not realy...

if you realy understand the nature and the tribes in the area called nigeria today,you would understand that democratie can not work........

democratie only works with people that agree in one purpose....toghether no matter what!...

we africans in general dont have that kind of mindset...

we are diverse.extremly,and we love it that way in a bizarr way...it works...

we still outnumber the europeans,even after the deported alot of us to the americas....

what system did we use??....

militaristic....

thats why we always have the instincts to fall back to it when in distress...

we have to decide...

1. become completly militaristic and follow orders..(i think the best for nigeria)
2. mix of militaristic+democratie+theologie...(this would make a balanced approach,but will make states less controlable from the center)
3. full out democracy!....(this will not work...its a matter of time till it collapse and its very expensive too.!)


anyways..

my opinion....

The problem with what u consider best for Nigeria is that those order givers are automatically above the law so who monitors and controls any excesses which must surely arise? WHO delivers hapless citizens out of the hands of military oppressors who rule by fear and d barrel of the gun?

thedarkside:


not realy...

if you realy understand the nature and the tribes in the area called nigeria today,you would understand that democratie can not work........

democratie only works with people that agree in one purpose....toghether no matter what!...

we africans in general dont have that kind of mindset...

we are diverse.extremly,and we love it that way in a bizarr way...it works...

we still outnumber the europeans,even after the deported alot of us to the americas....

what system did we use??....

militaristic....

thats why we always have the instincts to fall back to it when in distress...

we have to decide...

1. become completly militaristic and follow orders..(i think the best for nigeria)
2. mix of militaristic+democratie+theologie...(this would make a balanced approach,but will make states less controlable from the center)
3. full out democracy!....(this will not work...its a matter of time till it collapse and its very expensive too.!)


anyways..

my opinion....

1. If we as a people are fundamentally divided and cannot stand each other, then no system of governance could keep us together. It would be much worse under a military system, under which the other sections of the country would feel oppressed by the section of the country whose member is the military leader.

2. Democracy has never required that all sections of a state be of one mind, regarding national identity. In the US there is a deep divide between North and South that stretches way back to the abolition of slavery and the American civil war. Till today, there are some states within the US which are almost rogue states in terms of how their political identity. This has not stopped the American democracy from working relatively well. How about the UK where four different nations combine and are always talking about splitting up? Their democracy seems to be working just fine.

The issue is not about diversity. The issue is about creating strong government institutions, backed by the rule of law, that can be relied upon to fulfil the function they are created for. Every successful state has these.

The military cannot be relied upon to serve this function because there would be no limit to their power. Where there is unlimited power, you are playing a game of Russian roulette: sure you might get a good ruler once in a while, but you may also end up dead.

freeze001:
The problem with what u consider best for Nigeria is that those order givers are automatically above the law so who monitors and controls any excesses which must surely arise? WHO delivers hapless citizens out of the hands of military oppressors who rule by fear and d barrel of the gun?

i dont know how it worked before the europeans arrived on our shores...

but it seems it worked...we didnt collapsed like the native americans or the mayans,azteks and so on.....

our kings and elders are still swagging around till today....

that means the system of ancestors,kings,elders and armies always worked....

its not us that was only colonized,even china you see today was colonized somehow....

Kgdavid:



1. If we as a people are fundamentally divided and cannot stand each other, then no system of governance could keep us together. It would be much worse under a military system, under which the other sections of the country would feel oppressed by the section of the country whose member is the military leader.

2. Democracy has never required that all sections of a state be of one mind, regarding national identity. In the US there is a deep divide between North and South that stretches way back to the abolition of slavery and the American civil war. Till today, there are some states within the US which are almost rogue states in terms of how their political identity. This has not stopped the American democracy from working relatively well. How about the UK where four different nations combine and are always talking about splitting up? Their democracy seems to be working just fine.

