₦airaland Forum

tctrills:
If this is a court case, you have no evidence.
I was expecting you to show thst American companies are forcibly taking over Venezuela.
In fact, the crime you accuse them of hasn't been committed.

You are clearly unfair and biased.

I don't think you read any of thr links you send because in all the articles, not one incident of theft was mentioned.

To show you never read the articles you sent here is the title of one

Trump threatens second strike against Venezuela if interim president does not bow to US demands

Let me further explain to you.
One of the articles talks about the sanctioned oil anout 50 million barrels. Hope you know that by selling sanctioned or illegal oil, Venezuela could be forced to forfeit the oil but what is the US doing?
They are selling the oil at market price, hence more than it would cost on the black market and the business would benefit both nations.
This is money that Venezuela had lost the rights to by selling illegally. This actually prove the contrary to what you believe

Lol if you cannot understand how what these articles are talking about point to threat to attain property; coercion and theft then let's leave it as it is. I'm not sure how to explain further than this.

tctrills:
Let's be honest, the UN has been completely powerless to this, just as they continue to remain powerless to almost all international conflicts. No one should take the UN seriously.

Can you prove that the US is threatening anyone in Venezuela? And coercion in business is done all the time, and it's very legal. We have aggresive take overs going on all the time. Business will always involve coercion, but if you can show me evidence of US forces confiscating legal Venezuelan businesses and investments under the barrel of the gun, you would have won me over. Until then, you have not been able to prove any of the allegations you keep making, and you are being very unfair to the US.

Please, in your next post, show me evidence.

Lol why are you pretending to not know the difference between hostile takeovers and using military or physical force to coerce business deals?

You see that the US kidnapped the President of a country and are now is saying they are "in charge" of that country and will "invest" in it and you are asking what is the proof of coercion? Or was Trump suddenly chosen by the Venezuela people as their sovereign between the brief period of time he kidnapped Maduro? Where is the US's legal rights to "run" Venezuela as Trump said? From the conversation we've been having, you should have seen all these and not need to be asking me these questions.

Nonetheless, here are some articles for the proof you requested.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckgnxvp477eo

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2026/01/07/ndjb-j07.html

https://www.politico.com/news/2026/01/05/trump-more-us-troops-venezuela-00712023

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jan/07/venezuela-oil-trump-us-latest

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/venezuela-trump-maduro-rcna252177

tctrills:
You seem to be saying that after a military action, you should leave the investing for other nations and not take advantage of the new relationship your military might had forged.
How does that evven make sense?

I just saw this part. No I am saying if Venezuela does not want America's investment then it is undoubtedly wrong for America to use its military to coerce the rights to invest which is what Trump declared.

tctrills:
Let me address a little bit, according to the UN charter, you are telling me that a president can lead drug sales to another country and they can do nothing about it because he is protected by the UN? That is corruption.

To your second point , the US is not going to do business through the barrel og the gun.
But what would happen is that they would have far more influence in Venezuela thanks to the military action. This is exactly what happened after WW2.

They dont have to steal anything. There military influence will only translate business relationship. The new leafers of Venezuela will be friendly to US interest.

You keep conflicting investment with stealing

There are legal processes allowed within the UN charter to address such a scenario, kidnapping was not the right move.

For the second point you addressed— Hence, threat of force. Hence, coercion. I am not conflating investment with stealing. You are the one who does not seem to understand that investments achieved using threat of force or coercion is indeed stealing. I think we are repeating our points. Let's leave things here.

tctrills:
Let me begin by corecting you, before Hong Kong was returned back to main land China, it was already much more developed and with a much higher GDP per Capita than China. In fact, the opposite happened after the reunion.
Other Chinese cities have grown much faster while Hong Kong slowed in growth.
Hong Kong was already the Asian capital of finance before the reunion.

Also, a lot of the US economic and financial dominance came as a result of winning ww2. So claiming that laws written after ww1 made it impossible for your companies to reap the reward of military success is not true.

But then, I am no lawyer. Could you teach me or explain these new laws to me?

For the rest of your write-up, its clear that we are begining to go in circles and repeat talking points.

I disagree with your premise that investing in a country where you have military dominance is a crime. Just because you dont like it doesn't make it wrong.

Unlike you, I am going to wait and see how this plays out before making conclusions and I will only judge but the quality of life of the Venezuelans.

