"The Yes-man is the enemy; your best friend will argue with you and even fight with you."

- Aleksandr Soltzenitsyn. (Russian Nobel laureate in literature)

"...The Siloviki's* code of honour is much like the Chechen's** code of honour - the unconditional protection of their own and the manipulation of others if it is necessary. They save their own but betray and frame agents who are recruited with the help of dirty tricks and money. Considering the current psychology of the Siloviki, who are busy with their own business affairs and tricking or framing others, the concept of "our own" has shrunk to mean one person - oneself. Everybody else falls into this category of "disposable agents." who van be tricked, framed or discarded. Today there is no such thing as 'our own'people. The concept of 'our own' has relevance only for Swiss bank accounts, and everything else is expendable. The vermin think only about making a lot of money and don't care about great Russia, the power and influence of which they measure in direct proportion to the quantity of money stashed away in their private accounts ..."

- Yulia Latynina - famous Russian political analyst, excerpt of column titled "Protecting our own."

*Siloviki is a Russian word collectively used for officers of the Russian KGB and Military. (Commentary by me)

**Chechens are a minority ethnic group in Russia. This region, very rich in oil, has fought two fierce civil wars with the Russian army within the past 10 years in order to break away from Russia. (Commentary by me)

"Imagine a situation in which a good acquaintance - but not a close friend - suggests that you start a joint venture that requires you to invest all your savings. If you hesitate, he whips out a revolver and threatens to shoot your close relatives. This is how Russia's most recent suggestion for co-operation with the United States on a joint anti-ballistic missile defense system comes across. But the main point is that if the United States were to accept the Russian offer, it would have to entirely reject its present strategy of intercepting enemy warheads in space using missiles with a range of more than 2000 kilometers. In addition, the joint project would mean that the billions of dollars that the United States had already spent on its unilateral anti-system would be for naught. The other problematic aspect of Russia's proposal is that it would require an unusually high level of trust in each other to make this new relationship work. And Russia has done everything in its power to undermine this trust. A case in point: Ivanov has promised that if the United States does not cancel its plans to place a radar in the Chech Republic and elements of anti-missile batteries in Poland, Russia will deploy Iskander rockets in Kaliningrad aimed at U.S. installations in Europe. If Russia deploys these weapons, it will violate the terms of the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe. This in turn could lead to a new stand off with Europe. On the surface, Moscow has offered to create a joint global anti-missile system that would significantly improve U.S.-Russian relations. But Moscow has threatened a new military stand-off if Washington refuses its proposal anf if it develops its anti-missile system in Europe. Thus, Moscow has proposed an absolutely meaningless and unrealistic initiative that will only distract and irritate Washington at a time when the Kremlin is frantically looking for U.S. support for Putin's successor."

- Alexander Golts. Columnist on Defense issues for Moscow's English language newspaper, excerpt from recently published column titled; "An Anti-Missile Proposal Doomed to Fail."

Abuja: An Ideal Capital For The North.

Abuja as a capital is an ideal place for the North in all sense of the word. They figured out that if another civil war started, a military Head of State from the North would have more than enough time at his disposal to quickly relocate to a military base in Kaduna or any other city in the North, from where a well planned attack or defence could be launched and co-ordinated. Moreover, in the event of another civil war, the enemy would have to cross the River Niger or/and Benue which would make his task much more difficult. The fact that the new capital is located in Abuja gives any Northern military Head of state a psychological and military advantage. They won't feel "vulnerable" any longer. No wonder after the failed Orkar coup where he announced the secession of the South from the North, Babangida quickly relocated to Abuja. Thus, the decision to relocate the capital to Abuja provides much more security to a Northern Head of state, in the event of a civil war, but makes a non-Northern Nigerian President very vulnerable, and as our analysis has shown, does not make the President of Nigeria safer in anyway if a war breaks out between Nigeria and a foreign country.

