Women shd also serve NS. Do u agree? share ur views.
-
Originally posted by xtreyier:
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?
I already pointed out in my post that the USA did not fail entirely in it's military objectives, and indeed arguably, did succeed in its goals while they were there. The lack of will to stay on, was not one factor the military was responsible for. In fact, the military WANTED to stay on and finish the job. It is the civilian government who was responsible for that. Any military commander's job is to win battles, and he cannot do so unless his governmental bosses have the will to let him accomplish that whatever means necessary. In that respect, I agree with you that hearts and minds is important, but disagree that it is the most important, or that it is a major responsibility of any military commander. Like you pointed out, its the consideration of the nation, it's leaders, and not it's military generals. Military generals are versed in military tactics and manuvers, anything else like hearts and minds, is up to the leaders of a nation waging war, to TELL the military commanders to do.
I also pointed out that the muhajadeen did not make a major impact on the Soviet military forces until they started getting proper logistical support from the CIA. They were i fact, getting their asses kicked by the Soviets and their helicopters until the CIA supplied them with Stingers. If that doesnt show how important logistics is, I don't know what does.
Ultimately, nobody can win a fight with nothing but willpower, bare hands and a hungry stomach.
I am willing to take a million decently motivated men who are well equipped, trained, and dug-in, and meet your 1000 fanatics. I think we'll see that your boast might have been a bit exaggerated.
And yes, we are off topic, but what a discussion! I'm having fun, aren't you? :D
-
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!
THAT, my dear, is what biological warfare is for
-
Originally posted by 4Justice:
THAT, my dear, is what biological warfare is for
The more the discussion, the more it leads to the need for having women to be trained in military necessity as well given our small population.However, this is not getting anywhere. Why would people want to use biological warfare on us? It would have meant a lot of hatred that builds on poor diplomacy.
I don't favour women to do military NS, but I'm okay with social-service NS, but all these bio-war; one bomb kill many people kind of scenario, will make me in favour of women to do military NS then. 'cos it's like no matter how many guys we have, we won't have enough. So the more the merrier!
-
Originally posted by yamizi:
The more the discussion, the more it leads to the need for having women to be trained in military necessity as well given our small population.However, this is not getting anywhere. Why would people want to use biological warfare on us? It would have meant a lot of hatred that builds on poor diplomacy.
I don't favour women to do military NS, but I'm okay with social-service NS, but all these bio-war; one bomb kill many people kind of scenario, will make me in favour of women to do military NS then. 'cos it's like no matter how many guys we have, we won't have enough. So the more the merrier!
We have to work to help support the familyWe have to study to upgrade and get better pay
We have to balance our working life with family life
We have to give birth
We have to give satisfy our men
We have to cook and do housework
We have to care for in-laws
We have to care for our own parents
And now u want us to do NS services....please lah, guys, enuf of your nonsenical male egostic mindset
-
My stance, in summary:
1) Women are equally capaable of serving in a military capacity as men.
2) Just because we are capable doesn't mean we must, but just because men are capable doesn't mean they must as well.
3) I do not support national service for a regime I do not support.
4) However in the interest of fairness, if a country has national service, women should be liable for it as well.
5) A woman's life is not more or less valuable than a man's. The life of a man and the life of a woman are equally valuable.
6) However, national service for women, for practical purposes, can consist of civil/social service in addition to military service. It does not have to be only military or only civil/social.
-
I started this topic ages ago. Where is the Board Manager? Didnt Fireice say that if dont do a search more than three times, get banned?
-
Originally posted by 4Justice:
I already pointed out in my post that the USA did not fail entirely in it's military objectives, and indeed arguably, did succeed in its goals while they were there. The lack of will to stay on, was not one factor the military was responsible for. In fact, the military WANTED to stay on and finish the job. It is the civilian government who was responsible for that. Any military commander's job is to win battles, and he cannot do so unless his governmental bosses have the will to let him accomplish that whatever means necessary. In that respect, I agree with you that hearts and minds is important, but disagree that it is the most important, or that it is a major responsibility of any military commander. Like you pointed out, its the consideration of the nation, it's leaders, and not it's military generals. Military generals are versed in military tactics and manuvers, anything else like hearts and minds, is up to the leaders of a nation waging war, to TELL the military commanders to do.
I also pointed out that the muhajadeen did not make a major impact on the Soviet military forces until they started getting proper logistical support from the CIA. They were i fact, getting their asses kicked by the Soviets and their helicopters until the CIA supplied them with Stingers. If that doesnt show how important logistics is, I don't know what does.
