₦airaland Forum

seunmsg:
The ignorant congressman was probably prodded by an ipob member to write the above trash. Whatever the case may be, he has only given an opinion and not the reality on ground. Majority of Nigerians that voted for Buhari are happy with his effort so far at fighting corruption and eradicating the boko haram insurgency. A congress man in the US will not dictate to us how to go about fighting corruption or how to go about fighting terrorists. We have our country to protect and we will go about it our way.


Nigeria did not dictate to the US how to go about fighting terrorism after the 9/11 attacks. They invaded Iraq without any evidence of weapons of mass destruction and without the UN authorisation. They have committed unimaginable war crimes all over the world so, they are not in any position to lecture Nigeria on the morality or otherwise of how we fight corruption and secure our country. If the dasugate scandal is to happen in US, will the congressman be talking this same poo? Though I believe the Obama administration will definitely ignore the congress man's trashy letter, Nigerians need not to worry. If US refuse to sell weapons to us, we will buy from Russia and China.

Guy, true true, u no get sense at all. Where wii d weapons b used? Wii they be condiments in ya mother's pot of soup? The world should leave Nigerian government to run country without accountability to its citizens? Can you just listen to yourself? If u no go skool, plz do. If u no fit, read good books and articles with your data that wii develop your low mind. Let people interested in Nation building talk

ladyF:
So they finally got forex to import. They should stop using Innoson as an example of *buy naira to grow naira* when they clearly depend on dollars to produce. Anyway sha...

It's [size=15pt]LadyF[/size] again

[size=5pt]Make I go continue my search for Skrill funds...freelancers, forexers, biko epp me[/size]

You have no idea what automobile manufacturers do and don't. So, stop shamelessly displaying your ignorance here and be gone with your pessimistic approach to things. Foreign automobiles we so proudly drive around and praise also import parts they don't have the capacity to build but these designs are solely theirs. From engines to all those fancy headlights. It happens everywhere. Take a look at those fancy Infiniti SUVs and some other cars, one of which you have fallen in love with at one time. Read wide and educate your mind before jumping to hasty conclusions.

I've seen that some people in Nigeria are just darn boneheaded. Is there a law in this country against naming pets whichever way one wishes? You are making jest of a man who did not commit a crime but is being held in police custody as some common criminal unlawfully. Even if he meant to rile some group of people, is that reason enough to lock him up? He is a Nigerian. Why can't he be treated with dignity in his own country? The Nigerian police is an institution full of illiterates with no self worth only after satisfying their superiors for a piece of illegally acquired monetary gain. Else, they would know that this man does not merit this treatment. Some comments on this threads are awful at best. You get to see all sorts of vacuity on display. From the ruling class to the least man at the grassroot, foolishness cuts across and is deeply entrenched. Go and read good books and get enlightened instead of flaunting your stone age "intelligence" shamelessly here.

Please permit me to ask a very pertinent question.

IF THE MEMBERS OF THE FAMILIES OF THOSE UNDESERVING VICTIMS OF THE 9/11 ATTACK WERE TO READ ALL THIS MADNESS, WHAT DO YOU THINK WOULD BE THEIR RESPONSE? Please let the sleeping dog lie and stop opening healing wounds cos the memories of those innocent victims will forever remain resh on the minds of those they left behind . john_blaze, you are the one spearheading this so STOP!!!!!!! for a change, think: HOW WOULD YOU FEEL IF SOMEONE CAME TO ARGUE THAT YOUR CLOSING FRIEND OR FAMILY MEMBER WHO MAY BE DIED OF DISEASE DID NOT DIE OF THE DIE, BUT WAS POISONED OR SHOT DEAD BY SOMEONE, HUH?

You sound like a TB JOSHUA freak. Tell me: How many miracle performers like TB JOSHUA etc., have ever been able to perform the ultimate miracle which even first - century christians had been empowered by God's holy spirit to performed: raising the dead. Any clergy who can do that can then boast that his powers are from God. Why do I say so? I say so because it is known that demonic powers can heal the sick, enrich people and do all sorts of miracles performed by clergies in this our time, BUT THESE POWERS CANNOT RAISE THE DEAD COS THAT ABILITY IS ONLY GOD'S and He enable men whom He chooses to do such with His holy spirit.

[center]Do My Clothes Reveal the Real Me?[/center]

“IT’S not too short,” Peggy cried to her parents. “You’re just being old-fashioned!” Off she ran to her room—the grand finale to a quarrel over a skirt she wanted to wear. And perhaps you have been the center of a similar controversy when a parent, a teacher, or an employer criticized some outfit that you loved. You called it casual; they called it sloppy. You called it chic; they called it gaudy or suggestive.
Admittedly, tastes vary, and you do have a right to your opinions. But should this mean that ‘anything goes’ when it comes to how you dress?
The Right Message?
“What you wear,” says a girl named Pam, “is really who you are and how you feel about yourself.” Yes, clothing sends out a message, a statement to others about you. Clothing can whisper conscientiousness, stability, high moral standards. Or it can shout rebellion and discontent. It can even serve as a form of identification. Some youths use ripped clothing, punk styles, or expensive designer clothes as a type of trademark. Others use clothing to attract the opposite sex or to make themselves appear older than they really are.
It is thus easy to see why clothing is so important to many youths. However, John T. Molloy, author of Dress for Success, cautions: “The way we dress has a remarkable impact on the people we meet and greatly affects how they treat us.”
No wonder your parents are so concerned about how you dress! To them it is more than an issue of personal taste. They want you to send out the right message, one that projects you as a balanced, responsible person.


