Women shd also serve NS. Do u agree? share ur views.
-
Originally posted by 16/f/lonely:
I'm quite sure you don't deal with civilians while holding a gun.Sometimes you have to show who's in charge.
Of course, it's my observation, but if the civilians start to get rowdy, then of course I have to show them who's boss.
You don't have to grip your rifle to do that. The mere presence of your arms and ammos is enough.
Your's is the hypothetical one, going a step further, responsability can be abused.
Please rest assure that Army has his way in dealing with civilians. Singapore had signed the Geneva Conventions. From commanders down to ground troopers, everyone is trained with how to deal with civilian.
Civilians that get rowdy is another manner, even the anti-riot drill doesn't fire at the crowd at immediate instance, unless the crowd refuses to disperse and expresses hostility by using violence or even carry arms.
Abuse of responsibility may be possible, however, it's your hypothetical thinking.
I can't say for other armed forces but I believe our SAF soldiers are well trained.
If you have no faith, then it's really you and your hypothetical thinking problem. Not with our Singapore soldiers.
-
16/f/lonely,
So if you're make to do NS in a non-uniformed but social service based vocation, say help running an orphanage, you okay with it?
Or you think the little kids will rip you up in pieces?
-
I have little faith....because it is easy to fall into the trap of thinking anybody can shoulder responsability.
As for the crowd gets rowdy scenario.....I wasn't referring to riots. It happens. Uncooperative civilians should be put into place.
The above, you'll understand only when you have civilians walking up and down your place and you take charge of them and they don't cooperate.
You don't use your gun, but you have to show them who's boss.
-
Originally posted by 16/f/lonely:
I have little faith....because it is easy to fall into the trap of thinking anybody can shoulder responsability.
As for the crowd gets rowdy scenario.....I wasn't referring to riots. It happens. Uncooperative civilians should be put into place.
The above, you'll understand only when you have civilians walking up and down your place and you take charge of them and they don't cooperate.
You don't use your gun, but you have to show them who's boss.
Hmm your thinking probably belong to 2G or even 1G Army.
At least the 3G Singapore Army doesn't think like this anymore.
As you said, uncooperative civilians, then of course they have to be put into place.
However, I think you're very diverted from this topic. This thread is do we agree women should serve NS.
And I disagree that NS = military!
Military is only one of our 5 principles of Total Defence.
Think about it.
-
Originally posted by 16/f/lonely:
I'm quite sure you don't deal with civilians while holding a gun.Sometimes you have to show who's in charge.
Of course, it's my observation, but if the civilians start to get rowdy, then of course I have to show them who's boss.
You don't have to grip your rifle to do that. The mere presence of your arms and ammos is enough.
Your's is the hypothetical one, going a step further, responsability can be abused.
Why do you need to intimidate civilians ?
Will you carry out your superior's order to attack the civilians if they are just protesting for more human rights ?
Will you carry an order knowing the civilians are being oppressed and the gahmen wants to crush them using military force ?
Like the Tiananmen incident . I still wondering why those tank drivers can happily run over their own people just at the drop of an order.
-
Originally posted by jojobeach:
Like the Tiananmen incident . I still wondering why those tank drivers can happily run over their own people just at the drop of an order.
if they can be trained to march like robots, they can do anything..
-
Originally posted by purpledragon84:
if they can be trained to march like robots, they can do anything..
Perhaps that's why 2 years is just nice.. for conditioning our felllow men.
-
Originally posted by 4Justice:
We er... haven't achieved world peace yet unfortunately. Won't happen until earth is ruled by a single united world government.i think singapore's stand on conscription is independent of whether there is a single united world government or not. it is a clear indication of one of singaporeans' biggest attributes: "KIASU"
there are many more countries with a much LESS peaceful record as compared to singapore and still do not see the need for compulsory national service. even if national service is needed to chalk up numbers of soldiers i do not see why is is necessary to make it compulsory for males to need to serve 2 years of their lives in army!
correct me if i am wrong, but singapore is one of the only nations still practising conscription. this concept has already been been deemed outdated by so many other countries.
