₦airaland Forum

uyai:
@TOF
Nice hair! you look nice.

Second that! Nice hair, nice curves, nice. . . . .everything, ThiefOf Hearts! You go, girl!!

Hehehe. . . . . .British 419!!

Add Xris74 and Xtycod to the list too, while you are at it!

olanajim:
You have not been attacking Islam as such. But muslims view any attack on their doctrine as an attack on Islam especially if it emanates from non muslim. Your knowledge of Islam and history should have helped you grasp that message.

Where and when did I attack their doctrine? Did you really understand what I wrote in my previous posts? Or did you just read those comments with a biased mind?

olanajim:
The cultural factor is the culprit. And this can be a bit complicated when we note that culture keeps responding to technology and civilisation. Some people just refused to move with changing times while others stick to religion. Yet we have others driven by personal ideology, ego, lust etc .

One thing I can say for sure is that polygamy is a function of individualism. No culture, tradition, religion had ever force a man to polygamy. Men go into it willing base on circumstance they find themselve and then invoke religo-cultural anthem to back their action.

Anyway, like I said before. . . .I rest my case. You are free to have the floor, and continue your flawed argument about how culture is the major culprit, that makes men take on additional wives. Try not to contradict yourself too much, while you are at it.

vigasimple:
I am not geologist but i have a simple common sense which simply transalate that if oil was found in the North, there will be no need to extract it in the south and then pipe laid to Kaduna to go and refine it. They would simply extract it in the North and refine it there and there would no need for ND militant holding anybody and everybody to ransom.

AS for Zarah and Mr. bean there is no need for us to fight North- South divide. The British has joined us together for their own selfish interest and let us then use our diversity, strenght and weakness to work together for a better Nigeria.

You talk am well, my brother!

Planner:
That was false. He never engineered any fastest economy. As for TV , he may have built the first tv in african but not the best.

Nobody said he built the best TV station in Africa. At the time that station came on air, which other country in Black Africa south of the Sahara, had something comparable to it, on the ground?

As far as am concerned, the only place those cultists should be, is behind bars! Their antics have gotten out of hand!

The ministers have all been appointed and given their portfolios. Uba did not make the list.

Thank God for His mercies!

olanajim:
On where you misquoted quran: fatty cited Qoradawi book as his ref. Al qoradawi work LAWFUL AND PROHIBTED IN ISLAM was indisputable. I have heard of the book and would infact add it to my library soon. Lawyers in America are not qualify to interprete shariah unless they specialize in shariah. On the accuracy of Yusuf Ali, and your explanation of quran. I will NEVER accept your explanation over Yusuf Ali even if you are Alfa. Little wonder why muslims, except fatty didn't comment on your wikkipedia and others. I know they won't unless you provoke them. I hope you would not do that.

Al Quradawi's work may be indisputable to you, but it is not to me. You are free to accept, reject or discard whatever suits your fancy. Just like I also reserve the right, to do the same. That is why God in his infinite wisdom, created us differently instead of making us clones. Am sure if you conducted an in-depth study, you would probably find other scholars disagreeing with Al Quradawi's work or interpreting it differently.

Secondly, I never said American lawyers could interprete Sharia. I merely stated that alienation of affection is a term that may be cited by a woman, if she feels denied of her marital rights to her husband's affection. So please free your mind.

Thirdly, I have never attacked Islam anywhere on this forum. I may choose to disagree with some principles, especially where I feel it infringes on the rights of non-muslims, but to attack the religion? No. You can cross-check my previous posts. Please don't confuse me with someone else.

olanajim:
On sex attraction, I have given you a case study of someone who is sexually unattractive, poor, uneducated. Ofcourse, I would have disputed the same too if I had not seen it. Here I am! If you don't believe it is possible that doesn't take away the reality. We have the right to exercise our power anyhow.

Yeah. . . .it doesn't take away the reality. One man's meat like I said before, is another man's poison. You may not have seen the woman as attractive, but your mentor could have found her appealing. Different strokes exist, for different folks. Beauty, as they say is in the eye of the beholder.

olanajim:
Sex attraction as the PRIMARY reason, and STATUS as the secondary may be true but NOT universally correct. You have forgotten to put RELIGION and CULTURE where they belong. I am a student of Logic. That is why I don't accept every propositions hook, line and sinker without subjecting them to Logic. That explains why I don't generalizes.