[center]The “Air” of Worldly Styles[/center]    

   Another aspect of this world’s “air” pertains to styles of clothing and grooming. Many in the world dress in order to make themselves sexually alluring. Even preteens want to make themselves up to appear older, accentuating sex. Are you affected by this widespread “air,” or attitude? Do you dress to thrill, to tease, to arouse improperly the interest of those of the opposite sex? If so, you are playing with fire. Breathing this “air” will choke your spirit of modesty, your desire to be chaste. (Micah 6: Those who have a worldly spirit will be drawn to you. From your actions, they will get the message that you are ready to join them in immorality. But why start in this direction by letting such “air” entice you to do what is bad in God’s sight?
   To be modest, we do not have to dress or groom ourselves shoddily or unattractively. Consider the way the vast majority of Jehovah’s Witnesses dress and groom themselves. They avoid the extreme styles of this world but present themselves attractively, keeping in mind that they are ministers representing the Sovereign of the universe, Jehovah. Let the old world be critical of their modest styles. They dare not let this world’s attitudes cause them to lower their Christian standards. “This, therefore, I say and bear witness to in the Lord,” wrote the apostle Paul, “that you no longer go on walking just as the nations also walk in the unprofitableness of their minds . . . Having come to be past all moral sense, they gave themselves over to loose conduct to work uncleanness of every sort.” (Ephesians 4:17-19) The mature Christian will dress modestly, not walking just as the nations do.—1 Timothy 2:9, 10.
   So far, we have considered only two aspects of the “air” of this world. But already we have seen that this “air” is very harmful to spiritual health. In the next article, we will take up other features of this deadly “air” that the Devil and his system continually blow toward Christians, hoping that they will succumb to it. How important that we avoid such “air,” for absorbing the spirit of this world is like breathing the vapors of death!


[center]In Dress and Grooming[/center]
Styles and fashions change with every season. However, Bible principles about dress and grooming remain constant. Paul urged Christian women to “adorn themselves in well-arranged dress, with modesty and soundness of mind”—a principle that applies with equal force to men. (1 Tim. 2:9) Paul was not recommending an extremely plain style of dress, nor was he saying that all Christians must have the same taste. But what about modesty? One dictionary defines modesty as “freedom from conceit or vanity . . . propriety in dress, speech, or conduct.”
We need to ask ourselves: ‘Can I honestly say that I am being modest if I insist on my right to dress in a manner that calls undue attention to me? Does my manner of dress send a wrong signal about who I am or the morals I live by?’ We can avoid “giving any cause for stumbling” in this regard by “keeping an eye, not in personal interest upon just [our] own matters, but also in personal interest upon those of the others.”—2 Cor. 6:3; Phil. 2:4.


Stirred to Reflect Jehovah’s Standards
   Today, there are more than six million Witnesses of Jehovah who, like Martha and now Camille, are preaching the “good news of the kingdom” worldwide. (Matthew 24:14; 28:19, 20) Like the first-century Christians, they are deeply moved by “the magnificent things of God.” They appreciate that they are privileged to bear Jehovah’s name and that he has poured out his spirit upon them. Consequently, they make every effort “to walk worthily of Jehovah to the end of fully pleasing him,” applying his standards in every aspect of their lives. Among other things, this includes respecting God’s standards in dress and grooming.—Colossians 1:10a; Titus 2:10.
   Yes, Jehovah has set standards with regard to our personal appearance. The apostle Paul outlined some of God’s requirements in this regard. “I desire the women to adorn themselves in well-arranged dress, with modesty and soundness of mind, not with styles of hair braiding and gold or pearls or very expensive garb, but in the way that befits women professing to reverence God, namely, through good works.” What do we learn from these words?—1 Timothy 2:9, 10.
   Paul’s words show that Christians should “adorn themselves in well-arranged dress.” They are not to be sloppy, untidy, or unkempt in their appearance. Virtually anyone, even those of modest means, can meet such reasonable standards by ensuring that their clothing is neat, clean, and presentable. For example, every year Witnesses in one South American country walk for miles through the jungle and then travel for hours by canoe in order to attend their district convention. It is not uncommon for someone to fall into the river or to snag his garments on a bush in the course of the journey. So when the conventioners arrive in the area where the convention is to be held, their appearance is often somewhat disheveled. They therefore take time to sew on buttons, repair zippers, and wash and iron the clothes they are going to wear to the convention. They cherish their invitation to feed at Jehovah’s table, and they want to dress appropriately.
   Paul further indicated that we should dress with “modesty and soundness of mind.” This means that our appearance should not be showy, bizarre, provocative, revealing, or faddish. In addition, we should dress in a manner that reflects ‘reverence for God.’ That gives food for thought, does it not? It is not simply a matter of dressing appropriately when attending congregation meetings and then throwing all caution to the wind at other times. Our personal appearance should always reflect a reverent, honorable attitude because we are Christians and ministers 24 hours a day. It goes without saying that our work clothes and school clothes will be appropriate for the nature of the tasks we will be performing. Still, we should dress modestly and with dignity. If our dress always reflects our belief in God, we will never feel obligated to hold back from witnessing informally because of embarrassment over our appearance.—1 Peter 3:15.