although i have to admit, with the mighty ego and pride singapore has in its armed forces, it cannot carry on without conscription. it all boils down to pride imo
-
Originally posted by jojobeach:
Perhaps that's why 2 years is just nice.. for conditioning our felllow men.
if u saw the way i march on my ord day(and most probably many others), u will be starting a thread questioning singapore's security
-
Originally posted by eyeballl:
i think singapore's stand on conscription is independent of whether there is a single united world government or not. it is a clear indication of one of singaporeans' biggest attributes: "KIASU"
there are many more countries with a much LESS peaceful record as compared to singapore and still do not see the need for compulsory national service. even if national service is needed to chalk up numbers of soldiers i do not see why is is necessary to make it compulsory for males to need to serve 2 years of their lives in army!
correct me if i am wrong, but singapore is one of the only nations still practising conscription. this concept has already been been deemed outdated by so many other countries.
although i have to admit, with the mighty ego and pride singapore has in its armed forces, it cannot carry on without conscription. it all boils down to pride imo
what is "one of the only nations"?
-
Originally posted by jojobeach:
Why do you need to intimidate civilians ?
You don't know meh? He like to feel superior, like he's the only one who knows anything and everybody else dunno anything one. Read his posts in this thread from around page 5 onwards and you'll see what I mean. Just because he is serving means anyone else who says different to him has never served in the SAF and knows nothing while he knows it all.Intimidating civies is his wet dream.
-
Originally posted by eyeballl:
i think singapore's stand on conscription is independent of whether there is a single united world government or not. it is a clear indication of one of singaporeans' biggest attributes: "KIASU"
there are many more countries with a much LESS peaceful record as compared to singapore and still do not see the need for compulsory national service. even if national service is needed to chalk up numbers of soldiers i do not see why is is necessary to make it compulsory for males to need to serve 2 years of their lives in army!
correct me if i am wrong, but singapore is one of the only nations still practising conscription. this concept has already been been deemed outdated by so many other countries.
although i have to admit, with the mighty ego and pride singapore has in its armed forces, it cannot carry on without conscription. it all boils down to pride imo
It's not about the pride and ego but Singapore needs to have a credible armed force that is able to deter possible aggressors.
Countries that can afford not to have conscription may be mainly due to there are sufficient people from the citizens who is willing to sign on as regular.
-
Originally posted by yamizi:
It's not about the pride and ego but Singapore needs to have a credible armed force that is able to deter possible aggressors.
Countries that can afford not to have conscription may be mainly due to there are sufficient people from the citizens who is willing to sign on as regular.
Can i supply a small bit of food for thought?Kuwait's military force pre-91 was a credible, well armed and well equipped force, but they didn't deter an aggressor with a numerical advantage who was determined to invade anyway.
Discuss.
-
Originally posted by 4Justice:
Can i supply a small bit of food for thought?Kuwait's military force pre-91 was a credible, well armed and well equipped force, but they didn't deter an aggressor with a numerical advantage who was determined to invade anyway.
Discuss.
They would have deter their aggressor for a certain period of time. If not they would have invaded much earlier.
-
Originally posted by 4Justice:
Can i supply a small bit of food for thought?Kuwait's military force pre-91 was a credible, well armed and well equipped force, but they didn't deter an aggressor with a numerical advantage who was determined to invade anyway.
Discuss.
Can i also supply an even smaller bit of food for thought?
You had always claim numerical advantages and strong logistical support lines as a way to win war.
Have you forgotten 'fabian' tactics - guerilla warfare?
Conventional warfare may have won the battlefield, but guerilla warfare is the battle for hearts and minds of the population that seeks to be pacified.
WWII Germans stalled in Russia because of the cold, but the constant harassments by the brave peasants were a terrible toll that made Hitler's logistic planning a nitemare.
Equally so with the French underground in Europe.
Equally so with the Palestinians in the middle east
Equally so with the Vietcong in 'Nam 68
Equally so with the brits in Malayan Emergency against Communists
Equally so with the terrorists in Iraq
Wars are not won on the battlefield, but in the heart and minds of the both agressors and defenders. Fabian tactics can be overcomed - the strategy is to attack their minds. Either win over their hearts and minds or 'grab them by their balls and their minds will follow.' So if you are a commander, best you think more on 'hearts and minds' than to rely 100% on your logistics or machines.
