TheUpsetGirl1:



the judiciary have no rights whatsoever to interfere in the matters of the legislature.. the legislative arm make the rules, the judiciary only interprets.
what is happening in the USA presently shouldn't be allowed to happen here, because courts have put almost governments policies in the US on stagnation.

courts have no right to interfere with the national assembly.
they can even reduce the powers of the judiciary

bruh, if the national assembly or the presidency do anything that can be considered unconstitutional, the judiciary has to interfere to set things straight.

jawalis:
Gracia op. let them know what exactly they are.
(second hand). guess you all enjoyed the 60 seconds pleasure that took away you value and dignity. no respect for you if you the Virgin team.

so you base a your value and dignity on your virginity?

smh. I weep for your self esteem.

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/

OP peddling fake news. what else is new?

Just30:
two things I know I've notice You think economics and foreign affairs is as displayed by Hollywood You thinks military might is about creating mercenaries

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.

Just30:
you are laughable
One thing you don't know about the Asians is the fact that the structure of their society will never bring about an uprising .
Watch this , it's playing out so nicely .
Asia is the new financial powerhouse

The US has got no money to spend around the world
It coffers will dry up when drastically when China stops lending.
The war in Syria is all about geopolitics and thanks to Russia , the US is not going to win it .
China holds all the cards and how they play those cards is up to them. Oil trade is what keeps the dollar in circulation around the world .
As China has managed to get Russia and Iran
A huge oil supplier on board trading on petroyuan and since China is the single largest consumer of oil around the world, Saudi Arabia will have no choice than to sell it oil to China to be paid for in Yuan.
The entire Asian countries will have no objection transacting their international trade in Yuan because their economies are tightly link to that of China and that is where 80% of true economic activity and investment comes from .
Even Japan is in a mess and you think the US economy can escape it. I'm laughing
China will come out with damages but it will survive
The US will crumble

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.

Just30:
first of all
Russian economy and Nigeria economy are not the same.
Second you don't know what petrodollar means
With less countries using the dollar for international purchases, thereby spreading the dollar
Hyperinflation will set in on the US economy.

No country can survive without the other with regards to trade . Domestic Chinese consumption surpasses what they send to the US. Without China , supermarkets in the US will go empty, US will become the new Venezuela.
As for your production cost market cost analogy
Only the production cost goes to China , the rest stays in the US.
The entire US economy will come crashing down
Should people not find anything on the selves of their supermarket.

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.

Patriot9:

I am telling you. Syrian air defence was just mis-firing and no evidence of collission in air

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.

Itzonlyme:
Aw! I really don't want miracle to win this show..I want my Cee-C o! She is the main double wahala..just like Uti nwachukwu said. Miracle is boring..let's vote for Cee-C pls..but I can't imaging spending a whole #30 for this shit lol..hey u guys should keep voting OK? I will be right back

you know you could just go online and vote for free right?

jnhmaxxwell:


You actually expect all the intercepted ones to be on video right ? These videos were uploaded by civilians and you have a lot of them on the net.

You can do the math, it's very simple. 103 -71 = 32 probably were not intercepted by Syrian S-200. Some for sure hit target, no one is disputing that but to say all of the missiles hit target is a pure lie.

Someone said it above and I agree with what he or she says. If all their military industrial complex combined with France and U.K. could be made inefficient by Syrian missile defense system, shooting down 71 illegal Missiles by any international norms then they really need re-consider what they call military industrial complex. It's a Sham ! That is what I am getting at.

Syrian defense forces have repelled the attacks. This is similar to the surprise attack in Iraq that saturated the Iraqi air defense. Syria has repelled these attacks. I think Russian MOD is now considering selling S-300 to Syrians.

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.

jnhmaxxwell:


Please check out the video I have shared above. In the first video I shared above. I don't believe in anything anyone says except it's live. This new video bellow was even taken close to the day break. The strike was a complete sham.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnwR8oA3y6g

If 71 missiles could be shut down, fighter jet has zero chance.

>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.

Mille:


What do you expect "them" to say. That they failed? ALL the missiles DIDN'T hit their targets. But of course, some did.

I'm not debating if they hit the targets or not. But something sounds fishy when there are more than 100 airstrikes on MILITARY targets and there are no casualties, either Syrian or Russian at a time when the said military is at war with others.

Or you expect me to believe these sites will just be left unguarded and there won't be any Syrian or Russian military personnel at these MILITARY facilities when they are at war with Terrorists?

It shows these military strikes is a sham.



Conspiracy theorists can help us out.

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.

NwaAmaikpe:



I am not angry with Davido.
I am also not angry with Chioma who is just a teen and doesn't fully know what she's doing.

But I am so angry with Chioma's family who have not deemed it fit to chastise their daughter and caution her against the repercussion of such irresponsible display of amorous affiliation with a miscreant.
Davido who didn't hesistate to show the world that money overrides respect for elders when he disrespected and humiliated Dele Momodu.
Yet Chioma's folks are cool with this fvckery because he is 'Omo baba olowo'.

It is sad that this girl has a family,
It is sad she has siblings
It is sad that she has extended relatives.
And all of them are basking in the euphoria of their kin fraternising with a celebrity.
And the shallow consolation that she gets financial rewards.