People have used religion and culture throughout the ages to justify or rationalise their libidinous urges. Culture is not static. It is dynamic. And it can be manipulated to suit human whims, vices and caprices. In addition to being a good student of logic, may I suggest that you should also be a good student of history. It would broaden your perspective.

olanajim:
His primary motive was CULTURE AND DESIRE TO HAVE MANY CHILDREN. He had already made it clear to my mum that he would have more than one wife. I heard some of the arguments as a kid. I wasn't surprise when years later he took a second wife. He did so with mama in the know and not a CLANDESTINE affair. The first woman was rejected by mama.(i don't know why) but she accepted the second! As for STATUS, I would be deceiving you if I said my dad is highly placed. My mentor had that anyway maybe that is why he can afford to do what he did.

I cannot pass any comment on what your dad did, since I do not know him as a person. Let me just say, that your mum must be a rare breed to have agreed to his wishes.

Most women would not easily buy into the 'religion and culture' aspect, as an excuse for a man to run a polygamous home. Kindly do a survey to find out what they feel, before you start propagating your 'logical' reasons, for polygamy. I grew up in the midst of women. So I doubt if any woman would willingly share her husband's loins with another woman, in the guise of supporting a man's cultural and religious inclinations. I rest my case.

olanajim:
Laudate,
I said you twisted facts and I still by that. One, from the way you explained the quranic interpretation and your citation of the wikkipedia. I read fatty27 reply to it. I don't want to venture into religion, hence my reason for leaving you and ALFA to sort it out. I happen to have two english quran versions and two bible versions. So, anyone would be wasting his time if they try to drag me into religion. If I must comment, it would just be in general.

I have read my previous posts and I still can't see what you meant by saying I 'twisted facts'. Again, I must ask you. . .how did I twist the facts? In my previous post no[i]. « #135 on: August 17, 2007, 05:47 PM », [/i] I said :

laudate: No matter how much a man may try to deny it, he cannot love two wives equally, not to talk of three. And the Muslim men who rely on the Q'uaran to practise polygamy, will often tell you that their own scriptures say a man is entitled to 4 wives, but he must love them equally and do justice to them, equally. Tell me, in all honesty, how many men can do that? Even among parents, many of them do not love all their children equally, not to now talk of those who are not even related, but are merely husband & wife. 

Ask your mentor again. I believe he is being economical with the truth. In Islam, when a man marries a widow or takes a 2nd wife, they do so because they can use religion to cover up their excesses, and because they want a new variety. Sometimes, they also do it because their first wife cannot give them kids, or because they have had girls and are searching for a boy. Hardly, would they cite humanitarian reasons as an excuse to indulge in a clandestine affair, and make it legit by taking on the other woman as a 2nd wife. Are they a refugee centre?

Here I clearly listed the reasons which I felt made men to dabble into polygamy:

a). They want a new variety.
b). They need kids, which the first wife has been unable to give.
c). They probably want a boy to perpetuate the family name, after they have had girls.

My interpretation of the Qu'aran was buttressed by the quote I highlighted from Wikipedia in my previous post « #156 on: August 20, 2007, 03:09 PM » which stated that:

laudate: Quote from: wikipedia
In Islam, polygyny (i.e. polygamy) is allowed, with the specific limitation that men can only have up to four wives at any one time. However, the Qur'an specifically states that men who choose this route must deal with their wives as fairly as possible, doing everything that they can to spend equal amounts of time, money on each one of them. Although many Muslim countries still retain traditional Islamic law which permits polygyny, certain elements within Islam challenge its acceptability.

How does this statement above, contradict what is in the Qu'aran? And how does this conflict with what I said earlier, in that post? The issue of a man giving 'equal treatment' to all his wives, was examined from the perspective of a man showing love equally to all the wives. If equal treatment is examined from a holistic perspective, you cannot exclude romantic treatment or any kind of action (including love) that a man shows to his wives, from the word called 'treatment.' So what is wrong in that?

olanajim:
However, having cross-checked fatty27 ref. I went for yussuf Ali commentary to see if I could nail him. He was right and you were wrong in the interpretation. Please, try re-read his reply. I hope he is still around to take you up.