‘Do Not Be Loving the World’
   The counsel recorded at 1 John 2:15, 16 also provides guidance in our choice of dress and grooming. We read: “Do not be loving either the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him; because everything in the world—the desire of the flesh and the desire of the eyes and the showy display of one’s means of life—does not originate with the Father, but originates with the world.”
   How timely that counsel is! In an age where peer pressure has never been more intense, we must not allow the world to dictate our dress. Styles of dress and grooming have deteriorated in recent years. Even the dress code of business and professional people does not always provide a reliable standard of what is appropriate for Christians. This is a further reason why we should always be conscious of the need to “quit being fashioned after this system of things” if we are to live according to God’s standards and thus “adorn the teaching of our Savior, God, in all things.”—Romans 12:2; Titus 2:10.
   Before deciding whether to purchase an item of clothing, it is wise to ask yourself: ‘Why does this style appeal to me? Is it identified with some well-known entertainer—someone I admire? Has it been adopted by members of a street gang or by a group that promotes an independent, rebellious spirit?’ We should also look closely at the garment. If it is a dress or a skirt, what about the length? The cut? Is the garment modest, appropriate, and dignified, or is it tight-fitting, provocative, or sloppy? Ask yourself, ‘Will my wearing this garment give cause for stumbling?’ (2 Corinthians 6:3, 4) Why should that be of concern to us? Because the Bible says: “Even the Christ did not please himself.” (Romans 15:3) Christian family heads must take an interest in the appearance of family members. Out of respect for the glorious God whom they worship, family heads should not hesitate to offer firm, loving counsel when such is necessary.—James 3:13.
   The message that we bear emanates from Jehovah, who is the very epitome of dignity and holiness. (Isaiah 6:3) The Bible urges us to imitate him “as beloved children.” (Ephesians 5:1) Our dress and grooming can reflect either well or badly on our heavenly Father. Surely we want to make his heart glad!—Proverbs 27:11.
   How do you feel about “the magnificent things of God” that you have learned? Really, how privileged we are to have learned the truth! Because we exercise faith in the shed blood of Jesus Christ, our sins are forgiven. (Acts 2:38) As a result, we have freeness of speech before God. We do not fear death as do those who have no hope. Rather, we have Jesus’ assurance that one day “all those in the memorial tombs will hear his voice and come out.” (John 5:28, 29) Jehovah has been gracious in revealing all these things to us. In addition, he has poured out his spirit upon us. Therefore, gratitude for all these good gifts should move us to respect his elevated standards and to praise him with zeal, declaring these “magnificent things” to others.



[center]The Bible’s Viewpoint[/center]

Your Dress and Grooming—Does It Matter to God?
“As the index tells the contents of the book, . . . even so do the outward habit and garments, in man or woman, give us a taste of the spirit.”—English playwright Philip Massinger.
IN THE third century C.E., church writer Titus Clemens drew up a long list of rules governing dress and grooming. Ornaments and luxurious or colorful fabrics were prohibited. Women were not to dye their hair nor to “smear their faces with the ensnaring devices of wily cunning,” that is, “painting the face.” Men were instructed to shave the hair on their heads because “a cropped head . . . shows a man to be grave,” but the hair on the chin was not to be disturbed, for it “lends to the face dignity and paternal terror.”
Centuries later Protestant leader John Calvin enacted laws specifying the color and type of clothing his followers might wear. Jewelry and lace were frowned upon, and a woman could be jailed for arranging her hair to an “immoral height.”
Such radical viewpoints, espoused by religious leaders over the years, have caused many sincere individuals to wonder, Does it really matter to God what I wear? Does he disapprove of certain fashions or the use of makeup? What does the Bible teach?

[center]A Personal Matter[/center]
Interestingly, as recorded at John 8:31, 32, Jesus said to his disciples: “If you remain in my word, . . . you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” Yes, the truths taught by Jesus were intended to liberate people from the oppressive burdens created by tradition and false teachings. They were designed to refresh those “toiling and loaded down.” (Matthew 11:28) Neither Jesus nor his Father, Jehovah God, has any desire to control people’s lives to the extent that individuals can no longer take initiative and exercise their own reasoning on personal matters. Jehovah wants them to become mature people who “through use have their perceptive powers trained to distinguish both right and wrong.”—Hebrews 5:14.
Thus, the Bible provides no detailed laws governing dress and grooming or the use of cosmetics, other than some specific clothing requirements imposed on the Jews by the Mosaic Law, which were intended to help them keep separate from the surrounding nations and their immoral influence. (Numbers 15:38-41; Deuteronomy 22:5) Within the Christian arrangement, dress and grooming are basically a matter of personal taste.
That is not to suggest, however, that God is indifferent to what we wear or that ‘anything goes.’ On the contrary, the Bible contains reasonable guidelines that reflect God’s viewpoint on dress and grooming.
“With Modesty and Soundness of Mind”
The apostle Paul wrote that Christian women should “adorn themselves in well-arranged dress, with modesty and soundness of mind, not with styles of hair braiding and gold or pearls or very expensive garb.” Similarly, Peter counsels against “the external braiding of the hair and of the putting on of gold ornaments.”—1 Timothy 2:9; 1 Peter 3:3.
Are Peter and Paul indicating that Christian women and men should avoid enhancing their appearance? Not at all! In fact, the Bible mentions faithful men and women who used jewelry or cosmetic oils and perfumes. Before her audience with King Ahasuerus, Esther underwent an extensive beauty regimen involving perfumed oils and massage. And Joseph was clothed with garments of fine linen and a necklace of gold.—Genesis 41:42; Exodus 32:2, 3; Esther 2:7, 12, 15.
The phrase “soundness of mind,” as used by Paul, helps us to understand the admonition. The original Greek word denotes being temperate and self-controlled. It implies thinking of oneself soberly, not drawing undue attention. Other Bible translations render this word as “discreetly,” “sensibly,” “refined,” or “with self-restraint.” This quality is an important requirement for Christian elders.—1 Timothy 3:2.
So, in telling us that our dress and grooming should be modest and well arranged, the Scriptures encourage us to avoid any extreme styles that would offend others and bring reproach upon our reputation and that of the Christian congregation. Rather than drawing attention to their appearance through physical adornment, those professing reverence for God should display soundness of mind and put the emphasis on “the secret person of the heart in the incorruptible apparel of the quiet and mild spirit.” This, Peter concludes, “is of great value in the eyes of God.”—1 Peter 3:4.
Christians are “a theatrical spectacle to the world.” They need to be aware of the impression that they give to others, especially in light of the mandate they have to preach the good news. (1 Corinthians 4:9; Matthew 24:14) They would therefore not want to let anything, including their appearance, distract others from listening to that vital message.—2 Corinthians 4:2.
While styles vary widely from one place to another, the Bible offers individuals clear, reasonable guidelines that enable them to choose wisely. As long as people adhere to these principles, God freely and lovingly allows all to express personal taste in their dress and grooming.