For now, I suggest we stopped going in circles. I am available if you have new inputs but lets not just keep rinsing and using the same talking points

Fair, you are right that Hong Kong slowed in relative to the rest of China after it was returned. However, Hong Kong having a slower growth relative to the rest of China is understandable given the rest of China is growing and catching up. It's also typical for mature, high income economies to not grow as fast. It does not prove colonialism is good, only that mainland China grew fast.

I'm not a lawyer either but I will explain what I know. The decisive laws were after WWII in the form of the United Nations Charter which is completely against using force to threaten another state's sovereignty. US economic dominance post WWII did not come through the outright use of military dominance to gain resources. There was no kidnapping of leaders and claiming control of resources as a result.

My premise was that investing in a country through the use of military coercion is a crime. You are free to disagree with this but it is not merely my opinion. It is not an uncommon belief that the use of physical force to obtain rights over someone's property is wrong. Any legal system would consider such a thing wrong. Even within the US using force or threat of force to obtain property is a crime.

Not everything is worthy of "wait and see". Any aggressor can say "wait and see things will get better". I do not need to see how the rest follows to call out theft when I see it. And this is beyond a measure of a doubt, theft.

I agree we are going in circles so we can leave it here unless there is any thing new to add. I would like to know your answer to a question before we leave things though. If you would answer— say China or Russia had the power and wanted to colonize Nigeria. If they promised to make things better, would you agree?

tctrills:
Investment attained by military coercion is not a crime. The world has been this way since nations were formed. World War II gave the US so much economic and financial control over Western Europe. Germany paid the economic price for losing World War I.
So tell me, when did this all change?
If it will be a better deal for the people of Venezuela, I will be happy for them.
The British took Hong Kong by force and created the biggest financial powerhouse in Asia. I don't think anyone in Hong Kong is complaing so why should you? Its not a perfect world so we can only choose the better option.

Everything in your posts seems to me as a terrible attempt to justify the immoral decisions by Trump's administration. How someone can say that military coercion to attain natural resources is not a crime, simply because it happened historically, is amazing to me. There's really not much I can say if that is your view. I will only add a few things to what I've already put down before.
First, international law did change after WWII so your example is not valid even in that sense.
Second, the best deal for Venezuelans is the use of their sovereignty to utilize their own resources on what is best for them. That is not America claiming total control of their resources— how could that be best for Venezuelans? Are Venezuelans somehow lacking the natural potential to manage their own country and resources for their own good, why should they need to come under American colonial rule simply because past administrations failed? I struggle to see any sense here.
Lastly, Hong Kong is only one example not to mention a large reason for their growth wasn't due to the British but industrialization by Chinese. It's silly to use it as a general rule to support colonialism when most countries colonized did not even end up that way under colonial rule. It's false to say no one complained when there were many riots against colonial rule. It's also false to say no one complained when there were many riots in Hong Kong against colonial rule.

tctrills:
Sir, how do you see business investments as theft? I am not getting your line of thought. Chevron is an American company with business interests in Nigeria. Is that theft? This is a system where both parties benefit, the government and the people of Venezuela, and the company taking the risk and making the investments.
You seem to be anti-investment as long as it is coming from the US. Will Trump's action swing open the doors of investment in Venezuela? Yes
Would it be great for the American companies? Yes, but also the Venezuelan people. Much better than what they ever had.
Please tell me your main problem with this new arrangement.
If I were president and I took military action against another country, I would want it to benefit my people as much as I could. I guess you will want the same, too, but when Trump does it, we just have to hate.

Lol I think I have answered most of your questions here in my previous post so I will just say a few things. Chevron investing in Nigeria isn’t “theft” per se. That’s voluntary contracting with a sovereign state. Investment of someone else's natural resources without their permission is a crime. Investment attained by military coercion is a crime. It will never not be a crime. It is not a question of what I would want if I were President, it is about what is right. By that same logic you also sanction Nigerian politicians robbery of our country, because can very well say "anyone in office would want to enrich himself so why not steal from your people". It is either right makes right or might makes right.

tctrills:
Let me begin by addressing your second paragraph.

Insanity is when you do the same thing and expect a different result. So dont be shocked to see a Nigerian who is tired of getting the sane result. We have ruled ourselves since 1960 and we see the result. When the British ruled, things were much better.
I am actually shock that you fear the Americans will take our resources, what do you think the Tinubu government is presently doing? If American takes some of our resources, it cant be as bad as the evil government you currently have.
You also talk about being able to vote, i don't care about voting if arm robbers would always win.