Fatty27 made the comment that the phrase 'equal treatment' as used by Islamic scholars and cited in the Qu'aran, refers to rights. I merely found it hard to accept that kind of narrow definition from fatty27. 'Equal treatment' as used in the Qu'ran should encompass all kinds of actions or any treatment a man shows to a woman, including romantic love. So from that perspective, would it be easy for a man to show an equal kind of romantic love in equal measure, to each wife, in a polygamous household? I think not. Even the Qu'aran is clear on this issue.

Yes, the Qu'aran also talks about spending equal time with each wife. Did I deny that in any of my previous posts? Ali's comments were merely cited by Fatty27, in her post. And I believe my explanation up there, clearly portrays my stand on that issue. So in what way was Yusuf Ali right, and Laudate wrong? Kindly state it clearly. Or is there another post made by Yusuf Ali which I am not aware of, that I have failed to address?

Do you feel I should have agreed with Fatty27 and Ali, that the Quaran's definition of equal treatment, should be restricted to rights alone? Alright, what if we agree to that interpretation, and one of the wives who feels unloved by her husband, claims that her husband's failure to show romantic love or share sexual intimacy with her, is a denial of her marital rights to enjoy her husband's affection?  What would you say? Some American lawyers say that there is something called 'alienation of affection', in family law. Can it be used to make a case for a wife who feels neglected by her husband, or one who hasn't recieved enough sexual attention from her husband, in comparison to what other wives have received?

olanajim:
The other ref. can easily be pointed out from your last two posts.
1, you said men of low sexual drives takes to polygamy to boast their status. At another post, you said sexuality is important factors in polygamy though you agreed later that polygamy may not be driven by sex. These statements were true when applied independently. But then, a contradiction had been created. Going through extreme to support your view without MAKING EXCEPTION is to me, misleading and tantamount to twisting of facts.

Please re-read my post again. By saying that some men take wives to boost their status, it does not mean they cannot also take wives to re-ignite an ailing sex drive. I didn't want to repeat this again, because I had already made it clear that men take additional wives for libidinous reasons, in my very first post on this topic.

There is no contradiction. I merely listed the reasons which I felt fuelled a man's decision to engage in polygamy. Sex or sexual attraction is a primary reason, status is a secondary one, so is the desire for a new variety of women, a need for children, (which the first wife may have been unable to give), as well as a desire for a male heir. All these were listed in my previous posts. It doesn't matter if the reason for taking a second wife is status, barreness, search for a male heir, variety etc. the truth still remains that a man would not take an additional wife to provide him with these things, if he wasn't sexually attracted to that other woman in the first place. As a man, would you marry a woman you hate, dislike, or leaves you cold as a second wife, or would you pick one that repulses you instead of one that attracts you, simply because of humanitarian reasons? So where is the contradiction in my posts? At the heart of the selection of a 2nd wife, is the desire to engage in romantic encounters or to fulfil a lustful need, regardless of other extraneous factors that may be cited to justify such a move.

olanajim:
Mandella was brought to the picture to show that:
men, whether as a polygamy or monogamy don't MARRIED OLDER women for sex as you'd tried to assumed. (please re-read your post). I was trying to use it as a case study that it is NOT EVERYONE that marry more than one wife, young or old that do it FOR SEX.
Two, I used mandella to show that marriage isn't just for sex. You said it rightly: COMPANIONSHIP.

Trust me, if Mandela hadn't thought about sex with Graca Machel, he would have chosen to remain celibate for the rest of his life. Afterall, he was over 60, when he came out of prison. Companionship, is an euphemism that older people often use, when they want to want to engage in discreet liasions with members of the opposite sex.

dakmanzero:
Yoruba is unwritten because its notation is an invention of the modern age- and contributes nothing to the wealth of the culture, most of which exists in the form of oral traditions. Even worse is the fact that it is difficult to teach someone written Yoruba without teaching them English first, since the written form of the language is used next to nowhere outside of academia and modern literature.