*An attempt was made to bolster these interdictions by twisting the Scriptures. Though the Bible says no such thing, the influential theologian Tertullian taught that since a woman was the cause “of the first sin, and the odium . . . of human perdition,” women should walk “about as Eve mourning and repentant.” In fact, he insisted that a naturally beautiful woman should even go so far as to hide her beauty.—Compare Romans 5:12-14; 1 Timothy 2:13, 14.


[center]Right and Wrong View of Dress. [/center]
Jehovah’s people are told not to be unduly anxious about having sufficient clothing. (Mt 6:25-32) The Christian woman is warned not to let expensive, showy dress or style be the thing she seeks but, rather, to let her clothing be modest, yet well arranged, showing soundness of mind. She should, therefore, give attention to her dress but should put the primary stress on the apparel of a quiet and mild spirit. (1Ti 2:9; 1Pe 3:3-5) Yet, the wise writer of Proverbs describes a good wife as seeing that her family is well clothed, industriously making garments with her own hands.—Pr 31:13, 21, 24.
On the other hand, many women of Bible times used their attire as a means of gaining their selfish objectives. It was a custom for women of pagan cities, when about to be captured by the enemy, to put on their finest apparel in order to attract soldiers who might take them as wives. But, in case a captive woman was taken by an Israelite soldier, she was required to set aside her items of dress, some of which might be connected with pagan religion, before he could marry her.—De 21:10-13.
After Israel had fallen into many idolatrous and immoral practices, Jehovah condemned the women of the nation who haughtily garbed and decorated themselves in order to attract men, even men of other nations, and who decked themselves with the ornaments of false religion.—Isa 3:16-23; compare Pr 7:10.

You speak the truth. a truly independent electoral commission and the eradication of post-voting rigging

Whoever says that the allowance of a US military base in Nigeria is for Nigeria's best interest is just a blind-folded child. Why? Because he's not been away of the activities of US military in some other countries where permission was granted them just like Nigeria. Read the report below carefully.

General Obasanjo more than just a "friend" of the Americans [b][/b][/i]
17 March 1999-Elizabeth Liagin is an independent journalist who has done extensive research into General Olusegan Obasanjo, who won the recent presidential election in Nigeria. She submitted the following commentary in response to the 5 March article "Nigerian election fraud leaves elite in control" by Chris Talbot

The 13 February 1976 assassination of Murtala Muhammad, which brought Olusegan Obasanjo to power the first time, was widely believed at the time to be the linked to the CIA. Perhaps the same might be said for the 27 February 1999 "coup" as well.

Obasanjo is more than just a "friend" of the Americans. He is an operative. And his involvement with America's foreign policy elite is a long, sometimes complicated, but delightfully interesting story.

There are several key persons and institutions that appear over and over in the Obasanjo files. One is Donald B. Easum, who was the United States Ambassador to Nigeria at the time of the 1976 assassination. Another is the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, where Henry Kissinger, who was Secretary of State at the time of the same assassination, serves as a "counsellor." Then we have Robert S. McNamara, a former World Bank president and the Secretary of Defense who carried much of the blame for the Vietnam War. More recently, McNamara embarked on an excursion to Haiti in the aftermath of the election that brought Jean Bertrand Aristide to office. Upon his return, McNamara pronounced Aristide "vehemently" anti-US, implying that the United States would be in for another round of whatever it was that Fidel Castro stirred up in people after his revolution more than two decades before. Within a year of McNamara's assessment, Aristide was ousted by thugs on the CIA's payroll.

Back to the seventies: At the time of the coup that installed Obasanjo, the US was still reeling from the OPEC oil embargo. That action would have been all the more devastating were it not for the fact that Nigeria, under Yakubu Gowon's leadership, had opted to breach the embargo and ship oil to the West. Because of the inflated price petroleum commanded at the time, Nigeria experienced unprecedented economic growth. When Murtala took over, the US immediately became concerned, not knowing if Nigeria could be relied upon as a supplier under a new regime. In an attempt to soften up the anti-Western ideology associated with Murtala, Secretary of State Kissinger proposed a state visit. Murtala told him to stay home--something interpreted in Washington as a "ten" on the scale by which political insults are ranked.

In the months after Murtala took over in July of 1975, cables between Washington and Lagos increased in number almost five-fold. That in itself is an indicator of heightened political interest that goes beyond the mere arrival of a new administration. Some of those cables have been released via the Freedom of Information Act, and although they may not be entirely conclusive, they certainly suggest a US role in the assassination that brought Obasanjo to power in 1976.

To avoid getting overly-complicated, there were two dominant themes conveyed in most of those formerly classified cables. One concerned oil and the extent to which the new Nigerian leadership would try to use oil "as an economic weapon" against the US, to quote the language used in several dispatches. The second concerned Nigeria's growing economic, political and military status within Africa.

The written communication between Lagos and Washington--much of which, I should add, is still classified--focused mainly on political intelligence, on the anti-Western opinions of various ministers and other leaders, on Nigeria's foreign policy (including its support for the then-banned African National Congress in Lusaka), and, of course, its support for any potential OPEC strike in the future. Also of concern to Washington power brokers was the fact that Nigeria continued to acquire weapons of increasing sophistication and could be expected to effectively enforce its national interests in any regional dispute.

Among the more interesting cables is one, written by Ambassador Easum just days before Murtala's murder, that suggested Nigeria's economy would have to be brought down ("degraded," in Clinton terminology) so that development expectations would compete with the growth of national power--the assumption being that the military expansion Washington so feared would falter.