In fact, if you choose to be honest, you will agree with me that nothing good has come out of our independence and the way we are going, it can only get worse

To your first paragraph.
On the contrary, what the US did sets the right precedent.
Thanks to this every leader would think hard before turning his county to a nacho state.
The idea that countries would now begin to invade their neighbors is completely false. We saw what happened when Iraq tried it. Remember gulf war 1?
A strong power like the US prevents stupidity among the nations.
Lastly, i still dont see value in your compliant about US companies investing and reaping the reward in Venezuela.
Shell is not a Nigerian company and I don't call what they are doing in Nigeria stealing.

Not doing the same thing over and over, does not amount to calling America to colonize you. Yes, the Nigerian government has failed us but that a select few have failed us does not mean that it is impossible for Nigerians to be successful leaders of their own country and need to be colonized. Yes, the Tinubu government is taking our resources and I fear America will do the same. Like I said colonialism doesn't end corruption, it just changes the beneficiaries. Is it not Venezuela resources that they just claimed complete rights over? You say you don't care about voting if armed robbers always win, fair. But instead your solution is to hand the country over to a different set of armed robbers to and give them complete rein over you. How does that make sense?
I think you are struggling to understand that America does not care for Nigeria. Do not conflate the success they have brought to their own country to be what they will bring for us.

How did the US set the right precedent? Any state with the power to do so, can follow their precedent and kidnap another state's leader on the claim the leader is a criminal to their people.
Iraq is different because the USA got permission from the UN to get Iraq out of Kuwait.
A strong power like the US abusing its power, builds resentment among nations and brings about disorder.
You make it appear as if US investing in Venezuela's natural resources was permitted by a sovereign Venezuela. It is like you take someone's debit card without their permission i.e steal, and use it to buy stocks then you say you are just "investing" so nothing is wrong lol. Even if you give the owner some of the value you have gotten from your investment back, it would still be stealing because they never authorized you to make that investment in the first place.
For your Nigerian analogy, the Nigerian government authorized Shell's extraction of resources in Nigeria so it is a different thing. I will give you this — the Nigerian government does not represent the best interest of the Nigerian people but it is still the nationally recognized sovereign of the state.

tctrills:
I have already responded to you in my earlier post but do you realize that 18 years ago Venezuela stole and nationalized the property of American oil companies?
Do you think these companies should be compensated?

Even if we say those companies deserve their investment back, you can double and triple the earnings and it still would not amount to complete control over Venezuela's oil. And not even just oil but their other natural resources too. What is going on, is simply theft if you want to be honest.

tctrills:
Does it make it right?
Great question but not a simple answer.
Does it make it right to break international law?
Maybe
Every country should be able to protect itself despite international law.
If your president is a drug baron protected by international law , I would damn the law if I can and get him to face justice.
International law has protected evil dictators, murderers and corrupt leaders.
International law is clearly insufficient to bring justice to the world.

International law could not protect Nigerians from evil dictators like Abacha they can't protect us from demons like Tinubu. These laws only empower corruption and terrorism.

I think the UN is mostly useless and unnecessary.

Lastly, if Nigeria is a colony of the US, things will only get better. I dont see it get worse than APC.

Please explain how and why you think it will get worse.

Kidnapping another sovereign leader is a dangerous precedent to set. You say that international law does nothing for us, what benefit is it if smaller states like those in Africa now feel empowered to do the same to neighbors? Furthermore, if they kidnapped Maduro because he is trafficking drugs to the US, what now gives them claims of rights over Venezuela's oil like they are suggesting?

I have to assume you're Nigerian from prior posts I've read from you— I'm really shocked how a Nigerian man that seems as well read as you will think colonization by the US will be beneficial to us. What reason do you think the USA sees us as so special that after they colonize us, they will take away time and resources they could spend on their people, to instead make lives better for us? Sure, there would be enough stability to allow them to extract resources but it doesn't end far from that. We would also not be able to vote nor replace leadership, our future will depend entirely on what direction US sways in. Colonization does not take away corruption, it only makes changes to the people benefiting which in this case will be the US.

Kobojunkie:
This question?

2. OK🥱🥱🥱

Why are you making yourself look poor in critical thinking? You see what the original post asked then you are asking me why I assumed I could respond here in a thread asking questions about God.
Please do not reply me again since you are "so sleepy". You do not need to be in here if these conversations are too boring for you.