Whaa-aa-aat??      

olanajim:
The cardinal objective of this thread is not to debate men sexuality; it is neither to abuse and condemn the polygamists nor to expresse personal frustrations. It is to KNOW WHY MEN TAKES SECOND WIFE. If we want to know why, we would not repel those who know but rather listen to their logics and compare with what we know so well. We would rather look at the advantages and disadvantages without giving it gender or religion colouration.

You cannot seperate male sexuality from polygamy or any other type of marriage. A discussion on marital behaviour cannot be complete without a look at sexuality. Or has sex, stopped being an integral part of marriage?

olanajim: Laudate,
I have been enjoying your arguments. I love to read them. But I disagree with your way of twisting facts to support your arguments.

What facts did I twist, and in what way were they twisted, please? Provide proof. We can't all agree on the same issue in the same way. The Almighty God created us different from one another. If he wanted blind assent, He would have created clones, not humans.

olanajim: Your logic baffled me! Why would a man with low sex drive keep chains of women just to pose as socially responsible? Are the women under him so dumb they don't know their right from wrong? Why would any sane woman agree to that kind of union? I strongly disagree with your reasoning. At any rate, this is for women not men. Why would a sane woman agree to be used by men for whatever reason only to blame the menfolk afterward?

Polygamy starts from having as little as two wives. So if a man has two wives simultaneously, without divorcing one to take another, my brother. . .it is regarded as polygamy. So the issue of having chains of women is not a fully, accurate description of polygamy, since it can start from a man having as little as two wives.

Now why would he need these women in order to pose as being socially responsible? Because to some men, image is everything. 'Status' counts for a great deal in some segments of society, and what better way to show you have arrived, than by parading the best cars, best clothes and most sexy women on your arms? Oh, would you prefer the older man with the low sex drive to remain unmarried and childless, and endure the stigma of being tagged as an irresponsible eunuch, by everyone?

You asked if "the women under him so dumb they don't know their right from wrong. .?" I believed I answered this question in a previous post. They are not dumb. Far from it. Not in several parts of the Southern part of Nigeria, anyway. In the South-west especially, it is a different ball-game. Some of these women are not dumb, but mercenary and cash-inclined. Wealth has many fathers, while poverty is an orphan. Many of these women who end up being 2nd wives, flock around men with cash to throw around, and guys with more quid than common sense. Look at the late M.K.O Abiola's lifestyle, and you will see what I mean.

But like I said earlier, in the North the girls are often young, ignorant, barely educated little things who cannot fight for their rights, and may have been married off at a very young age, to men old enough to be their fathers. How many of them in such situations have access to justice, or can cough up enough quid to hire a lawyer? How many of them in such a state have enough guts to fight a culturally entrenched, male-dominated system that seeks to use religion to justify the man's right to multiple wives? Very few. A few attractive widows are also taken as second wives, because they are still attractive or good-looking enough to appeal to a man who wishes to get close enough to them, for whatever reason he can whip up to justify his polygamous instincts.

olanajim: For the menopause women getting married, you are missing the point, my dear. Men don't marry menopaused women for fun, sex, whatever. If that is so, a randy man would not leave his wife of many years who had just attained menopause and go after young blood. Please do more research. When Nelson mandela, remarried, it was obviously not for sex. The woman he married was not a young lady.

Marriage is not about sex, children and living with a woman. A man marry for many reasons. My own point of choosing monogamy is predicated on my understanding of marriage itself. All these nuissance about sex is what I don't understand. During courtship, couples have sex, but something is missing. That is why it was not marriage. Since marriage is not about sex, it is logically right to guess that polygamy is also not about sex. We may just need to be fair and look deeper.

Don't use Nelson Mandela as an example of a man in a polygamous union. When he married Graca Machel, he did so because he needed companionship, and because he found her desirable. You cannot say for sure, that he didn't find her attractive enough to want to go to bed with her, despite her age. One man's meat is another man's poison. My point about menopause, is that it does not discourage women from having sex. It only puts an end to their child-bearing ability. Period. So a man can still marry a menopausal woman because he finds her attractive enough to bed her, or because she stirs up his libido, depsite her age.