There is more to waging war and keeping the peace than you may presume.
As for my view of women serving NS, i would say best NOT be compulsory. My being came from a father and a nuturing mother, thus i believe women are biologically suited for motherhood - they are caring, sensitive and loving, as well as being fiercer than a lion in protecting their young, whether their young is in the right or wrong.
Both men and women lives are precious. But if men died on the battlefield, women can still continue on with the human race. But if women died on the battlefied, the human race will end with men as survivors. But the purpose of war is not to die or focus on our death, but to make the enemy die for his country, never forget this truism.
However, if women thinks that they are capable and can rough it out, they have my respect and i would respect them as a person carrying a gun, a fellow soldier - not a lady for special treatment, and would follow her orders even into hell if she is a good and capable, not populist, commander. Democracy has no place in an instant life or death, or training, decisive Army. We are Singaporeans.
-
Originally posted by xtreyier:
Can i also supply an even smaller bit of food for thought?
You had always claim numerical advantages and strong logistical support lines as a way to win war.
I love a good civilized discussion. Right. 1stly for the sake of clarification, the discussion between me and Reyes, as far as I am concerned (I cannot speak for him) was centered around the operational aspect and not the psychological aspect of warfare. Logistics and actual combat itself belongs to the operational aspect. My point to Reyes is that logistics is far more important than he assumes it to be, and that combat units and brave men can do nothing without the proper logistics. His point might have either been that logistics isn't important when he says things like:
"WWII are not won in the logistics front. it is won by men from the allies who battle from inch by inch street to street, town by town until the end of WWII."
Or he might be just trying to disregard the significance of the contribution of women to the war effort thru logistical means, because it's very obvious this guy is a sexist. I don't know which because frankly the way he posts is rife with errors and is not as comprehensible as we'd prefer.
However I would whole heartedly agree with you, that to win a war is a combination of both operational AND psychological/human factors. But one or the other alone is not enough to win a war. I will further elaborate on this point when I address your examples in detail.
What you misunderstand is that I "always claim numerical advantages and strong logistical support lines as a way to win war." There are 2 points in which you have misunderstood me:
1) Numerical advantage is a strong factor, but in itself, alone, is not enough to account for victory or defeat. We all know the conventional wisdom for successful invasion stands at the 3:1 ratio, So even with an invasion force twice as big, the defenders might have the upper hand. Indeed, I say the key is not pure numerical figures, but the FORCE MULTIPLIER.
2) Much of what I say would apply more to a battlefront rather than for the course of an outright war, although not strictly so. Remember that much of my assertions during the debate with Reyes is about the operational aspects of war. I would say that it would be more accurate to claim "numerical advantages and strong logistical support lines as a way to win BATTLES" even if that statement is still not 100% accurate due to the fact I've pointed out in point 1).
Right.
Moving on... Your examples:
"WWII Germans stalled in Russia because of the cold, but the constant harassments by the brave peasants were a terrible toll that made Hitler's logistic planning a nitemare."
We have to examine the history of the German forces, especially the Wehrmacht as far back as 1939. The German military's experience of military campaigns in the run up to WW2 were mostly the short aggressive, but not over a vast amount of territory, which led to the development of the Blitzkrieg. The operational philosphy of the German military was tailored along the lines of Blitzkrieg. Thus, their military logistical operations was never equipped or ready to deal with the sort of military advance they faced in Russia. The simple fact was that the brave peasants never had much of an effect on the logistics of the German war machine. It was already their achilles heel long before they ever set foot on Russian soil.
Quite simply, the Russians just set about developing a set of tactics to exploit this weakness, by analysing the German invasion of Poland and other eastern bloc countries at the start of WW2. Those tactics simply called for an entire line of defense to fall back to the next line the moment any German unit achieved a break through, and to put in place the scorched earth policy as the Russian units retreated. This was repeatedly done over 5 or 6 lines of defence, baiting the Germans frontline units into an advance that was far too rapid for its already weak logistics to be able to support. Once the logistics units became overstretched, the German war machine in Russia had no choice to grind to a halt.