Kobojunkie:
There are over 4000 deities out there, so you would need to be specific regarding the identity of your particular deity if it is outside of the Christian pantheon. 🥱🥱

2. Also, the original question is regarding the gods that belong to the Christian patheon— over 46,000 denominations. So, why do you assume that your ideas should fit within that set? 🥱🥱

You either have not properly understood the original question given or are making assumptions yourself while accusing me of doing the same. Anyways, let's leave it at that since from all the yawning emojis, you're bored of the conversation you chose to engage in of your own volition and with your own two hands lol.

Kobojunkie:
The Christian pantheon seems to be a set of confusion. With over 46,000 different interpretations/denominations, each claiming their version of ideas is the authentic one, it is impossible to conclusively arrive at any facts regarding the Christian pantheon and what it holds.

I'm not a "Christian", but I do believe in God. My belief comes from my own experiences and reading various writings on God and spirituality.

tctrills:
You ask great questions, but you seem not to exist in a practical world. Imagine an extremely weak nation like Venezuela being one of the biggest producers of drugs that end up in the strongest nation ever on earth. What were you expecting? Practicability and common sense will forever trump international law.

But then, I really wish it were Tinub, that would have been the best new year gift to Nigeria.

You can argue that US is able to disobey international law and kidnap the Venezuelan President because the US is very powerful, there is no question there. But does it make it right? This is an act that should be admonished. Especially from those of us who are natives to third world countries and which could not stand against the US if they attempted something like that with us.

Is it as simple as capturing Tinubu, is it not a matter of who replaces Tinubu as well? If Nigeria becomes a colony of the USA, things may be better at first but eventually our people will most likely be worse off for it.

Disinfectant123:
ah the classic "freewill" argument
funny how “god” only gets the credit when something good happens and none of the bad credit “HE” causes

You are free to disagree. I've lost interest in convincing anyone about anything spiritual for a good time now. I only give my own views. God is praised for good things by people who believe His Will for us is good, He is the source of Goodness and thereby everything good comes through Him. If human beings with their free will, which alone does not amount to evil, decide to disobey the Will of God and bring evil on themselves then God is not to blame for that but only the human beings.

tctrills:
Thats why its too early to have this conversation. Lets wait and watch the process instead of jumping into conclusions.
But one thing is very clear, the US will play a giant role in Venezuelan economic future.
As of today, we don't know much.
One more thing, we cant pretend that the world has changed much. There are always going to be super powers and it's unwise for weaker nations to piss them off. This is how the world has been since nations were formed and it's not going to change.

Why not just admonish the US for what is theft and clearly a violation of international law? If some Middle Eastern country could do such a thing to America: Bomb the US capital and kidnap their President, then announce they will be "running" America now and "investing" in their oil or some other natural resources. The world will rightly look at it as an act of terrorism. Why the double standard for America?

Disinfectant123:
God knew that humans were evil so why create us?

I do not believe God created evil human beings. God created human beings with free will and human beings used that free will to do evil.

Disinfectant123:
Who created evil?

I believe evil is simply disobedience to the will of God. Therefore, human beings created it.

Disinfectant123:
Need to say more? Christians getting killed around the world and God responding with "I have a plan" What Plan? Allowing their heads being blown off?

If humans bring the evil on themselves then an all powerful God would be unjust to not allow the evil we have brought on ourselves to come to us.

tctrills:
Theft?
Lets not be childish here. Would you say that all the foreign oil companies in Nigeria are stealing our oil?
I am sure that American companies would have access to the Venezuelan oil but is that theft or doing business?
Anyway, lets wait and see how it goes down before we start making conclusions

Foreign oil companies operating is not automatically theft. It becomes theft when there is no legitimate consent. Or did you not see Trump claiming US will "run" Venezuela and have US oil companies move in there to invest billions? Do you believe the US has the rights to call those shots?

When US is deciding who gets to access another sovereign states oil, what will you call that if not theft?

tctrills:
Ok so you are saying that if the US is causing harm to a country that is much stronger than it, should that country take action even if it is military action?
The only answer here is yes.
If Benin republic for example start kidnapping Nigerians, would I support military action? The answer is yes.

Ok. Do you also support the theft of Venezuela's oil or as President Trump suggested, sending US oil companies to invest billions of dollars?

DeepSight:
+
It's simple reciprocity and any self respecting nation does that.