Dilemma: How To Sell The Abuja Project To Nigerians

Having agreed on Abuja as the new capital of Nigeria, the Northern Military officers had a formidable problem before them to tackle in order to realise their objective. How would they sell this idea or project to Nigerians, most especially non-Northerners, in order not to raise any suspicion? Although, it was a military regime, they couldn't just say outright that the capital would be relocated to the North just like that without any cogent reason. In addition, since the former capital, Lagos, was regarded as a Yoruba territory, and the Yorubas were on the federal government side during the civil war, they needed to be careful and diplomatic about how they went about it.

The Northern military officers also could not just announce that the new capital would be relocated in any of the already existing major Northern cities like Kano, Kaduna, Zaria, Sokoto e.t.c. That would definitely raise suspicion too. They needed a more civilised or refined way of selling the idea. The first step in selling the idea of a new capital was discrediting or representing Lagos as an unsuitable city for Nigeria's capital because of his closeness to the ocean. Other flimsy excuses like congestion and equal access to all Nigerians were added for solidity to hide the 'real' motive. However, the biggest trick that was played on Nigerians by the Northern military officers was the "equal accessibility" of a new capital to all Nigerians! They sold it to them well and they swallowed it completely!

I am sure if you are objective and follow my analysis with an "open mind," by now, you should be convinced beyond any reasonable doubt that the "hidden motive" for relocating Nigeria's capital from Lagos to Abuja was not because the Northern military officers really cared about the security of Nigeria and Nigerians. The capital was relocated to the North for their own "personal security" and other "strategic" economic and political reasons which include the following:

(1) To have "complete control" of political events in the country;

(2) To "enforce" the "artificial" and "non-existing" unity of the country, by tying the South to Abuja, thus making the possibility of breaking up the country much more difficult;

(3) If Nigeria broke up, they would already have a modern capital of their own completely at their disposal, completely built with the Niger Delta money.

Let's Compromise And Meet "In The Middle" Tactic/Trick

The choice of Abuja as the new capital of Nigeria reminds me of one of several manipulations in negotiations called "Let's compromise and meet in the middle." This is how it works:

Imagine a very rich seller asking for $200,000 for his house, whose market price is between $185,000 and $195,000. The buyer is also well aware of the market price of the house but unfortunately, his reserve price i.e. the maximum price he could afford to pay for the price is just $170,000. However, the buyer instead of asking the seller for a discount with a promise to pay the balance later, decides to be unreasonable and asks the seller to sell the house for him for $100,000. The seller of course expresses his surprise and refuses flatly to sell his house for that price. The buyer, instead of offering a reasonable price, decides to do a "price manipulation." After doing some head scratching, he asks the seller to let him have the house for $105,000. The seller again refuses. The buyer then increases his price to $110,000. The seller points out to the buyer that he is not being reasonable with his offer because the market price for his house is $195,000.

The buyer realising that he is not making any headway, decides to play a trick on the seller. He tells the buyer "Okay Mr. S, let's reach a compromise. Let's meet in the middle. Let's add our two prices ($110,000+$195,000) together and divide it by 2." The seller gets hold of his calculator, does the calculation and arrives at $152,500 which is $17,500 less than the buyer's reserved price of $170,000 but is still $42,500 far short of the seller's selling price of $195,000. When the seller points out to him that his new price is still $42,500 short of his asking price, the buyer tells him that he has in actual fact increased his offer substantially from $100,000 to $152,000 which is 50% more than his first offer. But the seller does not budge. Then the buyer tells him that he should not be greedy and reminds him that after all he is his neighbour and moreover, the buyer is a very rich man with an uncountable number of houses. He quickly adds that selling "just this one house" to him from his numerous houses would in no way make him poorer in any case because the $42,500 difference was nothing to him (the seller.) Furthermore, he complains to the seller that this is the "only" chance for him to ever buy a house in his life, and if he misses the opportunity, his children will become destitute. The seller looks with anger and pity at the buyer and says in a harsh voice: "Okay let's compromise, bring the $152,500." The buyer thanks the seller and quickly writes a check of $152,500 for the seller.