To add to their problems, in a stroke of bad fortune, or perhaps more possibly, bad hindsight, the Russian winter set in. I personally feel that the Germans simply did not expect protracted warfare and did not plan for the weather. Now improving logistics is not as simple as sending more trucks in, because you need the manpower, training and the stocks to send to your frontline troops. Quite simply, the Germans did not have the ability to extend their logistics network in the tiny amount of time they realised their logistics network was insufficient and the time which was the beginning of the end.
Did hearts and minds play an important part in the overall defeat of the Germans? I cannot say for sure, because there are lots of factors involved. Maybe the Russians fought far fiercer, but that was tempered by the fact that they were more more poorly equipped and trained. But they had the numerical advantage, and the advantage of fighting on home ground. Whatever basic supplies they needed, they could depend on their fairly intact civilian logistical infrastructure up to the point where the frontlines were. They may not have had enough weapons, but they had no shortage of ammunition, and more importantly, fuel. The Germans, on the other hand, were well equipped, but couldn't depend heavily on their military logistics network, nor could they depend heavily on the captured Russian civilian logistical infrastructure because the Russians destroyed them as part of their "Scorched Earth" policy. In the end did hearts and minds play a part in the German defeat? Probably. Was it the overwhelming factor? Probably not.
"Equally so with the French underground in Europe"
As far as I am concerned, the Germans won and defeated the French (a surrender and treaty was signed). The reason for the French defeat was due to 2 reasons: Even worse logistics than the Germans, and some really bad, antiquated tactical planning by the French military.
However I will admit that the hearts and minds factor was very very crucial in the success of the Allied invasion of European mainland starting with D-Day. Of course, we have to understand that without good logistical support, the Allies wouldn't be able to do much with all the hearts and minds support in the world if they cannot gather enough manpower, ships, weapon, vehicles and the logistical essentials like food clothes and fuel, to mount an assault. However even without French partisan support, I have no doubt that the weight of the enormous Allied war machine and it's strong logistical network, could have still beaten back the Germans, but with a far higher human cost to both sides.
I agree that in modern day warfare, USA has shown that it is currently unable to pacify Iraq or Afghanistan, but bear in mind that the international body concerning human rights wasn't as strong in the early 90s as it is today. Many missions carried out by the Allies during WW2 would have been decried as war crimes by modern day standards. Quite simply, if the Americans were given the same amount of leash as the Allies had been given in WW2, pacifying Iraq would be far easier, just as invading a France that is pro-Axis would similiarly be doable. The importance of the hearts and minds factor was in reducing the human cost of re-taking Europe, especially for the Allies and the civilian population of occupied France.
"Equally so with the Palestinians in the middle east"
I would hesitate to state the middle east as an example. Claims that the Palestinians have won are debatable and dubious at best. Also, given the level of support Palestinians have from the surrounding Arab states, despite Israeli's efforts at cutting off Palestinian logistics, we do not have ample evidence to say that the Palestinians suffer from poor logistics and have "won" due to hearts and mind.
I would however, point out that a more reasonable example would be the victory of the Israeli Defence Force during the Yom Kippur War. The vary fact that they faced extermination as a nation enabled them to hold out for a few desperate days and then turn the tide of battle against the Arab nations. In this war the effects of hearts and minds are much clearer as the logistical support of both sides were sound and were not a contributing factor to victory or defeat, since this was really a proxy war for USA and USSR.
"Equally so with the Vietcong in 'Nam 68"
This is actually a very controversial example. The conventional wisdom held is that the Vietcong won Vietnam. This might have been true post-1972, but I have to disagree that the Vietcong actually were victorious in 68. The American's goal of military involvement in Vietnam was to prevent the North from moving against the South, and while they were involved militarily till 1970, that goal was actually achieved. It was ONLY with the withdrawl of American military involvement in Vietnam that the North invaded the South and conquered it. For many Vietnamese in the South, they didn't care who their masters were as long as they were left to live their lives in peace.
