHABACH: 4:22am On Apr 02, 2018 |
kingkakaone: bruh, I believe all evil acts should be condemned equally regardless of philosophical views or opinions. I don't really care for the history of the people I quote. I was just pointing out what I have personally observed as a Christian among the Nigerian Christian community where a critic of Isreal or isreali policy is basically "haram". I try my best to give objective critism regardless of my own opinions (I m not perfect though) hence this trend really troubles me. |
Foreign Affairs / Re: WATCH: The Moment That An Israeli Sniper Shot An Unarmed Palestinian Boy by JUHABACH: 8:55pm On Apr 01, 2018 |
aiir2303: ignoring your pro-zionist rant, you do have a point. I never really understood the borderline subservience of Nigerian Christians especially, to the state of Isreal (and I m a Christian myself). it's like when it comes to isreal, all facts go out the window. even pics of Palestinian kids getting bombed by isreal doesn't move them from what I ve observed but rather gets justified. it is sad but fascinating to watch actually. 1 Like 1 Share |
Foreign Affairs / Re: WATCH: The Moment That An Israeli Sniper Shot An Unarmed Palestinian Boy by JUHABACH: 8:50pm On Apr 01, 2018 |
this is wrong. plain and simple. you don't use bullets against unarmed protesters no matter what. there ought to be an independent inquiry into this though it would seem that trump has opted to block said inquiry. isreal at this rate is pretty much making free propaganda videos for terrorist networks. *sigh* this is perhaps my biggest problem with U.S. middle Eastern policy. their total and absolute loyalty to isreal. that policy might have worked in Asia and Europe but the middle east is a completely different animal. Until the U.S. is willing to act as a truly neutral arbiter in the middle east and quite demonizing iran to please isreal and the Saudis, they will never achieve peace in the middle east. 1 Like |
Foreign Affairs / Re: What Happened To The West I Was Born In?! by JUHABACH: 3:51pm On Apr 01, 2018 |
aiir2303: smh. I call you all hacks because as the old saying goes, if it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck and swims like a duck, then it's a duck. you guys thrive on conspiracy theories and I have never once seen a semblance of critical thinking from any of you. you essentially act like sycophants and are so far gone you can't even keep up with your own BS. case in point, the OP. on the face of it, it is a poorly constructed combination of words filled with inaccuracies and a blatant display of ignorance. upon closet examination, it's even worse. below I highlighted some of the BS. it was really hard on my eyes having to read through such a steaming pile of BS. you should honestly be paying me. *lol* 1) "Since the Neocon coup against Trump" first question, are you a trump supporter? please even if you ignore my reply, at least answer this question so that I ll know just how seriously I should take you next time. 2) "the West is now on exactly the same course as Nazi Germany" pray, do tell. the fact that you honestly hold this opinion screams that you re either trolling in which case, nice one or you are delusional. 3) "what has been the central feature of Britain’s policies towards Europe, oh, let’s say since the Middle-Ages? That’s right: starting wars in Europe." what is it with all you pro russian hacks? every time I think you've reached a new low in historical inaccuracies, y'all just keep going lower. it's fascinating actually. Britain wasn't going about starting wars over Europe. I would ask you for proof but I m pretty sure I would get nothing in return. Here is a list of all military conflicts in Europe https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_Europe notice how very few of them have anything to do with Britain. fact is Britain has never really cared much for its European neighbours and this attitude has carried on right to the it's time in the European Union in which France, Belgium and Germany took the leadership role while Britain was for the most part, content to take advantage of the access it gained to European markets as well as investments. heck, Britain never even adopted the Euro currency opting instead for its pound sterling. Back to the point of conflicts in Europe involving Britain, yes they have partook in quite a few conflicts but; a) so had every other goddamn country (and even cities) in European continent. Heck before the latter stages of the 19th century, Europe was essentially a clusterfuck of conflict after conflict for various reasons raging from rebellions to rivalries. b) perhaps most important of all, most of the conflicts engaged in were in protection of economic interests. trade and real estate were the major driving force behind European economies in the middle ages (and even now). hence various states from time to time engaged in conflicts ranging from short skirmishes to full blown war to either protect or acquire more real estate and advantages in trade e.g. trade routes and ports. classic examples of this include the anglo-dutch war and the anglo-spanish war. not to mention at the