A related concern was the strength of Nigeria in terms of manpower. In August of 1975, as a matter of fact, the Congressional Research Service prepared a study called "Oil Fields as Military Targets." Its purpose was to serve as a background briefing to Congress in the event a second, "air-tight" oil embargo was launched and the president decided to seek legislative approval for a war over oil. One nation evaluated, and ultimately dismissed, as a possible subject of such an attack was Nigeria. There were definite advantages to attacking Nigeria, of course. Not the least of these were the fact that (a) the country's oil reserves were largely on land, making them less costly to operate (or reconstruct in the event of sabotage) in the wake of an invasion; (b) Nigeria offered a clear benefit in terms of transit because shipments would be relatively direct, not passing through strategic "hot spots" like Hormuz; (c) the populace would be relatively unsuspecting, giving the US military the advantage that comes with surprise (which rather contradicts the notion of Congressional debate); and (d) Nigeria would be among the countries least likely to provoke retaliation by the USSR, not to mention Soviet interceptions of communications, etc. But on the negative side, two important aspects of the would-be invasion stood out. One was the terrain--similar in many respects to that which had "frustrated" US troops in Vietnam over the previous decade. The second was the density of population in the eastern and delta regions in which the purported invasion would have had to take place. The ensuing struggle, one in which tens of thousands of angry Nigerians were potential combatants, would have drawn world attention to American imperialism, the report frankly concluded, making any attempt to colonize Nigeria's oilfields a distinct liability.

There were other documents produced at around the same time to corroborate this intense interest in Nigeria, the country's population, and its oil wealth. The US Information Agency or USIA (which operates the Voice of America of other propaganda actions around the world) does yearly reports on the US interest in various countries. Theirs, too, cites the pervasive worries about Nigeria becoming the economic and demographic giant of Africa, capable of spreading an anti-American ideology all over the continent, and likewise stressing that agency goals should serve the larger objective of increasing US influence over Nigeria's politics and culture. Then there was the notorious NSSM 200 (National Security Study Memorandum 200), sometimes called the "Kissinger population paper," in which it was stressed that oil and mineral-rich Nigeria could easily cope with a far larger population and would gain sufficient status to compete with the US influence over Africa. The memorandum recommended that 13 of the largest developing countries, Nigeria included, be targeted with aggressive campaigns of fertility control in order to contain their rise to power.


"Whatever may be done to guard against interruptions of supply," said the document, which was adopted as official policy "guidance" in the development assistance program in late 1975, "the US economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad, especially from less developed countries. That fact gives the US enhanced interest in the political, economic, and social stability of the supplying countries. Wherever a lessening of population pressures through reduced birth rates can increase the prospects for such stability, population policy becomes relevant to resource supplies and to the economic interests of the United States."

The same study included detailed instructions on how US policymakers could use such "multinational" institutions as the World Bank and various UN agencies to pressure governments into adopting population-reduction policies, and even hinted that food and development aid might be made conditional on actual (measurable) reductions in national fertility rates.

The general tone of the dispatches sent between Lagos and Washington was clear. Washington wanted new leadership for Nigeria. And on 13 February 1976, the assassination that brought Obasanjo to power was carried out. Curiously, it was exactly five days later, on 18 February, that President Gerald Ford signed a long-awaited and much-publicized executive order barring the assassination of foreign heads of state by the CIA.

In 1979, Obasanjo became the first Nigerian military leader to voluntarily turn over his office to an elected leader, Shehu Shagari. And what came next is important. Almost right away, Obasanjo turned up in New York, where he was appointed to the board of directors of the African American Institute. The African American Institute, then located directly across the street from the United Nations, had been set up in 1954 with money that came from the CIA. Its principal task was to increase US influence over the foreign and domestic policies of the emerging African states, at that time still under formal European control.

In the next few years, Obasanjo began turning up in all kinds of interesting places--giving a high-proflie lecture at Kissinger's Center for Strategic and International Studies (which also distributes literature written by Obasanjo), for one thing, and hosting a meeting on religion and politics at the government-controlled US Institute of Peace. During the mid- and late 1980s, things were especially fascinating. Obasanjo was still on the AAI board, as he has continued to be, even during his years in detention under Sani Abacha right up to the present day. In 1988, from his vantage point at AAI and CSIS, Obasanjo launched an endeavor of his own, the Africa Leadership Forum. Assisting him from the beginning, and prominently involved over the next several years, was the notorious ex-defense secretary, World Bank boss, and probable Haiti coup-instigator, Robert McNamara.

Obasanjo's forum fits every description of a classic "front group." Its financing comes from nebulous sources, its activities are conducted for the most part under pseudonyms. It created centers for the study of military and "security" issues; organized "leadership" conferences; underwrote reports on policy matters by "local" scholars; recommended legislation (not just in Nigeria but before the AAU, as well); financed an office for conflict monitoring; recruited journalists for propaganda campaigns; and sought out young academics for political training--most of these actions presented as the initiative of host country institutions that were, in reality, Obasanjo creations. In the 10 years between the founding of the forum and Obasanjo's decision to make a run for president, the forum also worked with the development agencies of various nations, the US Information Service, and other big league collaborators in the Western world.

According to forum literature, the source of the group's money is yet another institution, the Africa Leadership Foundation, which was founded in 1988 by Obasanjo simultaneously with the forum's creation. Indeed, the foundation exists for the express purpose of financing forum activities. Obasanjo's New York-based foundation is not listed in the phone book, but forum records list an address at a residential condominium on upscale Park Avenue, where foundation chief of operations and Obasanjo confident Hans d'Orville resides. D'Orville, a German national who speaks with a British accent, was asked about the origin of several million dollars which had suddenly surfaced in Nigeria right after Obasanjo declared his intent to compete for the presidency last year. He insisted he didn't know.

The year 1988 was also notable for the inauguration of a "population policy" in Nigeria, financed with more than $100 million from the US Agency for International Development and the World Bank, and officially approved by Gen. Ibrahim Babangida, Sani Abacha's predecessor and a personal friend of Obasanjo's. One of the key actors in that operation was the CIA-linked African American Institute in New York, on whose board Obasanjo sat.