 <!--[endif]-->

A Loss-Win Transaction for Mr. S.

Now, let us analyse this transaction objectively. In this transaction, the buyer saved at least $32,500 (if we assume that the lowest market price for the house was $185,000) while the seller, unfortunately lost at least $32,500 in the same transaction. In otherwords, it was a WIN-LOSS transaction and not a WIN-WIN transaction which all parties in any business transaction must strive towards.

The buyer was able to secure the deal because he played the "Let's compromise and meet at the middle" trick on the seller and made the seller to have unnecessary and unjustified "guilty conscience."

Unfortunately, the seller allowed himself to be manipulated by the buyer. What would you had advised the seller to do in this situation? The seller should had "neutralised" the arguments of the buyer by telling him that it was not a must that he should buy that particular house and since $152,500 was the highest amount he could afford, he (the buyer) would do better to look for another house within that price range elsewhere while he (the seller) in turn would do better by looking for another buyer that could afford to pay the market price of his house. In addition, in reply to the buyer's statement about his uncountable number of houses, he should had told him that the number of his houses should not be the issue in the deal and that since he was a business man, therefore, he was selling his house to make a profit and not for the sake of philantrophy. The seller should not have given in to the blackmail of the buyer.

This example above illustrated exactly what happened between the North and the South. The North, in this case was the poor buyer while the South was the very rich seller. The North successfully played the "Let's compromise and establish our new capital in the middle "for the sake of peace, fairness and unity'" trick on the South, knowing very well that the middle, no matter how it was calculated, would definitely be in the North since the north had a larger, but predominantly desert and impoverished land mass compared to the very rich land in the south. The North used "emotional and demagogic" arguments to lure the South into a very costly and unnecessary project which was financed "completely" by the oil in the Niger Delta.

The insecurity of Lagos as a capital, because of its closeness to the ocean, was exaggerated by the North in order to make it (Lagos) unsuitable for a capital. When the issue of the enormous investments needed to build a new capital from scratch was raised by the South, the North assured us that we, i.e. Nigeria (in this case the South) had more than enough resources to finance the project. The huge investments needed to build Abuja was purposely underplayed. This should not surprise us. After all, Gowon, during his 9 year stagnant and visionless reign, said many times that "Nigeria's problem was not money, but how to spend it." Unfortunately, some Southerners who naively believed in the "fake, artificial and non-existing unity" of the country fell for this mischievous plot not knowing that they were being manipulated. Other Southerners were bought over with a piece of the action (Abuja contracts)

Thus, the decision to relocate the capital from Lagos to Abuja was in favour of the North alone, in all sense of the word, but cost the South, especially the South-South (the Niger Deltans) and South-East billions of dollars that should had been committed into the development of their land. Abuja was a very BIG WIN for the North but a very BIG LOSS to the South, most especially the owners of the resources that was used to finance this elephant project.

Putting The Cart Before The Horse

As I have said before, building a new capital from scratch is a very, very expensive undertaking even for very rich countries. There was virtually no need for Abuja. The country could have still got along with Lagos quite well. The decision to build Abuja was a "totally" wrong, unjustified and very costly economic decision for a developing country like Nigeria that could not boast of stable electricity; water supply; adequate and functioning infrastructure; a reliable and well-funded educational system; efficient and affordable health care services; adequate pension programs, even up till now. These are what ought to have been tackled first. Then, invest heavily in industries, agriculture and information technology in particular. These would have served as an impulse or locomotive that would have driven the economy to great heights. Abuja shouldn't have been the priority.

Fiscal Policy: Aim Not Achieved

There are cases in economic development when large government spending helps to boost the economy. But this was not the case with Abuja and Nigeria. Why? Because virtually all the construction and supply contracts to build Abuja were heavily inflated, imported and last but not least, they were carried out by foreign companies. So, instead of the contracts creating jobs for Nigerians and boosting our economy, it was the negative effect that we got because the money spent on these projects did not circulate in our economy but were received by foreign banks. Thus, it was a double loss for the South.

