₦airaland Forum

gly:
But it is not the bolded na?

I mean instead of blaming UK's Queen for the war that was fought between Nigerians, why not blame the US which benefited most from the Trans-Atlantic slave trade? Or her historical knowledge is not up to that?

Is the Slave trade not crueler than the war that was fought between two groups?

In war, the loser will definitely have more deaths or casualties than the winner.

I don't really understand why some people blame the British for the civil war
This is just like blaming a man for protecting his wife from an aggressor.
That's dumb

Agboriotejoye:
I don't really understand why some people blame the British for the civil war
This is just like blaming a man for protecting his wife from an aggressor.
That's dumb

Her blame was Britain making Gowon back off Aburri Accord

SpecialAdviser:
Her blame was Britain making Gowon back off Aburri Accord

How did Britain make Gowon back off aburi accord?
Does she have any evidence to back that up?

Owopariola001:
I mean instead of blaming UK's Queen for the war that was fought between Nigerians, why not blame the US which benefited most from the Trans-Atlantic slave trade? Or her historical knowledge is not up to that?

Is the Slave trade not crueler than the war that was fought between two groups?

In war, the loser will definitely have more deaths or casualties than the winner.

Okay bro

Agboriotejoye:
How did Britain make Gowon back off aburi accord?
Does she have any evidence to back that up?

Yes. The evidence is that Britain would have used their influence to pressure Gowon over what was agreed. More so not support Gowon who abadoned an accord during the war.

SpecialAdviser:
Yes. The evidence is that Britain would have used their influence to pressure Gowon over what was agreed. More so not support Gowon who abadoned an accord during the war.

Would have is not an evidence. It is conjecture.
Britiain supporting Nigeria is not because of your conjecture. It is because they have a contractual agreement with Nigeria just as US have with Ukraine

Agboriotejoye:
Would have is not an evidence. It is conjecture.
Britiain supporting Nigeria is not because of your conjecture. It is because they have a contractual agreement with Nigeria just as US have with Ukraine

Lol at your hypocrisy here. Do you understand what they call Diplomatic intervention?
You mean your former colony is going to war with itself, you fail to intervene to foster an agreement but chose to support the erring side blindly. Let me ask you, do you think you are arguing with a kid?

Bro forget matter, Britain had their motive for not allowing the accord to stand. One answer, Niger Delta oil. Thanks

SpecialAdviser:
Lol at your hypocrisy here. Do you understand what they call Diplomatic intervention?
You mean your former colony is going to war with itself, you fail to intervene to foster an agreement but chose to support the erring side blindly. Let me ask you, do you think you are arguing with a kid?

Bro forget matter, Britain had their motive for not allowing the accord to stand. One answer, Niger Delta oil. Thanks

Niger Delta oil?
I don't think so. If Biafra was achieved, the new country will still need to sell the oil and Britain is still the surest customer they'll have.
I think you already answered why they chose to support the Nigerian side. Nigeria is their former colony they gave independence barely seven years back. I don't think they'll be so interested in it breaking up. It will signal a failure of their foreign policy then.
Besides, you need to remember Biafra as a nation was yet to establish foreign relations with any country then. So it was easier for Nigeria to win on the foreign diplomatic front since it already had existing diplomatic relations with those countries

Agboriotejoye:
Niger Delta oil?
I don't think so. If Biafra was achieved, the new country will still need to sell the oil and Britain is still the surest customer they'll have.
I think you already answered why they chose to support the Nigerian side. Nigeria is their former colony they gave independence barely seven years back. I don't think they'll be so interested in it breaking up. It will signal a failure of their foreign policy then.
Besides, you need to remember Biafra as a nation was yet to establish foreign relations with any country then. So it was easier for Nigeria to win on the foreign diplomatic front since it already had existing diplomatic relations with those countries

On this I will ask if you really knew details of the Aburi Accord. Was the accord for cessetion? Was Britain not part of the negotiations? What was it's stand during the peace talk? What changed after all the agreements? Did Britain not colonize India and Pakistan as a country?

If the accord was not meant for complete disitengration, how would it have embarrassed UK?

SpecialAdviser:
On this I will ask if you really knew details of the Aburi Accord. Was the accord for cessetion? Was Britain not part of the negotiations? What was it's stand during the peace talk? What changed after all the agreements? Did Britain not colonize India and Pakistan as a country?

If the accord was not meant for complete disitengration, how would it have embarrassed UK?

Aburi accord was all about ensuring regional autonomy.
It was the northern hawks in the army who believed that such was against the spirit of unitary system and will further make secession attractive.
India and Pakistan situation is different from that of Nigeria.
Britiain was never against the implementation of the Aburi accord. Don't forget you alluded that Britain was part of the accord. Not only that, they bequeathed regional system of democratic government to Nigeria.
What I'm pointing out to you is that British foreign policy couldn't have supported the disintegration of Nigeria at that point. Not only that, Biafra as a country was not yet intentionally recognised so it was difficult for ojukwu and co to establish diplomatic relations to rival that which Nigeria already had

Agboriotejoye:
Aburi accord was all about ensuring regional autonomy.
It was the northern hawks in the army who believed that such was against the spirit of unitary system and will further make secession attractive.
India and Pakistan situation is different from that of Nigeria.
Britiain was never against the implementation of the Aburi accord. Don't forget you alluded that Britain was part of the accord. Not only that, they bequeathed regional system of democratic government to Nigeria.
What I'm pointing out to you is that British foreign policy couldn't have supported the disintegration of Nigeria at that point. Not only that, Biafra as a country was not yet intentionally recognised so it was difficult for ojukwu and co to establish diplomatic relations to rival that which Nigeria already had

Your assertion is a complete deviation wether intentionally or non intentionally. You cannot tell me that the great Britain with all His influence and power cannot pressure Gowon to succumb to the regional agreement. If Gowon reject such pressure, informing him that they will stay neutral in the war would have forced him to succumb. And who told you there were no nation backing Biafra?

You can try to defend British role in the war from now till tomorrow but I can categorically tell you that Britain decision to back Nigeria shows clearly they have no regards to the agreement.

It is no where recorded in history that Britain either diplomatically or otherwise tried to pressure Gowon to honor the accord. When you get one, send me.

SpecialAdviser:
Let us all learn to forgive and let the past belong to the past. Up till now Algerian Muslims still ruin what France did to them. France has even paid them compensation.

Wrong , france never payed any compensation to algerians . Some frenchs even say , they should thank us for colonizing them