time, war resulted in volitility which not only affected trade (trading ships and cargos were at more risk at times of war) but also put strain on the limited useful real estate. basically not only did Britain not go around starting wars as you claim but (especially in the middle ages), there wasn't much incentive to do so. 4) "when Napoleon and Hitler attacked Russia" ah yes... this point is a favorite amongst pro russian hacks. allow me to educate you for a bit. Both Napoleon and Hitler lost when they invaded russia. both had the most feared military in Europe at the time And both made pretty similar tactical blunders that lead to their defeat. the defeat that Napoleon and Hitler suffered in Russia had less to do with the people and more to do with the climate. the Russian Territory is not only exceedingly large but it's climate is exceed ly difficult. even with superior military forces, fighting in unfavorable climate counts for a lot. not to mention both failed to compensate for this disadvantage by making appropriate use of Logistics. I have said this before in another thread. wars are won and lost not based on superior weaponry but on logistics. in that regard both Hitler and Napoleon failed woefully. Napoleon lost most of his men even before he got a chance to do battle and Hitler invaded russia not just against the advice of his generals thus putting further strain upon Germany ' s military resources which was already spread pretty thin but also Hitler ' s obsession with giant weaponry as opposed to small, but efficient weapons cost him a lot more than whatever resistance the Russians offered. larger weapons are slower, more expensive (and thus much fewer in number), require greater and more frequent maintenance and most importantly, they weren't designed for the Russian climate. essentially all the Russians had to do was abuse their overwhelming numerical advantage to get victory and even then, they still suffered massive casualties (the battle of stalingrad alone had more casualty than any other battle in WW 2 and the Russians suffered a far higher casualty count than any other Allies nation. COMBINED). Again note that Hitler was fighting on multiple fronts all over Europe. if he had followed the advice of his generals and first taken down Europe before making adequate plans to take down Russia, it would have been a different story. 5) "that the situation today is infinitely worse than the Cuban missile crisis." this is one of the silliest statements I have seen in a long while. the current situation is a far cry from the Cuban missile crisis. the Cuban missile crisis was the closest the world came to mutually assured destruction and I don't mean figuratively. the world was literally a false alarm away from a nuclear holocaust and but for the man below, we would all be dead. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov if you really think that the world is even at that lvl (talk less of "infinitely worse" then I ve got bridges for sale in kebbi. 6) "Today nobody seems to be aware that we are about to go to war" perhaps nobody seems to be aware for same reason nobody seems to be aware that unicorns and fairies exist. 7) "At the very least this situation shows this:Representative democracy does not work." no system is perfect. and representative democracy has its fault as does any system of government. it has flaws that needs fixing. but to say it doesn't work is a fantastically silly statement to requires one to have a borderline allergy to facts. South korea, Japan and most of Europe have somethings in common. they all practice some form of Representative democracy. they were all at some point during the 20th century in a state of Economic limbo. and they are all currently economic power houses with a general decline in crime rates and lack of any real military conflicts within their borders. now kindly tell me how russian are any better of. "The rule of law only applies to the weak and poor." well no shit! those rules will never change and are even far more prevalent in your darling mother russia. the strong will always oppress the weak. but at least in a representative govt, the weak has some measure of control to elect their leaders and there is at least some semblance of a check on the strong to protect the weak (only a representative govt can ensure a truly independent judiciary). basically you make a point and then literally bring up a point against it. you sure you're not trolling? 9) "For many months now Russia and NATO have made preparations for war in Europe." source? 