 <!--[endif]-->

katampe  # 1 | 12.09.2007 21:06

"The Yes-man is the enemy; your best friend will argue with you and even fight with you." A large area of land should be acquired by the Federal Government near Kafanchan, which is almost central geographically, and strategically safe comparatively, for the purpose of building a new and neutral capital. The new capital should be built on a site entirely separate from an existing town, so that its absolute neutrality may be assured. Being the property of the Federal Government, it would automatically be administered by it in the same way as Washington, D.C. in USA or Canberra in Australia. Such a capital would be a neutral place indeed.B>Action Group, Lagos Belongs to the West (Lagos, 1953), p. 28. It behooves on all of us to counter ignorance with facts, and idealism with pragmatism, while we deal with ethnic insensitivity "with cultural understanding. Based on this premise, I have decided to post some quotes from time past like the one above that counter arguments on how the notion of a federal capital emerged. I am relying on the quote provided by Bode as proof of my noble intentions. I have to hit the road in a moment, to be continued shortly ... Continuation.... Bode, to heed to your request, I am providing my sources. In have modified my earlier post. Prior to the above quote, action group published a pamphlet, where it stated Lagos was not suitable as a Federal Capital : "Strategically it is highly vulnerable. Geographically it is not by any means properly suited to serve as the headquarters of the Central or Federal Government. Lagos is to Nigeria what Calcutta is to India. What we need now, to pursue this analogy, is a New Delhi.' " Action Group, Lagos Belongs to the West (Lagos, 1953), p. 27. One of the folks that was a member of the panel that recommended Abuja, the late Dr Tai Solarin ( incidentally the proprietor of the primary school I attended, Mayflower Primary School, Ikenne made the following observations in a series of written essays: 1)He supported the idea of a planned capital , and his idea was that " a young nation's capital should be planned first on paper as was Brasilia or Chandigarh, so that there should be roads of the eight-lane types that reach the residential areas." ( Martin J.Dent, 'Corrective Government: military rule in perspective', in Keith Panter-Brick (ed.), Soldiers and Oil: the political transformation of Nigeria (London, 1978), p. I 35.) 2) He equally advocated that retaining Lagos as a city would be a monumental task, as such he said to retain it would mean the nation would 'have to bulldoze the whole city and re-plan and rebuild" Source, interview from one of the panelists, Dr Ajato Gandonu. There are many issues to examine before the issue of Abuja as a national capital can be adequately treated. I used the position of Sarduana to buttress my point in an earlier argument on this issue. I have put this out for the general public so as to put paid to several insinuations of the reason for Abuja. I beg to opt of the thread temporarily. As occasion demands it, and where clarification needs to be made I might rejoin later.I go siddon look watch events unfold if it ever does. On a lighter note, "se o ti ri omo isu to wa" as your proof reader? I think say dem boku for Russia :D

Bode Eluyera  # 2 | 12.09.2007 21:25

=katampe;208109> =Bode Eluyera;208091>ABUJA: Capital of Nigeria or Northern Nigeria? (Part 2) "The Yes-man is the enemy; your best friend will argue with you and even fight with you." It behooves on all of us to counter ignorance with facts, and idealism with pragmatism, and ethnic insensitivity with cultural understanding. Based on this premise, I have decided to post some quotes from time past that counter your arguments on how the notion of a federal capital emerged. I rely on your quote above as proof of my noble intentions. To be continued ... Katampe. Thanks for your post and comment on this very important issue. First, I would appreciate it if you could provide the original source of this quote credited to the action group. Second, even if the quote turns out to be authentic, if you read the second part of my article carefully, this has already been tackled in the sense that some Southerners naively believed or made to believe that the government was sincere in its intention. They were not aware of the fact that they were been manipulated.And the rest were bribed with Abuja contract to get their support. In addition, since you cited Washington as an example. I will like to remind you that Washington, like Lagos, is located right by the ocean and at the edge of the country, and not in the centre of the United States, like Abuja . Moreover, Washington was a captured territory. Third, the fact still remains that Abuja is in the north, and if Nigeria eventually breaks up, Abuja will be in the North and not in the South. Fourth, you are building a modern capital with the resources of other people while they wallow in abject poverty. Fifth, from the economic point of view, Abuja is an elephant project. Sixth, Abuja is not the right place to locate a capital. And last but not the least, it was a political decision meant to serve the interest of the North and not Nigeria. Recent events in the last 20 years have more than enough proved this. Thus, all the above remarks, render your comment "completely" irrelevant. Please take your time and read Parts 1 and 2 of the article. They are explanatory and convincing enough. In anycase, thanks again for your contribution.