Finally, you are right. Sex, may not be the sole reason why a monogamous or polygamous marriage is contracted. But it is one of the major reasons why it is done. Unless you want me to believe that a man can marry a woman he finds totally repulsive, in order to carry out a humanitarian deed.

@yara,

Tell this girl that your father is not the owner of Central Bank, and that while you feel sad that she is experiencing a crash crunch, you cannot come to her rescue all the time.

Make her realise that you also have a few problems that can only be solved by cash flow, and you would be grateful if she could chip in a few naira notes, to help you solve your own problems, too. Then wait and see her reaction.

If she grows cold, or gets angry, take a walk my dear brother. You have done enough, to prove yourself. It is sad that when some bad girls see a good guy, all they do is take advantage of him, only to turn round later and complain, that all the good guys have skipped town or are nowhere to be found.

Its' a shame!

@ Dutch,

You really must be a good player, oh sorry, master con-artist to have come up with this strategy! Chei!  Let me get this straight:

a). You got your current girl-friend pregnant.

b). You persuaded her to abort it, and she refused initially.

c). In order to coax, coerce, manipulate and force her hand, so that she could agree to a termination, you persuaded your ex-girlfriend (chei!) to take part in a lie & pretend she was also pregnant for you.

d). Your current girlfriend fell for your trick, and went along with the abortion.

e). Now she is feeling guilty, used, depressed, empty on the inside, and angry with herself for agreeing to do away with the baby,   while you are now feeling sad.

Now, my question: What were you thinking when you thought up this your lousy scheme, pressured your babe (who was probably thoroughly confused at that time & had no-one to confide in) to flush out the kid, and got your treacherous ex-girlfriend without any atom of self-respect for herself, to play along with you in this sordid deal?

Did you expect your babe to put her hands together and give you a resounding applause, when she discovered your treachery and the sordid length you went to, to persuade her to get rid of the unborn child? Did you feel she wouldn't end up looking like a mugu, when the whole story came out? I weak o!

Not only is your babe trying to deal with the guilt of the whole thing, she is also trying to deal with the fact that you went to such a deceitful extent with your -ex, to manipulate her into getting rid of her child.  

I actually feel sorry for you both. More pity for her, because the whole deed can't be undone. I pray God shows her mercy, and gives her the grace to deal with her pain. As for you - the less said, the better. . . . . .may the law of Karma take its' course, in your life.

hayo: Ijebu Woman - Too Worldy, loves party and may kill you before you are wise to marry another woman
Ondo Woman - Lailai, one husband can never fill her cupboard
Ibadan Woman - Very rass, dirty and cunny
Ekiti Woman - Yeepa, you wan die. She is too bloody tough. Alagidi
Ife Woman - Oluku mi ree ni (Meaning they love concubines )
Oyo Woman - Sango o, Oko Oya,  them dey go herbalist's house like market

Oya, you never talk am finish o! If you say the Ijebu woman loves to party, what about the Isale-Eko babe?? Na which category that one go be? 

I found your post too funny for words. All these stereotypes serve very little purpose. The truth is that people with all the negative characters you cited above, exist in each & every ethnic group, sub-tribe, neighbourhood or compound. I have been to some towns, whose indigenes exhibit each and every one of these traits you mentioned. You can find party-lovers and herbalist devotees in your own village, sef.   Even in Papa Adeboye's village, or Rev. Kumuyi's town, you will find people spreading negative stereotypes about the inhabitants.

hayo: So which one we go come marry. It is not only Ijebu women that have stigmas associated to them, almost every town in Yoruba land has one or two. I have come to realise that it is a personal race and no matter where you come from, you decide what you believe and what you want to do. So, look for a good woman and not a woman from a particular ethnic group or town.

Like you rightly pointed out above in your concluding remarks, what matters most (like someone else also said earlier) is the quality of the person's character. Wasn't it the late Martin Luther King that said 'men should be judged by the content of their character and not the colour of their skin?' If we paraphrase that, we ought to say: let's all relate to people or judge them based on the content of their character, and not based on their ethnic background, or village stereotypes.

Every human being has some good, bad & even downright ugly aspects, that make up his intrinsic behaviour. There are no holy saints, anywhere.