The African American Institute was at the time headed by none other than Donald B. Easum, the former US Ambassador to Nigeria who suggested the subversion of Nigeria's booming economy and on whose watch the assassination of Murtala Muhammad took place.

A 1988 contract between the Agency for International Development and AAI called for the latter to work to generate "a policy climate conducive to the successful execution of a national family planning effort [in Nigeria] and to strengthen federal, state, and local government capability in strategic planning in order to efficiently mobilise and execute an effective and self-sustaining national family planning programme." Babangida, ironically, is also rumored to have had a part in the 1976 coup that installed Obasanjo.

Two years after the national population policy was launched, Obasanjo was again called upon to assist in the promotion of the US agenda in Nigeria, this time acting under the auspices of his Africa Leadership Forum. The occasion was a June 1990 World Bank conference on population control in Lagos, organized, at least in part, by Obasanjo ally and advisor McNamara. At the close of the meeting, which was held secretively in a heavily-guarded Lagos compound, Obasanjo stepped forward to openly demand that the federal military government of Nigeria adopt a mandatory limit of three children per woman.

The money Obasanjo brought to his recent presidential campaign, which became the source of a major scandal in the Nigeria press, is just the proverbial tip of the iceberg. For years Obasanjo has associated with key actors in the hierarchy of global politics. In his work with the CIA-created African American Institute and the Africa Leadership Forum, he has overseen projects that could literally be used as textbook examples of Cold War era covert operations--"constituency-building" campaigns, intelligence gathering, the penetration of the news media, the recruitment of unsuspecting local collaborators, and the creation of a network of inter-linked groups and dummy corporations through which major operations can be orchestrated and financed. As brutal as was Obasanjo's first period in office, it is likely that Nigerians will experience even worse in the coming years.





[i]The US military is stationing itself in Nigeria for the following reasons:

---

To ensure free flow of Oil from the N/Delta to the US and stop any form of interference from any anti-government group whose activities may hinder this free flow.

---

To monitor military activities in Nigeria like in some asian countries and reduce to the barest minimum any possible threat to US control of other countries through possible warfare

---

To act as US stronghold in Nigeria; an arms of power for the US to give it some measure of control in the Nigerian system

---

To monitor fully the on-goings in Nigerian politics and try to interfere where policies might not favour its gain in the Nigerian oil and as stated in the above report take out any that tries to twart US political and profit-making interests in Nigeria; and a whole of other reasons too numerous to mention.


N/B: SINCE HUNTERS HAVE LEARNT TO SHOOT WITHOUT MISSING, BIRDS HAVE ALSO LEARNT TO FLY WITHOUT PERCHING and ONCE BITTEN, TWICE SHY. The Nigerian government have made us sub-slaves to the US and they will regret this decision in the nearest future.

[color=#990000][/color]



17 March 1999-Elizabeth Liagin is an independent journalist who has done extensive research into General Olusegan Obasanjo, who won the recent presidential election in Nigeria. She submitted the following commentary in response to the 5 March article "Nigerian election fraud leaves elite in control" by Chris Talbot

The 13 February 1976 assassination of Murtala Muhammad, which brought Olusegan Obasanjo to power the first time, was widely believed at the time to be the linked to the CIA. Perhaps the same might be said for the 27 February 1999 "coup" as well.

Obasanjo is more than just a "friend" of the Americans. He is an operative. And his involvement with America's foreign policy elite is a long, sometimes complicated, but delightfully interesting story.

There are several key persons and institutions that appear over and over in the Obasanjo files. One is Donald B. Easum, who was the United States Ambassador to Nigeria at the time of the 1976 assassination. Another is the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, where Henry Kissinger, who was Secretary of State at the time of the same assassination, serves as a "counsellor." Then we have Robert S. McNamara, a former World Bank president and the Secretary of Defense who carried much of the blame for the Vietnam War. More recently, McNamara embarked on an excursion to Haiti in the aftermath of the election that brought Jean Bertrand Aristide to office. Upon his return, McNamara pronounced Aristide "vehemently" anti-US, implying that the United States would be in for another round of whatever it was that Fidel Castro stirred up in people after his revolution more than two decades before. Within a year of McNamara's assessment, Aristide was ousted by thugs on the CIA's payroll.

Back to the seventies: At the time of the coup that installed Obasanjo, the US was still reeling from the OPEC oil embargo. That action would have been all the more devastating were it not for the fact that Nigeria, under Yakubu Gowon's leadership, had opted to breach the embargo and ship oil to the West. Because of the inflated price petroleum commanded at the time, Nigeria experienced unprecedented economic growth. When Murtala took over, the US immediately became concerned, not knowing if Nigeria could be relied upon as a supplier under a new regime. In an attempt to soften up the anti-Western ideology associated with Murtala, Secretary of State Kissinger proposed a state visit. Murtala told him to stay home--something interpreted in Washington as a "ten" on the scale by which political insults are ranked.

In the months after Murtala took over in July of 1975, cables between Washington and Lagos increased in number almost five-fold. That in itself is an indicator of heightened political interest that goes beyond the mere arrival of a new administration. Some of those cables have been released via the Freedom of Information Act, and although they may not be entirely conclusive, they certainly suggest a US role in the assassination that brought Obasanjo to power in 1976.

To avoid getting overly-complicated, there were two dominant themes conveyed in most of those formerly classified cables. One concerned oil and the extent to which the new Nigerian leadership would try to use oil "as an economic weapon" against the US, to quote the language used in several dispatches. The second concerned Nigeria's growing economic, political and military status within Africa.

The written communication between Lagos and Washington--much of which, I should add, is still classified--focused mainly on political intelligence, on the anti-Western opinions of various ministers and other leaders, on Nigeria's foreign policy (including its support for the then-banned African National Congress in Lusaka), and, of course, its support for any potential OPEC strike in the future. Also of concern to Washington power brokers was the fact that Nigeria continued to acquire weapons of increasing sophistication and could be expected to effectively enforce its national interests in any regional dispute.