tonsoyo  # 3 | 13.09.2007 09:53

=Bode Eluyera;208112> =katampe;208109> Katampe. Thanks for your post and comment on this very important issue. First, I would appreciate it if you could provide the original source of this quote credited to the action group. Second, even if the quote turns out to be authentic, if you read the second part of my article carefully, this has already been tackled in the sense that some Southerners naively believed or made to believe that the government was sincere in its intention. They were not aware of the fact that they were been manipulated.And the rest were bribed with Abuja contract to get their support. In addition, since you cited Washington as an example. I will like to remind you that Washington, like Lagos, is located right by the ocean and at the edge of the country, and not in the centre of the United States, like Abuja . Moreover, Washington was a captured territory. Third, the fact still remains that Abuja is in the north, and if Nigeria eventually breaks up, Abuja will be in the North and not in the South. Fourth, you are building a modern capital with the resources of other people while they wallow in abject poverty. Fifth, from the economic point of view, Abuja is an elephant project. Sixth, Abuja is not the right place to locate a capital. And last but not the least, it was a political decision meant to serve the interest of the North and not Nigeria. Recent events in the last 20 years have more than enough proved this. Thus, all the above remarks, render your comment "completely" irrelevant. Please take your time and read Parts 1 and 2 of the article. They are explanatory and convincing enough. In anycase, thanks again for your contribution. Bode, By simple logic, if the representatives of Southern Nigeria genuinely believed that the capital of Nigeria should move from Lagos to somewhere in the North as posted by Katampe, and the Northerners also had that belief for a different reason the bottomline is that there is a consensus of opinion both in the South and in the North that the capital should move upward. This is all that matters brother, a common ground and a consensus of opinion. The Southerners especially the Soth West wanted to remove the burden of Federal presence over Lagos and assert South West authority not because they love the North or because they are "naive" or stupid like you said. They have their own agenda. One of the reasons the Yorubas did not give Banjo safe passage to Lagos and consequently the reason the civil war failed was because of the heavy presence of Northern officers in Lagos to protect the seat of government and the fear of turning the South West into the battle ground. Just like the Northerners might also have their own agenda in anticipation of another war. Bottomline we wanted a free and decongested Lagos and the North also wanted to move up for their own reason and everybody is happy.