I agree. Our immigration policies should also reciprocate. It should be as hard for citizens of other countries to gain citizenship in African countries as it is hard for us to gain citizenship in their own countries. Africa cannot longer afford to function as a resource mine for the rest of the world.

tctrills:
It will be stupid to attempt a take over of a country much stronger than you. Why should I support stupidity?
I love practical solutions. Maduro had zero control over the cartels in facr, he was in bed with them. It ony made sense to kick him out

And if the hypothetical country had enough strength to take over US, would you support it then?

tctrills:
Look, if your country is producing cocaine that is destroying my people, and I have the power to stop it by taking control of your country, I would be irresponsible not to act. This doesn’t need to be complicated. If, as president, you cannot control drug production that harms my citizens, then you forfeit your position. If I have the power to remove you, I will. The lives of my people matter more to me than the sovereignty of a state that allows them to be poisoned.

Ok, and if we can identify an issue America brings to another country's citizens which also harms them— will you support the same that country's right to take over America?

tctrills:
Let's turn the tables so you can see what you are doing, because I take it that you are unaware.
Imagine you give me a gift for Christmas, and I say that I can't thank you or appreciate it because you have an ulterior motive. When I am asked to explain further, I agree that I have no idea what I am saying, but insist you have bad motives. What would you make of me?
You are the one inventing conspiracy theories about ulterior motives. And yes, every good person who supports the Somaliland people should praise Israel.
I am only asking you to provide more information about your conspiracy theory. You talk about knowing Israel's future actions, but you have not stated any. That's clearly hate and bias.
How else can one show bias?

Let me ask you one more question: If it were any other nation, let's say Ghana, would you have also floated the Ulterior motive conspiracy, or do you only do this when it is Israel? So you would come out against any nation supporting sumaliland declaring that they have ulterior motives.

Your mistake is that is that no one said Israel has bad motives. I said it is silly to think they do not have "ulterior motives" which as you have already said can sometimes be bad but not necessarily. Furthermore, Israel is not a person handing out Christmas presents, it is a state. It is very reasonable to think any state would have personal interests in supporting Somaliland especially one like Israel that does not have an obvious intrinsic stake in Somaliland's day-to-day wellbeing. It does not prove bad intent but it is worth questioning what their interests are and whether they align with Somaliland's welfare.
I genuinely hope one day you will question this your strange, and almost certainly, unrequited love for Israel.

tctrills:
Oga can you do me a favor and tell me where you think the story will end in the Israel/ Somaliland relationship?
You are actually doing what you claim not to be doing. You are pretending to know where and how the story will end and judging Israel for crimes and sins thst have only been commited in your mind.
You somehow believe that this relationship is up to no good. I ask you, what is your evidence?
So unless you know something about this relationship that the rest of us don't, you are only tr6 to be an attention seeker.

You are the one that is telling me I have to believe Israel must be up to no good simply because I am not jumping up in praises for Israel and advocating my certainty for their incapacity to do no wrong on this matter. You love Israel so much that people cannot even not know of Israel's future actions when dealing with you, they must be completely sure of Israel's benevolence otherwise they clearly hate Israel. LOL

I truly hope one day we Africans can take something of this love and put it into our own nations.

tctrills:
Oga, you are all over the place. You claim you want the independence of Somaliland, if that is true, you should be excited that at least one nation agrees with you.
Your anger should be turned against the African nations that are against its independence not against the one nation supporting it.

Lastly, ulterior motives are not always a bad thing. And unless you can prove that Israel's motives here are evil, it is just wrong to be against them on this case.

The Israel/gaza war is a different topic and has no connection to this. Even if you support Hamas, this is a different matter. You can disagree with Israel when it comes to Hamas and still support their push for an independent Somaliland. Thats what we call an open mind.

Lol read your previous response and see who is all over the place. You give an all over the place response then are shocked when you receive one in proportion.

I am excited at the prospect that Somaliland will get its Independence, sure. Whether Israel supporting Somaliland comes with problems that will show their face in due time, no one can say for sure but there is no benefit in pretending to be naive. So I am not against Israel for the specific act of supporting Somaliland's independence but I don't see why I need to pretend as though that is where the story must end.