Among the more interesting cables is one, written by Ambassador Easum just days before Murtala's murder, that suggested Nigeria's economy would have to be brought down ("degraded," in Clinton terminology) so that development expectations would compete with the growth of national power--the assumption being that the military expansion Washington so feared would falter.

A related concern was the strength of Nigeria in terms of manpower. In August of 1975, as a matter of fact, the Congressional Research Service prepared a study called "Oil Fields as Military Targets." Its purpose was to serve as a background briefing to Congress in the event a second, "air-tight" oil embargo was launched and the president decided to seek legislative approval for a war over oil. One nation evaluated, and ultimately dismissed, as a possible subject of such an attack was Nigeria. There were definite advantages to attacking Nigeria, of course. Not the least of these were the fact that (a) the country's oil reserves were largely on land, making them less costly to operate (or reconstruct in the event of sabotage) in the wake of an invasion; (b) Nigeria offered a clear benefit in terms of transit because shipments would be relatively direct, not passing through strategic "hot spots" like Hormuz; (c) the populace would be relatively unsuspecting, giving the US military the advantage that comes with surprise (which rather contradicts the notion of Congressional debate); and (d) Nigeria would be among the countries least likely to provoke retaliation by the USSR, not to mention Soviet interceptions of communications, etc. But on the negative side, two important aspects of the would-be invasion stood out. One was the terrain--similar in many respects to that which had "frustrated" US troops in Vietnam over the previous decade. The second was the density of population in the eastern and delta regions in which the purported invasion would have had to take place. The ensuing struggle, one in which tens of thousands of angry Nigerians were potential combatants, would have drawn world attention to American imperialism, the report frankly concluded, making any attempt to colonize Nigeria's oilfields a distinct liability.

There were other documents produced at around the same time to corroborate this intense interest in Nigeria, the country's population, and its oil wealth. The US Information Agency or USIA (which operates the Voice of America of other propaganda actions around the world) does yearly reports on the US interest in various countries. Theirs, too, cites the pervasive worries about Nigeria becoming the economic and demographic giant of Africa, capable of spreading an anti-American ideology all over the continent, and likewise stressing that agency goals should serve the larger objective of increasing US influence over Nigeria's politics and culture. Then there was the notorious NSSM 200 (National Security Study Memorandum 200), sometimes called the "Kissinger population paper," in which it was stressed that oil and mineral-rich Nigeria could easily cope with a far larger population and would gain sufficient status to compete with the US influence over Africa. The memorandum recommended that 13 of the largest developing countries, Nigeria included, be targeted with aggressive campaigns of fertility control in order to contain their rise to power.


"Whatever may be done to guard against interruptions of supply," said the document, which was adopted as official policy "guidance" in the development assistance program in late 1975, "the US economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad, especially from less developed countries. That fact gives the US enhanced interest in the political, economic, and social stability of the supplying countries. Wherever a lessening of population pressures through reduced birth rates can increase the prospects for such stability, population policy becomes relevant to resource supplies and to the economic interests of the United States."

The same study included detailed instructions on how US policymakers could use such "multinational" institutions as the World Bank and various UN agencies to pressure governments into adopting population-reduction policies, and even hinted that food and development aid might be made conditional on actual (measurable) reductions in national fertility rates.

The general tone of the dispatches sent between Lagos and Washington was clear. Washington wanted new leadership for Nigeria. And on 13 February 1976, the assassination that brought Obasanjo to power was carried out. Curiously, it was exactly five days later, on 18 February, that President Gerald Ford signed a long-awaited and much-publicized executive order barring the assassination of foreign heads of state by the CIA.

In 1979, Obasanjo became the first Nigerian military leader to voluntarily turn over his office to an elected leader, Shehu Shagari. And what came next is important. Almost right away, Obasanjo turned up in New York, where he was appointed to the board of directors of the African American Institute. The African American Institute, then located directly across the street from the United Nations, had been set up in 1954 with money that came from the CIA. Its principal task was to increase US influence over the foreign and domestic policies of the emerging African states, at that time still under formal European control.

In the next few years, Obasanjo began turning up in all kinds of interesting places--giving a high-proflie lecture at Kissinger's Center for Strategic and International Studies (which also distributes literature written by Obasanjo), for one thing, and hosting a meeting on religion and politics at the government-controlled US Institute of Peace. During the mid- and late 1980s, things were especially fascinating. Obasanjo was still on the AAI board, as he has continued to be, even during his years in detention under Sani Abacha right up to the present day. In 1988, from his vantage point at AAI and CSIS, Obasanjo launched an endeavor of his own, the Africa Leadership Forum. Assisting him from the beginning, and prominently involved over the next several years, was the notorious ex-defense secretary, World Bank boss, and probable Haiti coup-instigator, Robert McNamara.

Obasanjo's forum fits every description of a classic "front group." Its financing comes from nebulous sources, its activities are conducted for the most part under pseudonyms. It created centers for the study of military and "security" issues; organized "leadership" conferences; underwrote reports on policy matters by "local" scholars; recommended legislation (not just in Nigeria but before the AAU, as well); financed an office for conflict monitoring; recruited journalists for propaganda campaigns; and sought out young academics for political training--most of these actions presented as the initiative of host country institutions that were, in reality, Obasanjo creations. In the 10 years between the founding of the forum and Obasanjo's decision to make a run for president, the forum also worked with the development agencies of various nations, the US Information Service, and other big league collaborators in the Western world.

According to forum literature, the source of the group's money is yet another institution, the Africa Leadership Foundation, which was founded in 1988 by Obasanjo simultaneously with the forum's creation. Indeed, the foundation exists for the express purpose of financing forum activities. Obasanjo's New York-based foundation is not listed in the phone book, but forum records list an address at a residential condominium on upscale Park Avenue, where foundation chief of operations and Obasanjo confident Hans d'Orville resides. D'Orville, a German national who speaks with a British accent, was asked about the origin of several million dollars which had suddenly surfaced in Nigeria right after Obasanjo declared his intent to compete for the presidency last year. He insisted he didn't know.