Granted, American attrocities did not endear them to the locals, but then again the Vietcong and the Vietnamese communist did not exactly win the battle for hearts and minds thru the milk of human kindness alone. Have you've watched Apocalypse Now? Col. Kurtz's fictional experiences were based on many true incidents. How else do you think the US were able to recruit many Montagnard tribes into their fold? The Montagnard tribes fought for both the North and the South. Who each individual tribe fought for very likely came down to whose brutality they experienced 1st.
Ultimately the Americans did not lose in Vietnam while they were there, although they weren't entirely successful. However, the reason for the lack of total success on the part of the Americans was more due to the fact that back home decisions were being made out of political considerations instead of military considerations. The lack of unity of purpose in the USA, ironically perhaps, is the strongest example of the difference hearts and minds play in winning a war, rather than the will of the Vietnamese people. The Vietnamese did not win the war in 68, nor did hearts and minds have anything to do with the stalemate that existed till 1970.
"Equally so with the brits in Malayan Emergency against Communists"
Finally! A clear strong example of the crucial role of hearts and minds. Bear in mind however, that this was not a war per se as in our many previous examples mentioned, but was more a state of civil unrest. So this example doesn't amply support the hypothesis that hearts and minds is more important than logistics and force multipliers for a war.
"Equally so with the terrorists in Iraq"
I'd hesitate to say that the insurgents have won in Iraq. At best this statement proves that hearts and minds makes for a stalemate. There is nothing to suggest a victory for either side, altho as with our discussion about WW2 above had mentioned, if the USA was given the same amount of operational freedom as the Allies had during WW2, without fear of charges of crimes against humanity levelled against them, I have no doubt that the insurgents would be doing much much worse. As it is, the ROEs (rules of engagement) in Iraq that Allied forces are operation under are actually very very restrictive, more so than you would otherwise expect in such a hostile zone. And the Iraqi insurgents actually have a very strong logistical network, stronger than most people realise.
If you like, I can provide a counter example where hearts and minds alone wasn't enough to win until the insurgest started getting proper logistical support: Soviet involvement in Afghanistan.
The muhajadeen failed to create much of an impact against Soviet presence until the supply of Stinger missiles by the CIA to the muhajadeen. With the CIA suddenly getting its fingers in the pie and providing logistical support to the muhajadeen, they suddenly became much more effective and ultimately resulted in the withdrawl of Soviet forces from Afghanistan.
"Wars are not won on the battlefield, but in the heart and minds of the both agressors and defenders. Fabian tactics can be overcomed - the strategy is to attack their minds. So if you are a commander, best you think more on 'hearts and minds' than to rely 100% on your logistics or machines."
So yes to your final assertion. I would agree that in the modern climate, hearts and minds now plays a far more important role due to the operational freedom of most militaries being severely reined in due to humanitarian reasons. However, the truth is that hearts and minds are never the purview of military commanders, but of their taskmasters. A military commander's purpose is not to win a war, but to win a battle. It is the responsibility of the leaders of a nation sending out their military commanders to win a battle for them, to ensure that winning those battles contribute to winning the war. And hence the consideration of hearts and minds lies squarely on the shoulders of the leaders of the nation, not on the military commander.
If I was a military commander, the consideration of keeping my men alive, and fulfilling my military objective would be far higher on my list of priorities than hearts and minds alone. To give an example: I'm not going to order my men to walk about unarmed and unprotected to show we are friendly to to local populace if there is the most remote risk of one of them getting killed due to enemy action. I can recommend you a book to read: Sniper One. After you have read thru it and understood the world as viewed thru a military commander and soldier's eyes, perhaps you'll realise that as far as military action alone is concerned, hearts and minds is not high (and rightly so) on the list of priorities for any military personnel, unless you're from the Psyops division, where hearts and minds IS your military concern.
Your examples by and large, however, fail to completely support your assertion, as I have demonstrated with in-depth examination of each specific case. In fact many of them, when examined in-depth in an informed, careful manner, support the importance of logistics and force multipliers in a wider context!
"There is more to waging war and keeping the peace than you may presume."