10) "And Russia is ready." sure bruh. 11) "NATO sure ain’t! Oh, they have the numbers and they think they are strong." didn't realise I was talking to a high ranking NATO commander. my bad 10) "The truth is that these NATO midgets have no idea of what is about to hit them, when the Russians go to war these NATO statelets won’t even understand what is happening to them." *chuckles* cool story bruh. I can absolutely promise you this, please don’t doubt it for one second: Russia will not back down and, if cornered, she will wipe out your entire civilization. The USA and Russia have NO objective reasons to do anything but to collaborate. the Russians are absolutely baffled the fact the leaders of the USA seem to be completely oblivious to this simple fact. do American leaders really want to lose their country in behalf of a small nasty clique of arrogant British pompous asses who think that they still are an Empire? Did you 1) "Since the Neocon coup against Trump" first question, are you a trump supporter? please even if you ignore my reply, at least answer this question so that I ll know just how seriously I should take you next time. 2) "the West is now on exactly the same course as Nazi Germany" pray, do tell. the fact that you honestly hold this opinion screams that you re either trolling in which case, nice one or you are delusional. 3) "what has been the central feature of Britain’s policies towards Europe, oh, let’s say since the Middle-Ages? That’s right: starting wars in Europe." what is it with all you pro russian hacks? every time I think you've reached a new low in historical inaccuracies, y'all just keep going lower. it's fascinating actually. Britain wasn't going about starting wars over Europe. I would ask you for proof but I m pretty sure I would get nothing in return. Here is a list of all military conflicts in Europe https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_Europe notice how very few of them have anything to do with Britain. fact is Britain has never really cared much for its European neighbours and this attitude has carried on right to the it's time in the European Union in which France, Belgium and Germany took the leadership role while Britain was for the most part, content to take advantage of the access it gained to European markets as well as investments. heck, Britain never even adopted the Euro currency opting instead for its pound sterling. Back to the point of conflicts in Europe involving Britain, yes they have partook in quite a few conflicts but; a) so had every other goddamn country (and even cities) in European continent. Heck before the latter stages of the 19th century, Europe was essentially a clusterfuck of conflict after conflict for various reasons raging from rebellions to rivalries. b) perhaps most important of all, most of the conflicts engaged in were in protection of economic interests. trade and real estate were the major driving force behind European economies in the middle ages (and even now). hence various states from time to time engaged in conflicts ranging from short skirmishes to full blown war to either protect or acquire more real estate and advantages in trade e.g. trade routes and ports. classic examples of this include the anglo-dutch war and the anglo-spanish war. not to mention at the time, war resulted in volitility which not only affected trade (trading ships and cargos were at more risk at times of war) but also put strain on the limited useful real estate. basically not only did Britain not go around starting wars as you claim but (especially in the middle ages), there wasn't much incentive to do so. 4) "when Napoleon and Hitler attacked Russia" ah yes... this point is a favorite amongst pro russian hacks. allow me to educate you for a bit. Both Napoleon and Hitler lost when they invaded russia. both had the most feared military in Europe at the time And both made pretty similar tactical blunders that lead to their defeat. the defeat that Napoleon and Hitler suffered in Russia had less to do with the people and more to do with the climate. the Russian Territory is not only exceedingly large but it's climate is exceed ly difficult. even with superior military forces, fighting in unfavorable climate counts for a lot. not to mention both failed to compensate for this disadvantage by making appropriate use of Logistics. I have said this before in another thread. wars are won and lost not based on superior weaponry but on logistics. in that regard both Hitler and Napoleon failed woefully. Napoleon lost most of his men even before he got a chance to do battle and Hitler invaded russia not just against the advice of his generals thus putting further strain upon Germany ' s military resources which was already spread pretty thin but also Hitler ' s obsession with giant weaponry as opposed to small, but efficient weapons cost him a lot more than whatever resistance the Russians offered. larger weapons are slower, more expensive (and thus much fewer in number), require greater and more frequent maintenance and most importantly, they weren't designed for the Russian climate. essentially all the Russians had to do was abuse their overwhelming numerical advantage to get victory and even then, they still suffered massive casualties (the battle of stalingrad alone had more casualty than any other battle in WW 2 and the Russians suffered a far higher casualty count than any other Allies nation. COMBINED). Again note that Hitler was fighting on multiple fronts all over Europe. if he had followed the advice of his generals and first taken down Europe before making adequate plans to take down Russia, it would have been a different story. 