Eja  # 4 | 13.09.2007 11:56

Man I must be really slow on the uptake because I still cannot grasp the premise of this argument :neutral:. What is this 'southern nigeria'? What do its peoples have in common? Any one who knows the facts on the ground knows that the Yoruba man in Oyo (or Ilorin) has more in common with the Nupe man in Bida than he does with the man from Bonny. And, the devoutly muslim Nupe man has more in common with the muslim woman from Zaria than he does with the Gongola christian man. Similarly, there are many from amongst the Tiv who would find more in common with those from Enugu than they would with those from Zamfara. So, why are we still basing arguments on this clumsy 'north' vs. 'south' merengue? Are those who fall in the middle (in more ways than one) to be disregarded? That any would think like this makes them suspect, untrustworthy...people like this would bend reality to fit thier own neat little fantasy-world. In other words, people like this may be genocidaires in waiting. I am also wondering which will be the first from the strange bedfellows we have seen on this thread to turn on their 'southern nigerian' friends...:D. If we are going to demand strict autonomy, then let us be honest: we cannot say that the resources of the Niger Delta belongs to southern nigeria. What southern nigeria? The man in Kano has no rights to the oil in Okrika but the Ogbomosho man does? Do you take Okrika people for fools? What a way to reason! Like saying "this poor delicate woman should not be raped by you, she shall be raped by me..." Finally, the troubles between the usa and russia were not instigated by russia as the extract above implies, the troubles were caused by american duplicity. At the end of the so-called cold war, a condition of the treaties signed between NATO and Russia was that NATO would not extend itself into those east European countries that the USSR was pulling out of. Reagan and Gorbachev signed these agreements. Later, what happenned? NATO moved east and it was only after they showed no signs of stopping until Russia was completely encircled that the Russian government started beefing up its military forces agian. What should they have done? Wait until NATO was a stones throw from St Petersburg before taking action? Mr Eluyera, it is your use of mis-information in ways like this that strains your credibility. Surely, as someone who lives in Russia, you know the true story, why come here with what you did? Do you think so little of us? Please, next time, pay us all the compliment of working harder on the flim-flam..:twisted: As for Abuja, a city is only worth what it produces. Someone said this before and you just rolled over, ignored it and continued with your line of reasoning. Lagos, if well administered can generate enough income to meet the requirements of all inhabitants. What is in Abuja that can do the same? Abuja is a hostage to the oil revenues coming from the Niger Delta. Therefore, no Lagosian needs feel a way about that place. Abuja is like some paraplegic in a luxurious wheelchair, who in his/her right mind would feel jealous about such a person? If you wish to convince your people to come out of Nigeria, you will have to do a lot better than this. And by your people, I do not mean the imaginary 'southern nigerians'...

Vaya con Dios  # 5 | 13.09.2007 12:15

=tonsoyo;208248> One of the reason the Yorubas did not give Banjo safe passage to Lagos and consequently the reason the civil war failed was because of the heavy presence of Northern officers in Lagos to protect the seat of government and the fear of turning the South West into the battle ground. Ehn?? I don't understand dis one o!:rolleyes:

tonsoyo  # 6 | 13.09.2007 14:44

=Vaya con Dios;208299>Ehn?? I don't understand dis one o!:rolleyes: Go and see Wole Soyinka's "You Must Set Forth At Dawn" You will understand part of what I am saying. I am not about to turn this thread into another Biafran thread.

EezeeBee  # 7 | 13.09.2007 15:25

= Eja> I am also wondering which will be the first from the strange bedfellows we have seen on this thread to turn on their 'southern nigerian' friends...:D. If we are going to demand strict autonomy, then let us be honest: we cannot say that the resources of the Niger Delta belongs to southern nigeria. What southern nigeria? The man in Kano has no rights to the oil in Okrika but the Ogbomosho man does? Do you take Okrika people for fools? What a way to reason! Like saying "this poor delicate woman should not be raped by you, she shall be raped by me..." Very good question!

tonsoyo  # 8 | 13.09.2007 16:28

Originally Posted by Eja I am also wondering which will be the first from the strange bedfellows we have seen on this thread to turn on their 'southern nigerian' friends.... If we are going to demand strict autonomy, then let us be honest: we cannot say that the resources of the Niger Delta belongs to southern nigeria. What southern nigeria? The man in Kano has no rights to the oil in Okrika but the Ogbomosho man does? Do you take Okrika people for fools? What a way to reason! Like saying "this poor delicate woman should not be raped by you, she shall be raped by me..." Strict interpretation does not end with the man in Okrika neither. We can go forward to say if the man in Kano has no right to the oil in Okrika, being an Okrikan will also not entitled one to an oil well found on my father's property in Bonny. Bottomline is that if Nigeria as whole cannot claim the oil reserves of the Niger Delta as an integral part of an entity known as Nigeria, so also the whole of Niger Delta cannot claim an oil well found in Oloibiri as an integral part of the Niger Delta, so also the whole of Oloibiri cannot claim an oil reserve found on Abraxas Estate as an integral part of Oloibiri. Therefore, only the owner of the property where the resources is found should be able to lay claim to the wealth. If the Federal Government cannot claim a communal right, villages and hamlets, not just regions cannot claim communal rights.