I only brought up the Israel/Gaza war because you mentioned it in your prior post when you referred to me as the "You guys can tell to the last figure how many people died in Gaza".

tctrills:
You claim you are for Somaliland, yet every other black African nation is against it, but you choose to be angry at Israel, the only nation that supports it? Make that make sense. As for ulterior motives, that's what foreign policy is all about. Nations have hidden agendas and policies that they don't announce at news conferences. It is not an Israel thing.
The problem here is people like you who would rather go with the failed and corrupt African Union because of some war going on between Jews and Arabs.
You guys can tell to the last figure how many people died in Gaza, but you know nothing of the war that happened in Ethiopia or the ongoing war in Sudan, or even the genocide that happened in your own land (the Biafran war). You Africans need to get serious.

Lol I only said Israel clearly has ulterior motives. I don't know where you are getting the rest of your story from.

It will be good if Somaliland can get its independence from Somalia. Somaliland is doing much better, they do not want to be with Somali and have historic reason as well to justify that. However, what is senseless is that the simple mention that Israel clearly has ulterior motives is enough to provoke you to craft stories and start telling me who and who I support. If you know anything about me you will know I am not a supporter of the African Union. As though Israel could not support Somaliland's Independence while still having ulterior motives, thereby I should be forced to be at complete agreement with Israel.
As for all your other talk about African lack of concern towards their own problems, I agree and you can take your own advice and stop being so busy defending Israel and start putting that focus more into our own African problems. You can check our posts on this forum and I probably comment less on the Israel-Gaza war than you.

tctrills:
Unfortunately for you, you're in no position to decide who should be involved 8n Agrican issues.
The most important thing here is for Somaliland to be independent óf the terrorists state of Somalia

I'm for Somaliland's separation. However, it is silly to think that Israel does not have ulterior motives.

steadygo:
I did not say Nigerians do not bear any responsibility. Go back and read my last paragraph. Of course, we are responsible for solving the problems we are left with today but it is very silly to pretend history didn't shape the system we are currently living in. And it is false to claim the British had nothing to do with the underdevelopment of our region when they played a major role. Even those of the British who are experts on the subject will acknowledge the massive disaster they caused in the region. Ironically, it is often Nigerians that rush to absolve the British of any accountability.

How does imagining the British were not involved in the underdevelopment of our region or that our history is different from what it is, help us? We should be taking a serious look at our history, understanding the root our problems and using that to draw REAL, precise, effective solutions that can help us in the present day. That is how we take accountability.

@all edited my response quoted above, in order for it to be more clear.

Dtruthspeaker:
In your God hatism you obviously do not real eyes that you are looking at from the wrong end.

The question is on why people who need professional help go to pastor instead of the professional?

And my own answer is that they goers know that their problem is not medical and all. Especially as we all know that if they have a little headache they have already gone medical. So for them to abandon medicines to go and see pastor babalawo already tells you that they know it is not medical. That is all I said.

Nowhere did I say that the pastor would solve their problems which is where you are attacking coming from. So you have miss fired. So you see how atheism makes you make silly and unnecessary errors?

Do you see your arrogance? I come at you for your inconsiderate response on your people and you claim it is "hatism" against God.

Then you assume I am an atheist as if for anyone to attack your posts here they must be an atheist. I do believe in God. However, I do not believe in your arguments.

It is very silly to think that most of these people who are showing clear signs of illnesses and going to pastors are actually not medically sick. Some are even given a clear diagnosis of their condition but they leave the assigned treatment in order to seek the help of a pastor or native doctor only to end up dying in the process. How can you then say they know their problem is not medical?

PulaPower:
British rule didn’t "create Nigeria” as a project for Nigerians to flourish; it created an administration for efficient control.

But the British didn’t put us under federalism. They left us with a regionalism system of government and it was really working then for viable regions..

Blame the greediness of the likes of Agunyi Ironsi. He scrapped our regionalism out of greed for power. He wanted to control the whole of Nigeria but today, they rest don become history..

The British would have been wrong if they put us under federalism..

You’re right that Ironsi was major in taking us away from the former regional arrangement but that regional arrangement was still federalism, just with regions operating as federal units. So, it is not correct that the British did not put us under federalism as Nigeria was already a federation from 1954. The 1960 constitution continued that system of a federation of Nigeria made up of regions.

While the regional era had some achievements, there were also serious problems, some signs which we see in the form of the electoral violence and breakdown of 1964 and 1965. So, the problem with Nigeria cannot be traced back only to Ironsi but the deeper issue is the colonial state structure which was built for control and extraction of our resources, and how post-independence leaders have used that same sort of centralized power after 1966.