5) "that the situation today is infinitely worse than the Cuban missile crisis." this is one of the silliest statements I have seen in a long while. the current situation is a far cry from the Cuban missile crisis. the Cuban missile crisis was the closest the world came to mutually assured destruction and I don't mean figuratively. the world was literally a false alarm away from a nuclear holocaust and but for the man below, we would all be dead. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov if you really think that the world is even at that lvl (talk less of "infinitely worse" then I ve got bridges for sale in kebbi. 6) "Today nobody seems to be aware that we are about to go to war" perhaps nobody seems to be aware for same reason nobody seems to be aware that unicorns and fairies exist. 7) "At the very least this situation shows this:Representative democracy does not work." no system is perfect. and representative democracy has its fault as does any system of government. it has flaws that needs fixing. but to say it doesn't work is a fantastically silly statement to requires one to have a borderline allergy to facts. South korea, Japan and most of Europe have somethings in common. they all practice some form of Representative democracy. they were all at some point during the 20th century in a state of Economic limbo. and they are all currently economic power houses with a general decline in crime rates and lack of any real military conflicts within their borders. now kindly tell me how russian are any better of. "The rule of law only applies to the weak and poor." well no shit! those rules will never change and are even far more prevalent in your darling mother russia. the strong will always oppress the weak. but at least in a representative govt, the weak has some measure of control to elect their leaders and there is at least some semblance of a check on the strong to protect the weak (only a representative govt can ensure a truly independent judiciary). basically you make a point and then literally bring up a point against it. you sure you're not trolling? 9) "For many months now Russia and NATO have made preparations for war in Europe." source? 10) "And Russia is ready." sure bruh. 11) "NATO sure ain’t! Oh, they have the numbers and they think they are strong." didn't realise I was talking to a high ranking NATO commander. my bad 10) "The truth is that these NATO midgets have no idea of what is about to hit them, when the Russians go to war these NATO statelets won’t even understand what is happening to them." *chuckles* cool story bruh. "NATO statelets". let's see. France alone has at least two aircraft carriers. Russia has one Soviet era carrier. they both have nukes (russia has more but then again, with nukes, you only need a few dozen to do damage and France has over two hundred). In terms of pure military firepower, France and Britain alone could hold the Russian military to a stalemate (if you wish to debate this on another thread, feel free). Russian military is for the most part, a defensive force hence their focus on developing tactical defense weaponry such as the s 400. they sorely lack true stealth fighters, destroyers, the ability to effectively deploy a large amount to troops to any Territory on Europe that's not a neighboring nation etc. if russia decided to go to war against NATO Allies, the U.S. interference would only be to fulfill all righteousness. 11) "I can absolutely promise you this, please don’t doubt it for one second: Russia will not back down and, if cornered, she will wipe out your entire civilization." literally any nuclear power in the world when cornered won't hesitate to use its nukes to ensure mutually assured destruction so I don't get what point you're trying to make here really. 12) "The USA and Russia have NO objective reasons to do anything but to collaborate.the Russians are absolutely baffled the fact the leaders of the USA seem to be completely oblivious to this simple fact." you must be suffering a bad case of amnesia. literally every u.s. president since G.W. Bush has attempted to foster better relations with russia and each time, it fails. both countries have fundamentally opposing views on the world. thus there will likely never be any substantive partnership btwn russia and the U.S. you might as well expect a collaboration btwn don moen and Lil Wayne. basically except one side fundamentally changes its views and philosophy, they won't be any collaboration. I mean no offence, but only stupid people can't see this fact. 13) "do American leaders really want to lose their country in behalf of a small nasty clique of arrogant British pompous asses who think that they still are an Empire? Did you even take a look at Boris Johnson, Theresa May and Gavin Williamson? Are you really ready to die in defense of the interest of these degenerates?! even take a look at Boris Johnson, Theresa May and Gavin Williamson? Are you really ready to die in defense of the interest of these degenerates?!" and this... right here is a pretty good summary of why I called you a hack. AS expected, you went for the traditional response of russian hacks basically claiming that I ve been brain washed. you guys really need to get more creative with your memes. if you keep using the same meme over and over,it loses its impact. just a friendly advice. |