The issue is not about diversity. The issue is about creating strong government institutions, backed by the rule of law, that can be relied upon to fulfil the function they are created for. Every successful state has these.

The military cannot be relied upon to serve this function because there would be no limit to their power. Where there is unlimited power, you are playing a game of Russian roulette: sure you might get a good ruler once in a while, but you may also end up dead.

thats my point...no matter what,they stick toghether...that was the agreement that swore to each other on landing in pleymeth rock..

now i ask you..

do we have that mentality?...no we dont...so why try to be like them...?..

we know america will not disintegrate,they have a agreement!.......

we have a agreement too with you,biafra...you dont want to hold to it..

soo...we go back to what alwys worked for us...OBEY ORDERS OF OLD!!!..... ..

shey na only you waka come?..

thedarkside:


i dont know how it worked before the europeans arrived on our shores...

but it seems it worked...we didnt collapsed like the native americans or the mayans,azteks and so on.....

our kings and elders are still swagging around till today....

that means the system of ancestors,kings,elders and armies always worked....

its not us that was only colonized,even china you see today was colonized somehow....

Are u talking foreign colonisation now or military rule? My knowledge of military rule in Nigeria certainly isn't something to be experienced again.

thedarkside:


thats my point...no matter what,they stick toghether...that was the agreement that swore to each other on landing in pleymeth rock..

now i ask you..

do we have that mentality?...no we dont...so why try to be like them...?..

we know america will not disintegrate,they have a agreement!.......

we have a agreement too with you,biafra...you dont want to hold to it..

soo...we go back to what alwys worked for us...OBEY ORDERS OF OLD!!!..... ..

shey na only you waka come?..

They are not bound to stick together no matter what. First of all the states voluntarily decided to join d union which is not the case in Nigeria where in 1914 North n South were forcibly amalgamated with no regard for the sharp peculiarities of the affected group.

Secondly, the US constitution allows for withdrawal from the union so a bid to secede will not amount to treason provided constitutional provisions are followed. Again that is not the case in Nigeria which is why there was a civil war and now Nnamdi Kanu is being tried for supposed treason.

What agreement is there with Biafra according to u when it wasn't voluntary but at the threat of death n starvation and d major reasons for the secession have remained unaddressed and still persist?

freeze001:


They are not bound to stick together no matter what. First of all the states voluntarily decided to join d union which is not the case in Nigeria where in 1914 North n South were forcibly amalgamated with no regard for the sharp peculiarities of the affected group.

Secondly, the US constitution allows for withdrawal from the union so a bid to secede will not amount to treason provided constitutional provisions are followed. Again that is not the case in Nigeria which is why there was a civil war and now Nnamdi Kanu is being tried for supposed treason.

What agreement is there with Biafra according to u when it wasn't voluntary but at the threat of death n starvation and d major reasons for the secession have remained unaddressed and still persist?

you for have never tried to come with us the first palce in 1960....

now its too late....

we are too important now for the entire african continent..a chaos in nigeria means chaos in west-africa that will reach north-africa..

and when north-africa stumble again,then the way is free for isis to south-africa...

those down south and east are not ready for this waves of islamization...

nigeria is the last gate...you break nigeria..you will break the entire black-continent..

foolishness is not something to be proud of!...

thedarkside:


you for have never tried to come with us the first palce in 1960....

now its too late....

we are too important now for the entire african continent..a chaos in nigeria means chaos in west-africa that will reach north-africa..

and when north-africa stumble again,then the way is free for isis to south-africa...

those down south and east are not ready for this waves of islamization...

nigeria is the last gate...you break nigeria..you will break the entire black-continent..

foolishness is not something to be proud of!...