The year 1988 was also notable for the inauguration of a "population policy" in Nigeria, financed with more than $100 million from the US Agency for International Development and the World Bank, and officially approved by Gen. Ibrahim Babangida, Sani Abacha's predecessor and a personal friend of Obasanjo's. One of the key actors in that operation was the CIA-linked African American Institute in New York, on whose board Obasanjo sat.

The African American Institute was at the time headed by none other than Donald B. Easum, the former US Ambassador to Nigeria who suggested the subversion of Nigeria's booming economy and on whose watch the assassination of Murtala Muhammad took place.

A 1988 contract between the Agency for International Development and AAI called for the latter to work to generate "a policy climate conducive to the successful execution of a national family planning effort [in Nigeria] and to strengthen federal, state, and local government capability in strategic planning in order to efficiently mobilise and execute an effective and self-sustaining national family planning programme." Babangida, ironically, is also rumored to have had a part in the 1976 coup that installed Obasanjo.

Two years after the national population policy was launched, Obasanjo was again called upon to assist in the promotion of the US agenda in Nigeria, this time acting under the auspices of his Africa Leadership Forum. The occasion was a June 1990 World Bank conference on population control in Lagos, organized, at least in part, by Obasanjo ally and advisor McNamara. At the close of the meeting, which was held secretively in a heavily-guarded Lagos compound, Obasanjo stepped forward to openly demand that the federal military government of Nigeria adopt a mandatory limit of three children per woman.

The money Obasanjo brought to his recent presidential campaign, which became the source of a major scandal in the Nigeria press, is just the proverbial tip of the iceberg. For years Obasanjo has associated with key actors in the hierarchy of global politics. In his work with the CIA-created African American Institute and the Africa Leadership Forum, he has overseen projects that could literally be used as textbook examples of Cold War era covert operations--"constituency-building" campaigns, intelligence gathering, the penetration of the news media, the recruitment of unsuspecting local collaborators, and the creation of a network of inter-linked groups and dummy corporations through which major operations can be orchestrated and financed. As brutal as was Obasanjo's first period in office, it is likely that Nigerians will experience even worse in the coming years.

Sorce: www.saharareporters.com

America are trying to spread their tentacles to other nations. They are just trying to control everybody and everything and are prepared to wage war with anyone who dares barrier them. Take the case of nigeria as an example. Greedy Americans! D'you know that they are trying to esyablish a military base in Africa in order to reduce any African resistance to the flow of oil into the US from Africa and subsequently reduce Africa's military to the same incapacitated state as that of Japan?[color=#990000][/color]

Today, they call him a monkey and a kleptomaniac, tomorrow, he is immortalised as a national hero. When he was oppressing you all you rained abuses and curses on him, now you are wishing him a happy birthday. BLOODY CIVILIANS! a soldier would call such ones. When will you all wake up and take the fight to them greedy politicians and political office holders. Have forgotten so soon that he stole over 480 billion as he was accused of? Or how he publicly rained abuses on anyone who dared question his moves including state governors during his regime? and other multitudinous crimes to numerous to mention on this forum? Or how he intentionally refused to pity the plight of teachers by endorsing and making sure the receive their hard-earned salaries? No wonder them politicians trample on you and embezzle your hard-earned money because they know no one will question them for doing so.

Some people just suck.  

How would you feel if you had a child, gave him a wonderful, beautiful gift, wrapped in a beautiful gift wrapper, kept it somewhere for him and told him to wait till the day on which to open it, only to discover he had seen the content of the package before the assigned date? Bad, huh! To you, that single act shows you that he lacks the following: Self-control, appreciation towards the giver, respect, obedience and is ungrateful. That is how God feels when we open the "gift" of marital companionship- marital intimacy- before it is legally and officially given to you. And because this His dislikes towards such an act, He laid down punishment to curb such an act becoming a way of life for his dear humans who love and treasure.

For the ladies, if you allow a guy to "open" you before you are legally married, you lose any atom of respect he might have had for you, your lose your sense of dignity before him and become a laughing stock among his folks when they get to hear about it which they will surely do and dent whatever relationship you might have had with your creator. If a guy pressures you for any form of premarital intimacy, kindly tell him NO and explain your stand to him. If he threatens to call it qiuts, then, instead of being downtrodden, quickly release that he does not care about your feelings and emotions and as such did not love you truly. Premarital intimacy is one of the primary reasons for divorce because the love had already been its journey to the grave and the man no longer feels excited about marrying you because "he's already open the package before it was given to him"

A yoruba man whose name I can't remember is one of the lead actors in the top hit hollywood science-fiction/action movie: G. I. Joe - the rise of cobra.
Others include:
Wesley Snipes - Anambra
NAS - Lagos
Oguche (Defender in the US National Team Squad); and a thousand other too numerous to mention

Why d'you think as if ur brains have been frozen? D'you know what we benefit from the US. Apart from oil, what do we give to the US? They (US) are world power holders for now. They speak where other countries don't andact where defiance is perceived. What d'you think would have happened if you had not intervened in Nigeria's affairs when monsters like Abacha were in control of power? The huge losses that could come from breaking off diplomatic ties with the US is worth being avoided. Diplomacy works my friends. I think that was one of the few instances the senate acted thoughtfully. While they did not trample on Nigeria's right as a nation, noegotiation is the best solution right now. Not everything has to be hip-and -edggy. They considered Nigeria a security-risk country because they thought the terror suspect flew down there from Nigeria. If someone tried to bomb over 150 Nigerians on a plane and the terrorist was American and departed directly from America, what would you suggest be Nigeria's action toward America, huh? Think guys, think!Stop arguing like the blind men who argued over real the state of an elephant.