Foreign Affairs / Re: What Happened To The West I Was Born In?! by JUHABACH: 9:57am On Apr 01, 2018 |
so many pro russian hacks on nairaland these days. *sigh* there isn't going to be a war. at least not for the forseeable future. as for the rest of the OP' s post... smh. |
Foreign Affairs / Re: Protest In Ghana Against US Military Is Massive (Photos) by JUHABACH: 1:40pm On Mar 30, 2018 |
alanka: stupid analysis. but then again what do you expect from NL? |
Foreign Affairs / Re: Protest In Ghana Against US Military Is Massive (Photos) by JUHABACH: 8:04pm On Mar 29, 2018 |
nex: smh. Boko Haram exists due to the ineptitude of our armed forces, the greed of northern oligarchs and most especially, the piss poor handling of the uprising by Yusuf. the reason we struggle with Boko Haram is the same reason the u.s. struggles with the Taliban. the Nigerian army is built for conventional warfare hence in terms of peace keeping mission, we are the premier fighting force in Africa. Boko Haram is an unconventional enemy. an unconventional enemy will always have the advantage as they limit the capacity of a conventional army and most importantly, they have the element of surprise. beating them requires new tactics and a drastic change in military policy and philosophy which takes time although imho, the Nigerian army hasn't done too badly, all things considered. but sure... America created Boko haram. in fact they did the grand opening in my father's house. in fact, trump and shekau are brothers and obama is their grandfather. 1 Like 1 Share |
Foreign Affairs / Re: Protest In Ghana Against US Military Is Massive (Photos) by JUHABACH: 4:32pm On Mar 29, 2018 |
KingGBsky: yeah... that right, blame the white man. not your government for its colossal ineptitude and corruption, not people easily swayed by tribal sentiments and ignorance. the United States is the one that made sure all your roads are bad. the United states is the one responsible for the poor state of your education (do you know that there are schools which primary six students that can't spell the word "school". The United States is the one responsible for our wide spread corruption, our lack of infrastructure and our lack of maintenance culture. yep, they should just come and build everything for us for free because apparently we are too stupid to do it ourselves. they should come and build our refineries and fix our abysmal power generating system. I mean it's not like we aren't the "giant of Africa". it's not like we aren't the largest economy in Africa with the largest human resources proven to have produced some of the most brilliant minds on the planet. It's not like we aren't one of the largest producer of petroleum among numerous other mineral resources and some of the largest arable lands on earth. yep, let's keep blaming the white man. sure, the UAE and co. managed to turn their countries around with far less but... we are apparently too stupid to think and reason for ourselves. people like you honestly disgust me (no offense). stay there and keep blaming the United States. when your children ask you why we keep shouting "up NEPA", why their teachers don't seem capable of constructing basic vocabulary, why the roads are full of potholes, why even basic drainage systems are lacking, why even something as basic as a light rail project is proving a nigh impossible task, why stable power generation is akin to rocket science here, just tell them that it's all America's fault. cause the largest black nation on earth is apparently not responsible for its own destiny. 3 Likes 1 Share |
Foreign Affairs / Re: Russia Spy: Allies Condemn Nerve Agent Attack, UK Expels Russian Diplomats by JUHABACH: 9:46am On Mar 29, 2018 |
glad to see that we're all having a civil discussion |
Foreign Affairs / Re: Hidden Facts : The Day U.S Forces Massacred 300 Russian Soldiers In Syria. by JUHABACH: 4:34pm On Mar 27, 2018 |
mysticwarrior: *scratches head* >were we not talking about conventional weapons though >you claimed russia has more than one aircraft carrier >I proved you wrong >then out of no where you brought up tsar bomb >I pretty much said that any nation with nukes could Bleep up the planet and concluded that we were talking about conventional weapons/warfare so obviously nukes shouldn't be involved. literally asked in response whether or not you understand what conventional warfare means in response to your post about tsar bomb. don't know what the confusion is tbh. but it seems you have nothing relevant to add, so I ll take my leave. |
Foreign Affairs / Re: Hidden Facts : The Day U.S Forces Massacred 300 Russian Soldiers In Syria. by JUHABACH: 2:41pm On Mar 27, 2018 |
mysticwarrior:>don't know what these "corrections" are >was literally the first person to bring up nukes (Mr tsar bomb) >can't refute facts >goes ahead to award himself the winner well, whatever makes you feel any better. |
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (of 28 pages)
(Go Up)
Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 166 |