I know what there is to waging war and keeping the peace. The thing you need to ask is, are you the one who's making the presumptions here that I don't? Perhaps that is why you have provided inadequate examples, not expecting me to know as much as I do. Remember, in life, as in war, underestimating your opponent is always detrimental to yourself and your cause.
"Both men and women lives are precious. But if men died on the battlefield, women can still continue on with the human race. But if women died on the battlefied, the human race will end with men as survivors. But the purpose of war is not to die or focus on our death, but to make the enemy die for his country, never forget this truism."
If all the people of a nation died, the victors can STILL continue with the human race, so your reasons for women not serving on the frontlines is not quite valid. More importantly, IF all men died on the battlefield and there isn't the technology for DNA splicing, where are you going to get the sperm to get these surviving women pregnant? And assuming you say that all men should store sperm before going off to fight, then as an enemy out to vanquish a nation, the 1st thing I would do if I defeated all your men, is to destroy all your sperm banks.
However, you notice that the REALITY is that even when armies consisted only of men, there have been men left in the civilian population, so the same will be true even with women serving on the frontlines. I know of no example where any victor who wished to wipe out their opponent only killed the men and left the women alone. In all cases, they also proceeded to kill the women too.
Ultimately, in today's modern world, it is highly unlikely for ANY army to be wiped out to the point where they have ZERO personnel left, and its highly unlikely for any nation's ENTIRE male population to be wiped out anyway, so that line of reasoning is largely academic and actually not very applicable. It only goes to show the sentimentality of men towards women and how it degrades their logical abilities. ^^
-
Thanks for your reply and your attempts to answer, in your personal perspective, on the points i had raised.
However, it seems that you still hold on to your cherished ideal that logistics and numerical advantage/force multipliers is the key to winning a war.
I know not your arguments with Reyes, nor wish to take sides, or even to prove you wrong. But only for discussion's sake, i only wish to point out that such ideology is unfortunately flawed, as Dick Cheny had found out, after much american lives had been lost.
US with the greatest logistics and the manufacturing capabilities found this doctrine true as it could win a war in the 1940s against germans. Such doctrine held, even during 'Nam.
They failed to realized the truth of a change in modern warfare, which was that the highly motivated north vietnamese were prepared to fight for 100 years to regain their motherland, using attrition guerilla tactics till US goes broke. USA was sick of the fights and the money spent.
China of the billion people sent its million soldiers in waves to stop the vietnamese in 1979, but failed to humble Vietnam. ( although politics did play a part, but still the feared CCP army lives were lost)
USSR lost the war in Afghanistan in a similar way. The relentless motivated mujuhideen guerillas never stopped thrashing their supply lines or give them one day of peace in their 10 year war, then blended back as goatherds or nomads, with the russian troops none the wiser.
I cannot comment on Iraq now, for win or lose, only time will tell, but i do know Dick Cheny and his doctrine is out of the picture.
In modern warfare, it is not enough for a Chief of Staff or Supreme Commander to win battles or just hold ground. They are promoted to WIN A WAR. And winning a war means pacifying the armed and unarmed enemies as well, otherwise, the military hardware and efforts spent would be lost.
Thus, for any nation to wage war, it is best that they look into how to win a war and not just battles. Moments of instabilities, protests, hunger, destabilisation, etc are the best times to move a conquering army in. Most reputable military colleges are thus refining their doctrines.
Numbers alone mean nothing. Give me a thousand motivated men and i will annhilate a million well equipped soldiers, piecemeal by piecemeal. As the vietcong had said ' I owned the night!'
PS: By the way, aren't we off-topic?
-
ZZZzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZzzzzzZZZzzzzz ok, i join NS ZzzzzZZzzz
-
It doesn't take a minute for any other bigger countries to work together and bomb us.
Even if we have manpower or such, we don't stand against even 1 atomic bomb. Even though this is Off-Topic, I seriously think NS is a complete waste of time.
2 Years, you can work and save up even more money. What do you gain through NS? Just some ranks and a lil bit more money. That's all.
Let's see if the ranks can help you in the future when your having any loan problems or family problems.
-
Originally posted by DaddyYankee16:
It doesn't take a minute for any other bigger countries to work together and bomb us.