Is it supposed to be some noble sacrifice then to remain 'one' pretentious Nigeria? The islamisation u fear from afar is already happening within Nigeria and clearly we want no part of it. The reason u postulate these fear tactics is that civility is far from Nigeria otherwise a peaceful referendum and subsequent separation based on its outcome will not overrreach itself into North Africa.

freeze001:


Is it supposed to be some noble sacrifice then to remain 'one' pretentious Nigeria? The islamisation u fear from afar is already happening within Nigeria and clearly we want no part of it. The reason u postulate these fear tactics is that civility is far from Nigeria otherwise a peaceful referendum and subsequent separation based on its outcome will not overrreach itself into North Africa.

ofcourse its happening in nigeria...but its contained in nigeria..........we are the only ones left finding a balance with islam....

do you want us defeated and let them the vast areas of central,east and south-africa...

you know how ruthless radical-islam is...you can not allow that.....

no realy,,,sometimes its better to let something fuctioning somehow than try to repair it and break it completly and it does even on no more.....

if africa suffer,you will suffer..a european was lately telling me on a chat,that the situation in europe is explosive...i dont know what he meant..


but....whatever...

thedarkside:


ofcourse its happening in nigeria...but its contained in nigeria..........we are the only ones left finding a balance with islam....

do you want us defeated and let them the vast areas of central,east and south-africa...

you know how ruthless radical-islam is...you can not allow that.....

It is not my place to allow that or not because to all intents and purposes, 'they' are already tainted with that which we abhor and I see no reason why we must keep,struggling to find a balance especially when 'they' do not wish to meet halfway but actually want to overrun and dip their book in the Atlantic ocean. We'd rather preserve a clearly sovereign and demarcated area than labour under the deceptive title of oneness and and get consumed. There is no balance to be struck, especially when one is indoctrinated to see the other as an infidel to be conquered.

We are a live and let live kind of people but if others will not respect space and boundaries within the dictates of fairness and equity in all things then we rather leave if 'they' won't let us live.

freeze001:


It is not my place to allow that or not because to all intents and purposes, 'they' are already tainted with that which we abhor and I see no reason why we must keep,struggling to find a balance especially when 'they' do not wish to meet halfway but actually want to overrun and dip their book in the Atlantic ocean. We'd rather preserve a clearly sovereign and demarcated area than labour under the deceptive title of oneness and and get consumed. There is no balance to be struck, especially when one is indoctrinated to see others as infidels to be conquered.

look...since 1960,the balance has still remained the same 50/50 roughly...we have nigerian priesters in zimbabwe,kenya,uganda,south-africa and others and not imams...

sooo..we must be doing something right....

if you look at the world map...and understand the people on ground somehow and understand what they believe,,,thennnnn you start understanding the situation...

till today,i never saw a moslem burning a bible or mocking jesus christ......

Kgdavid:



1. If we as a people are fundamentally divided and cannot stand each other, then no system of governance could keep us together. It would be much worse under a military system, under which the other sections of the country would feel oppressed by the section of the country whose member is the military leader.

2. Democracy has never required that all sections of a state be of one mind, regarding national identity. In the US there is a deep divide between North and South that stretches way back to the abolition of slavery and the American civil war. Till today, there are some states within the US which are almost rogue states in terms of how their political identity. This has not stopped the American democracy from working relatively well. How about the UK where four different nations combine and are always talking about splitting up? Their democracy seems to be working just fine.

The issue is not about diversity. The issue is about creating strong government institutions, backed by the rule of law, that can be relied upon to fulfil the function they are created for. Every successful state has these.

The military cannot be relied upon to serve this function because there would be no limit to their power. Where there is unlimited power, you are playing a game of Russian roulette: sure you might get a good ruler once in a while, but you may also end up dead.

then tell me how come we came so far when its not for our men of valor?

have you forgoting that the south-african anc started militaristic..?..

Brb

look..i am just saying,democratie will not work for us..

if anybody knows the film startrek,we have a character of klingons or romulians.....

we have to adjust to our nature or perish...!...simple!...

the whites adjusted to their nature,thats why they are doing fine somehow today...it brings nothing to fight against your own nature and instincts.....