Ultimately, nobody can win a fight with nothing but willpower, bare hands and a hungry stomach.
I am willing to take a million decently motivated men who are well equipped, trained, and dug-in, and meet your 1000 fanatics. I think we'll see that your boast might have been a bit exaggerated.
And yes, we are off topic, but what a discussion! I'm having fun, aren't you? :D
Fun?! War is no fun! It aint a walk in the park!
It must be the very very last resort, when citizens start dropping like flies, and when every means possible at diplomacy had failed!
Fanatics? Hardly. No 'one all out charge' stupidities.
In the day, you will probably see us as the smiling buck-toothed bus drivers, the harassed office workers, the roadsweepers you despise. But come the night, your men will be shivering in between the sheets and having sleepless night, wondering whose turn tonight to meet us and wake up in hell, just as the well fed beefed up americans did when they invaded vietnam and faced the vietcong.
Being humans, they will not stay entrenched forever. They will need to rest, go for R&R, rotate back home, etc. That's when my men will strike. My men will send your boys home eventually in time - either with their tails between their legs or in body bags - none will be whole.
Being in another country, you will need resupplies. My men may not destroy every one of them, but will certainly destroy enough of them with IEDs to make it costly to resupply your troops.
10% of my men will go to your country and sow discord and disenchantment with the progress of your 'war', and the amount of youths in body bags sent home. Your citizens and mothers will scream.
This guerilla war may last 10 mths or 10 years, and i replaced by another, but it will not stop till each and everyone of your men gets packed home. This is the price you will have to pay for invading my homeland and denying my freedom.
However, people like me can be stopped. No one wants to fight forever. Everything is negotiable. If you can educate and convince me that you can offer a better life for my men and those that i am fighting for, my men will lay down their weapons.
Freedom and equality, freedom from hunger, freedom of worship, freedom from poverty, freedom from illiteracy, freedom from discrimination, equal opportunities for all, etc - are the basic ideals most men would fight for.
If you as the conqueror, having won in a military battle against my military hardware, and resulting in me and my men fighting underground, can offer these ideals, you would have won our hearts and mind, and the war. Peace will be within grasp.
And that is what US is trying to achieve in Iraq. A reality which nations that seeks the unavoidable path to war must face, and taught to the commanders.
-
Originally posted by xtreyier:
Fun?! War is no fun! It aint a walk in the park!
It must be the very very last resort, when citizens start dropping like flies, and when every means possible at diplomacy had failed!
Fanatics? Hardly. No 'one all out charge' stupidities.
In the day, you will probably see us as the smiling buck-toothed bus drivers, the harassed office workers, the roadsweepers you despise. But come the night, your men will be shivering in between the sheets and having sleepless night, wondering whose turn tonight to meet us and wake up in hell, just as the well fed americans did when they invaded vietnam.
Being humans, they will not stay entrenched forever. They will need to rest, go for R&R, rotate back home, etc. That's when my men will strike. My men will send your boys home eventually in time - either with their tails between their legs or in body bags - none will be whole.
Being in another country, you will need resupplies. My men may not destroy every one of them, but will certainly destroy enough of them with IEDs to make it costly to resupply your troops.
10% of my men will go to your country and sow discord and disenchantment with the progress of your 'war', and the amount of youths in body bags sent home. Your citizens and mothers will scream.
This guerilla war may last 10 mths or 10 years, and i replaced by another, but it will not stop till each and everyone of your men gets packed home. This is the price you will have to pay for invading my homeland and denying my freedom.
However, people like me can be stopped. No one wants to fight forever. Everything is negotiable. If you can educate and convince me that you can offer a better life for my men and those that i am fighting for, my men will lay down their weapons.
Freedom and equality, freedom from hunger, freedom of worship, freedom from poverty, freedom from illiteracy, freedom from discrimination, equal opportunities for all, etc - are the basic ideals most men would fight for.
If you as the conqueror, having won in a military battle against my military hardware, and resulting in me and my men fighting underground, can offer these ideals, you would have won our hearts and mind, and the war. Peace will be within grasp.
And that is what US is trying to achieve in Iraq.
I meant the academic debate, silly :)
As for your men, I'd like to see your men do that when I rotate my men in 4 shifts with 250,000 per shift. Of course it seems you didn't bother to read my post.