It is a shame.
I spit on families like Chioma's who have put money before discipline and decorum.
I whip out my preek and piss on the throat of her kit and kin.
Shame on them.
This is the problem with today's youths.
Their families cheer them on as long as they're getting paid.

In the days of old; no family will let their daughter have a lover who has a lovechild outside.
All of that decency and sense of self-worth is gone with the wind. Nowadays, a wad of money shuts the mouth of even the strictest elder.

SMDH

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.

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.

obrigado080:
Cry me a river Assad remains in damascus
Why haven't they killed assad like they killed saddam & gadaffi?
Ur western gods CANNOT stand putin's wrath; they have met their senior.
VLAD is d force that fits these demonic hegemons...
LMAO

sure.

MrMystrO:


Someone "supposedly" gassing a few thousand people justifies killing Millions of THE SAME people you say you want to protect and permanently destabilizing a Country all in the Name of Promoting "Peace". Nice Logic, Very Logical. Now i can see that your case is irredeemable but i will continue.

Question number two and the most important question. What has America finally achieved after their Invasion.. Please i want you to answer this question honestly so i can at least believe you're not a Robot designed to spread propaganda by the west.
What did the Invasion achieve?

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

Flye:
another indication that you not in tune with reality on ground. You may check this out https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_presidential_election,_2007

Even the west has to labeled it sham to reduce the legitimacy.

U can browse Syrian election by yourself.

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�

IgbosAreOsus:
Useless people have a of identifying and supporting each other.

Only a miserable retárd will support a lousy, ugly, arrogant and rude bìtch.

Ceeci is nothing but a whọre. She and Tobi even started those fuckìng rubbish in that house before Nina and Miracle.
She was just too stupìd and senselessly controlling for Tobi to handle, If not, theirs could be worse than Nina and miracle.

A useless girl that claimed to have a boyfriend outside the house but was smoothing with a stranger under blanket under one week.
I detest that ugly bìtch with passion.
And if you are ceeci fan too, FÙCK YOU TOO.

... OK. Please take it easy.

uwajeh:
You probably started watching football yesterday. It was a fantastic goal but any football fan would list a couple of goals better than that

1. Ibrahimovic's overhead goal against England which was actually scored from outside the box;
2. Rooney's goal against Mancity;
3. Maradona's goal against England which required greater skill and technique.
4. Messi's goal against Getafe which also required greater technique;
5. Zidane's goal against Bayer Leverkusen aka "Bayer Neverkusen";
6. Van Basten's sumptuous strike for Netherlands (please watch that goal on YouTube).

I could go on and on. Like I said it was a fantastic goal but you really need to watch football beyond the players and teams you support.

not hating on ronaldo but even EMRE KAN scored a better bicycle kick goal. don't understand the hype tbh.

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.

kingkakaone:

As much as I condemn the act of that sniper, I think I should let u know that u don't know what u are talking about.

How many times have u seen that guy condemn the act of Fulani herdsmen and even book haram that is in Nigeria here. If he has, let him post it here let's see if he's not biased.

What will the condemnation of Nigerian Christians do to change what is happening in the middle East?

To be clear to u also, most Christians don't support such act.

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.

aiir2303:
You won't find the pro Zionist and their sympathizers on this thread. Watch as they ignore all this. I wonder what a Nigerian Christian business is in supporting this genocide

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.

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.

aiir2303:
what's your evidence that all these fine gentlemen here are Russian hacks. Ogbeni don't spew rubbish like a western brainwashed and conditioned piece of work. So anyone with a different perspective or narrative different from your Anglo Zionist lords is now a Russian Hack your brainwashing is complete

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.

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.

alanka:
US base in Ghana? It means America is trying make enmity out of a country within the region.
That is her style, should create military friendship with a country as to make another country within the region an enemy. Russian, China, N. Korea can explain better.

So, who is she trying to form as enemy in southwest? Guess.

Nigeria I think, she want to form emnity with Nigeria or and other by creating MB in Ghana.

stupid analysis. but then again what do you expect from NL?

nex:



This was how they started cooperating with Nigeria Army during the Obasanjo era, and eventually, they studied everything about our military tactics and operational methods. Today, our Army is wondering how Boko Haram is always a step ahead of them.

Thank God Ghanaians still have sense. In Nigeria, we would welcome this Trojan Horse.

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.

KingGBsky:
This is indded very nice.
The United states and the united nations should stop investing in African as if they are thier puppets.
They will always seek for a way to belittle the African continent by seeking to help her grow meanwhile they are the reason its not growing.
Why has all the British and American oil firms in Nigeria not been able to create a refinery for our crude oil here on nigeria? Yet they prefer to make money here drilling the oil and sending it back to enrich their econonomy so that Africans will continue to see them as the almighty.
Nonsense

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.

glad to see that we're all having a civil discussion

mysticwarrior:
I didn't mentioned "conventional warfare" when I talked about the Tsar bomb, but you wrongfully used nukes in making illustrations about "conventional warfare to ascertain the superiority of both Nations, oyes you were very wrong and guess what? it gives me pleasure to capitalize and criticisize your errors and blunders Mr "conventional warfare".

*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.

mysticwarrior:
its too late to make corrections, you have already failed Mr "conventional warfare".

>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.