Even if we have manpower or such, we don't stand against even 1 atomic bomb. Even though this is Off-Topic, I seriously think NS is a complete waste of time.
There are people who like to stick to this far-fetched extreme-end of assumptions.
No countries go into war simply to destroy the land literally. Usually the use of military force is the by-products of certain political agendas.
No point occupying a land that is destroyed heavily as the occupying nation is responsible for building it back!
Whether NS is a waste of time or not depends on two factors:
1) Individual perception towards NS
2) Individual's vocation
I would say I have wasted my NS days as I was not required to stay-in and I should be like many of the other campmates to take up part-time studies. Wasted one good year in that.
But at this juncture, like it or not, Singaporean men just have to do NS but women need not.
However, I would like to bring up that NS shouldn't be restrict to only uniformed military vocations. There are other things that one can do to contribute to serve our nation.
-
Originally posted by yamizi:
There are people who like to stick to this far-fetched extreme-end of assumptions.
No countries go into war simply to destroy the land literally. Usually the use of military force is the by-products of certain political agendas.
No point occupying a land that is destroyed heavily as the occupying nation is responsible for building it back!
Whether NS is a waste of time or not depends on two factors:
1) Individual perception towards NS
2) Individual's vocation
I would say I have wasted my NS days as I was not required to stay-in and I should be like many of the other campmates to take up part-time studies. Wasted one good year in that.
But at this juncture, like it or not, Singaporean men just have to do NS but women need not.
However, I would like to bring up that NS shouldn't be restrict to only uniformed military vocations. There are other things that one can do to contribute to serve our nation.
i can safely say that i made the most out of my NS life, ending my stint with working experience, good testimonial, some scattered awards (which mean nothing in the commercial world- who cares if you are best soldier) and the best possible grading for an NSF. not only that, i also managed to take my entrance exams and placement tests for my university at the same time.
BUT, that time could have been spent more productively out of NS. The argument is not so much whether NS time is well used or not but whether that 2 years of time could be put into BETTER use. if the 2 years were not spent in any mandatory service, i am sure i would have been able to do all of the above and more.
NS stifles growth and prevents a vast majority of singaporean males from achieving their fullest potential during those 2 years of YOUTH.
-
Originally posted by SBS7484P:
i feel that all including women should serve NS.
although some might argue that it has been scientifically proven that women are physically weaker than men, it is not entirely true that women are mentally weaker than men. at the same time, some may also argue that having females in the army is a distraction to men.
i beg to differ. although at times it might be a distraction, men can learn from the neatness habits and discipline of women.
also, women can be trained to assist in first aid and the provision of food during war, allowing the men to concentrate on the battle.
these are my views.
what are yours?
Couldn't stop laughing when I got to the part about women being 'distraction'. I don't think the men will learn anything at all. After all, who isn't lustful?
Besides, the sight of 18 year old young chicks running in shorts and displaying a lot of thigh isn't the ideal 'neatness habits' men need.
-
Originally posted by Vendettus:
Couldn't stop laughing when I got to the part about women being 'distraction'. I don't think the men will learn anything at all. After all, who isn't lustful?
Besides, the sight of 18 year old young chicks running in shorts and displaying a lot of thigh isn't the ideal 'neatness habits' men need.
True sadly.
-
ok ok people relax... i disappear for so long liao u guys still fighting over this. can close le la. me seen all the views liao lol
-
Originally posted by eyeballl:
i can safely say that i made the most out of my NS life, ending my stint with working experience, good testimonial, some scattered awards (which mean nothing in the commercial world- who cares if you are best soldier) and the best possible grading for an NSF. not only that, i also managed to take my entrance exams and placement tests for my university at the same time.
BUT, that time could have been spent more productively out of NS. The argument is not so much whether NS time is well used or not but whether that 2 years of time could be put into BETTER use. if the 2 years were not spent in any mandatory service, i am sure i would have been able to do all of the above and more.
NS stifles growth and prevents a vast majority of singaporean males from achieving their fullest potential during those 2 years of YOUTH.
I fully agree with your last para, if given a choice, I believe majority of us will not like to do NS.
So who will make up the strength for the Army?