@ Babelove,

Ah, you don waka reach here, too??

Alright, there seems to be a general agreement that he was a Yoruba hero, not a national hero as most of his achievements were enacted in the old Western region, when he was in charge of that region.

Why didn't he groom a worthy successor before his departure? No one seems to have had the capability to continue from where he stopped.

@ebos,

One of the key leaders of the former Biafran 'state' is dead. Dr Okechukwu Ikejiani died in Canada, at the age of 90. A report says that during the Civil War, Dr Ikejiani was director of laboratory services in Biafra, and Ambassador Plenipotentiary for the head of state of Biafra. Here are some excerpts from his last interview with Cyril Ibe, published by the Chinua Achebe Foundation.

[quote author=Dr. Okechukwu Ikejiani]
[center]The Nigerian Civil War  [/center]
Ibe: Where were you during the civil war? Talk about the things you did, either at home or away from home.

Dr. Ikejiani: I was in Nigeria during the civil war. I was practically every day with Ojukwu. I visited abroad; I visited the United States; I visited the whole of the West Indies with Professor Ezera. I visited Haiti with Chukwuma Azikiwe. It was because of me that they [ Haiti] gave recognition to Biafra. I was appointed in the rehabilitation commission [of Biafra] because we did most work of the children who were suffering from kwashiorkor. We arranged for them to go abroad for treatment and stayed till the end of the civil war. During the intervals, I was sent abroad. I visited Greece. I went to Yamoussoukro [ Ivory Coast]. I went to Gabon. I visited the whole of the West Indies. I was in the United States. I visited Canada. At the end of the war I was in Lisbon [ Portugal]. I was in Lisbon when the war ended and I decided not to come back.

Ibe: Officially you were one of a number of Biafran ambassadors then, or did you have a specific portfolio?

Dr. Ikejiani: No, I will call it Ambassador Plenipotentiary. When the leader, Ojukwu, sent you abroad, you became ambassador of wherever you were assigned. That’s what I was. I was not officially referred to as an ambassador abroad, although I was Ambassador Plenipotentiary when I traveled to one of these countries.

Ibe: From your vantage point of going abroad, speaking on behalf of Biafra and Ojukwu at that time, what was the general feeling of other countries on the fate of Biafra, which was fighting a war of secession?

Dr. Ikejiani: Most countries I visited supported us – most countries. I visited Haiti, they gave us recognition. I visited the whole of West Indian islands. You have to know the history of Jamaica, Barbados, Guyana, to realize that they are small, except Guyana which is quite big. But there were a lot of problems with the Indian population. And Jamaica had a lot of problems. Their recognition of us would have been meaningless. I would say that my going abroad showed me that the whole of the black world supported us. Greece supported us, too.

Ibe: What did these countries see in Biafra?

Dr. Ikejiani: They saw a legacy of Black people who could rise -- potentially rise -- above the stupor where they were. They saw what we were able to do in the war, the way we were organized, and they were very impressed. As matter of fact, Portugal was telling us that our people were better organized than the Portuguese territories where they were. Greece was quite impressed with what we were doing. But this came to nothing because we lost the war.

Ibe: With all these things going for Biafra, why did Biafra still lose the war?

Dr. Ikejiani: : We lost the war because no large country supported us. The British government was against us, Russia was against us openly. America was going up and down; they never really supported us.

Ibe: How about Canada?

Dr. Ikejiani: Canada didn’t really recognize us, but they gave us a little support. Sometimes I would come here to get a visa to go to the United States instead of going anywhere else. So Canada supported us, but it was the time of Trudeau, and Trudeau was sympathetic but that was all they could do. If Britain was against us, Canada couldn’t openly support us. So we lost the support of the great powers. And it was obvious that with the recognition of African countries which we had, with the recognition of Haiti, no other countries recognized us. That’s why we couldn’t get any equipment to fight. Our soldiers had to give up.

Ibe: It’s obvious why Britain would not support the break up of its former colony. Why would the other strong countries like Canada, Russia and the United States not look favorably at the secessionist war of Biafra?