Bode Eluyera  # 9 | 13.09.2007 18:46

=Eja;208291>Man I must be really slow on the uptake because I still cannot grasp the premise of this argument :neutral:. What is this 'southern nigeria'? What do its peoples have in common? Any one who knows the facts on the ground knows that the Yoruba man in Oyo (or Ilorin) has more in common with the Nupe man in Bida than he does with the man from Bonny. And, the devoutly muslim Nupe man has more in common with the muslim woman from Zaria than he does with the Gongola christian man. Similarly, there are many from amongst the Tiv who would find more in common with those from Enugu than they would with those from Zamfara. So, why are we still basing arguments on this clumsy 'north' vs. 'south' merengue? Are those who fall in the middle (in more ways than one) to be disregarded? That any would think like this makes them suspect, untrustworthy...people like this would bend reality to fit thier own neat little fantasy-world. In other words, people like this may be genocidaires in waiting. I am also wondering which will be the first from the strange bedfellows we have seen on this thread to turn on their 'southern nigerian' friends...:D. If we are going to demand strict autonomy, then let us be honest: we cannot say that the resources of the Niger Delta belongs to southern nigeria. What southern nigeria? The man in Kano has no rights to the oil in Okrika but the Ogbomosho man does? Do you take Okrika people for fools? What a way to reason! Like saying "this poor delicate woman should not be raped by you, she shall be raped by me..." Finally, the troubles between the usa and russia were not instigated by russia as the extract above implies, the troubles were caused by american duplicity. At the end of the so-called cold war, a condition of the treaties signed between NATO and Russia was that NATO would not extend itself into those east European countries that the USSR was pulling out of. Reagan and Gorbachev signed these agreements. Later, what happenned? NATO moved east and it was only after they showed no signs of stopping until Russia was completely encircled that the Russian government started beefing up its military forces agian. What should they have done? Wait until NATO was a stones throw from St Petersburg before taking action? Mr Eluyera, it is your use of mis-information in ways like this that strains your credibility. Surely, as someone who lives in Russia, you know the true story, why come here with what you did? Do you think so little of us? Please, next time, pay us all the compliment of working harder on the flim-flam..:twisted: As for Abuja, a city is only worth what it produces. Someone said this before and you just rolled over, ignored it and continued with your line of reasoning. Lagos, if well administered can generate enough income to meet the requirements of all inhabitants. What is in Abuja that can do the same? Abuja is a hostage to the oil revenues coming from the Niger Delta. Therefore, no Lagosian needs feel a way about that place. Abuja is like some paraplegic in a luxurious wheelchair, who in his/her right mind would feel jealous about such a person? If you wish to convince your people to come out of Nigeria, you will have to do a lot better than this. And by your people, I do not mean the imaginary 'southern nigerians'... Eja. Thanks for your contribution. The quotation was used because it was in consonance with the topic. It was not meant to mislead the readers in anyway. Concerning the issue of what Southerners have in common. Overall, in terms of values, way of life, upbringing e.t.c. the southerners have more in common irrespective of where they hail from, compared to northerners. Secondly, if the issue is about oil, I want to draw your attention to the fact that the South-south, south-east and the south-west all have oil. Moreover, I strongly believe that we i.e. southerners, will be much stronger and better off in general together than forming seperate states. Thanks a lot for your contribution and the information.

Robot  # 10 | 19.09.2007 07:28

"The Yes-man is the enemy; your best friend will argue with you and even ...Read the full article.

---

The conversation continues in our forum. Click here to read all comments

---