Dr. Ikejiani: Don’t forget that at that time Russia had the whole of the Russian empire intact. They weren’t separated. So they were totally against a war of secession. Russia was totally against us. As a matter of fact, Russian planes were used in bombing us. If Britain did not support us; if Russia did not support us, and if the United States was [undecided], we couldn’t get any support. We had full support from four African countries, but that was not enough to give us the independence we wanted.

Ibe: Looking back now, what have the Igbo people and the rest of southeastern Nigeria, learned from that war of secession?

Dr. Ikejiani: I don’t think they’ve learned anything. First of all, now they have oil. It’s almost impossible to ask them to be a part of any Igbo cause.

Ibe: Zik was opposed to Ojukwu waging the Nigeria-Biafra civil war….

Dr. Ikejiani: [cuts in]…he wasn’t opposed to the civil war until later…

Ibe: …he wasn’t opposed to the civil war until later; so initially what was [Zik’s] feeling?

Dr. Ikejiani: His feeling was that when a leader of a nation wants to go to war, he should consult people. Primarily Ojukwu should have consulted Zik. Secondly, he should have consulted [Michael] Okpara [premier of eastern Nigeria]. Thirdly he should have consulted other leaders. The only people that Ojukwu consulted were [Louis] Mbanefo and [Francis] Ibiam. I have Ibiam’s letter here. It was a great mistake. I told Ojukwu [to] invite these people [and inform them]. He told me they would compromise. That’s what he said. He didn’t invite them, never asked them questions. That’s not how to lead. That’s what led us into trouble. There are many areas we would have compromised. Ojukwu did not compromise. That’s one of the mistakes we made in the war.

Ibe: What were some of the other mistakes?

Dr. Ikejiani: I don’t want to mention them….When Okpara went to Abyssinia, he should have compromised. We didn’t. There are two or three areas where he should have compromised….We were bringing one planeload of ammunition from Israel every week; one planeload of weapons from Tanzania every week, but we couldn’t carry tanks. If we had a boat that brought tanks, we could have fought. The tank we captured was when [Nigerian soldiers] came to Abagana trying to bypass to Nnewi without going through Onitsha; we captured one tank. We made a lot of mistakes during the war. It wasn’t that Zik opposed the war. Anybody with sense would consider the war. War is destructive. There’s no country that went to war that didn’t suffer, not one. When we went to war, we destroyed everything we had. That’s true.

Ibe: Many of us, Nigerians, do not have the advantage of being so close to some of these historical figures you mentioned – Zik, Ojukwu, among many others. What do you think are Odumegwu Ojukwu’s reflections these days regarding his decision to wage a war of secession?

Dr. Ikejiani: He did not go to war. We were attacked and he replied. He did not compromise at any time; that was the mistake he made. What he thinks now I don’t know. He came back [from exile in Ivory Coast] and joined the National Party of Nigeria NPN. I don’t think that was brilliant. Second, the man who fought a war in Nigeria thinks he can run as president. He picked a northerner, the brother of the Emir of Kano. I think that’s wrong. What does he want to run for president for, for what? What does he hope to achieve? I don’t know what he’s thinking that he has done, but it’s unfortunate that we had to go to war, that we did not compromise. [/quote]http://www.nigeriavillagesquare.com/index.php/content/view/6966/55

[quote author=angola_g link=topic=72032.msg1408422#msg1408422 date=1187541258]@Rblock
I think we got to watch him out.Mum has been pleading us to leave him alone that he might change.If continues with those ugly characters of his.The man go collect live any how even if na matchet cut sef.Make we watch am first.[/quote]Which side una dey stay for Naija? If na Lagos you dey, make una go call O.P.C for am. If una no want OPC, go call army. If army no answer una, make una go for another police station, settle di boys in black very well, by making sure that you offer them more bucks than your neighbour, then ask them to deal with him.

If una no wan try dis method, just get a good lawyer who go write am one bad letter with plenty, plenty grammer warning him to cease and desist from causing disturbance in your neighbourhood. Chikena!

Banderas:
Hmm, Mormons exist in the US, and they are not treated as criminals. Polygamy is permitted in the US, but it simply isn't Legal. In other words, you can have more than one wife (or husband), but you can't have more than one legal sp

Oh. . . .are you saying Tanna is a Mormon?

olanajim:
If indeed polygamy is a product of men insatiable appetite for sex, how do you explain a man marrying a widow that had passed her menopause stage? Or a man with low sex drive marrying at old age? You can't tell me this is not as prevalence as marrying sexy damsels. I stand by my logic!

Menopause has little to do with a woman's sexual desire, and more to do with fertility levels. Ask any gynaecologist. That a woman has passed menopause, doesn't mean she can no longer indulge in intimate, romantic encounters. It just means she is no longer producing eggs. Period.

As for a man with a low sex drive, he may decide to get married in order to present a 'front' to society (i.e. give the impression that he is a happily married man), so that he wouldn't be tagged as an irresponsible, elderly fool who is still single at an old age. So. . . .does that answer your question?

Tanna:
Yes- I am off my sick bed, and I still don't mind a second wife.

I don't think a woman should have a second husband because women aren't intended to RECEIVE from different men. Men, naturally and biologically are made to plant their seeds and dominate whereever.

Also, many men in the bible had wives(S) and still found favor in God's sight.
I am not Muslim, I am Christian, and I have yet to see where this is FORBIDDEN.

Now- of course[b] it would be weird because I am American,[/b] and live in america but its much more upright than the SCORES of women who knowingly or secretly tolerate cheating men, and his mistress for years.

All, I am saying is that cheating i wrong - but A second wife is legit.

Ah, now I get it. . . . .Tanna is American, has lived in the States all her life, where polygamy is illegal, and has probably never had any encounters with polygamy itself, up close and personal. No wonder she has such an idealistic view of polygamy!!

Maybe the closest she has been to polygamy, has been through the films she watched on the big screen or through gossip she heard from other ladies in the rest room. Anyway, am just guessing. Ehm. . .Tanna, have you ever been in love with a married man or dated one, perhaps? Just curious.

LadyB:
thanx guys for the suggestions!
i will look into this venues.
@laudata-how much security do u need?

Er. . . .it would depend on the number of guests you are expecting and number of cars that are likely to turn up. Areas like Onikan, are close to down-town Lagos and cars parked on the streets in such areas, are a target for street urchins popularly known as Area Boys. There are private security outfits in Lagos such as Corporate Guards, Halogen Security, Vanni etc. who can supply guards at a fee, at short notice. A good rule of thumb would be to get have one guard watching over about ten-fifteen cars at any point in time. The local police stations also provide security back up on request. Just keep something for the boys. . .

@Fatty27,

Did you even re-e-ead my previous posts at all, before jumping the gun?

laudate:
Divorce rates may not be as highly prevalent in those Islamic countries because, in most cases it is NOT the woman that initiates divorce proceedings, it is the man, unlike in the West where either of them can initiate divorce proceedings.

I stated that: "in most cases it is NOT the woman that initiates divorce proceedings, it is the man. . ." Did I say women are not allowed to initiate divorce, like you claimed? I used the phrase, "in most cases. . . " I did not say "in ALL cases. . .," so what is your beef? That phrase has been used by a few other scholars, as well.

Doing justice to a woman in a polygamous marriage, also involves ensuring that she gets equal treatment with the other wives. Such equal treatment would encompass the man's method of showing love, among his wives, don't you think so? If the man expresses romantic thoughts, displays affection or shows love to one wife, but not to another wife, would you regard that as showing equal treatment or would you call that "justice", as required by the Qu'aran?

macechi:
My dear,i understand the way u feel.But i must tell u that if u truely love him,don't think of leaving him.Allow fate to take care of everything.What will be will be.Dont worry.It happened to me & i sat down & decided who i really wanted.Just give him time to think about it,after which u will ask him to decide between both of u, Macben Echianu(UK)[color=#990000][/color]

Wha-aa-at??!!  Give him time to think about. . . . .just what exactly?

Uyai, the guy is playing 'mind' games with you. Avoid the trickster! Listen to PTH and ThiefofHearts. Take SwtNsoFLyy's advice, too. It is worth its' weight in gold.

Bad belle, attacks, counter attacks and a whole lot of stuff.

Other folks need to be banned too, for posting stories and articles that are highly defammatory of other ethnic groups. . . . . . . not just Dimka.