"I am willing to take a million decently motivated men who are well equipped, trained, and dug-in, and meet your 1000 fanatics"
And oh all your tactics will only work... if I give you time to. I can simply crush you in one overwhelming blow, without consideration to what the international community thinks. When I kill all 1000 of you within 48 hours, I'd like to see you try any of what you've mentioned.
Seriously, I recommend you read Sniper One. See what motivated Iraqi Insurgents managed to do against a well trained and well equipped British Battalion with strong logistical network. After 6 months, before a new battalion was rotated in, the death toil for the insurgents stood at over a good several thousand, while the death toil for the brits stands at... 4(1 of which was due to an accident and not enemy fire).
I don't think you know enough of real soldiers to know that they're nothing like what you describe:
"your men will be shivering in between the sheets and having sleepless night, wondering whose turn tonight to meet us and wake up in hell"
During their stay in Iraq, Al Amarah, the british battalion were actually eager for action. Their mindsets weren't "whose turn is it to meet the enemy tonight". It was more a "lets go out and fuck 'em over". I honestly suggest you speak to enough Iraq veterans before you start heaping scorn on professional soldiers.
-
Originally posted by 4Justice:
My stance, in summary:
1) Women are equally capaable of serving in a military capacity as men.
2) Just because we are capable doesn't mean we must, but just because men are capable doesn't mean they must as well.
3) I do not support national service for a regime I do not support.
4) However in the interest of fairness, if a country has national service, women should be liable for it as well.
5) A woman's life is not more or less valuable than a man's. The life of a man and the life of a woman are equally valuable.
6) However, national service for women, for practical purposes, can consist of civil/social service in addition to military service. It does not have to be only military or only civil/social.
why target your women when u should be getting PR to serve??Women can volunteer, but definitely not compulsory to serve NS, I rather join the Brownies and serve the civil and social than join the army.
Just tell me which country in this world whereby women hv to serve NS??
-
Originally posted by angel7030:
why target your women when u should be getting PR to serve??Women can volunteer, but definitely not compulsory to serve NS, I rather join the Brownies and serve the civil and social than join the army.
Just tell me which country in this world whereby women hv to serve NS??
Israel .....
-
Originally posted by Fatum:
Israel .....
really?? so u want us to be like Israel?? where by surrounded by Muslim country in a hostile enviroment.How would our neighbour muslim countries feel if Singapore is to make women NS compulsory, what about Muslim women here?
-
Originally posted by angel7030:
why target your women when u should be getting PR to serve??Women can volunteer, but definitely not compulsory to serve NS, I rather join the Brownies and serve the civil and social than join the army.
Just tell me which country in this world whereby women hv to serve NS??
If you read point 6, you can see I said that for pratical purposes, women should be able to serve in civil/social services as part of NS.
And you asked a question out of ignorance and got pwned. Don't follow it up with belligerence because that won't get you out of the hole you dug yourself. It just gets you deeper.
-
Originally posted by angel7030:
really?? so u want us to be like Israel?? where by surrounded by Muslim country in a hostile enviroment.How would our neighbour muslim countries feel if Singapore is to make women NS compulsory, what about Muslim women here?
muahahahahahaha .....
my dear .... I think you've failed your geography ...
so you think our neighbours love us ? ....
-
Yes I agree.. make the women serve compulsory NS.
Soon you will see most of the females choose a foreigner to get married.
You want to chase the women out of the country FAST.. this is the best way.
Singapore is not like Israel... it is a Jewish state.. they are bound by religious beliefs to protect Jerusalem. It is part of their religious history, and as long as they remain devoted to their beliefs.. they will fight till the end. There's heaven waiting for them.
Singapore is different.. what bounds us to this tiny Island ? Tua peh kong ? Allah ? Buddha ? Jesus ? Nothing.
-
Originally posted by 4Justice:
If you read point 6, you can see I said that for pratical purposes, women should be able to serve in civil/social services as part of NS.
And you asked a question out of ignorance and got pwned. Don't follow it up with belligerence because that won't get you out of the hole you dug yourself. It just gets you deeper.
The Sg men are already getting pwn-ed as we speak.
For the 2 years they serve.. gahmen brings in more foreign workers to take their job.
Now you want for 2 years the females serve... more foreign workers will be invited with open arms.
You want to be so stupid ... go ahead.
-
Originally posted by Fatum:
Israel .....
And Palestine has female fighters ?
-
Originally posted by jojobeach:
The Sg men are already getting pwn-ed as we speak.
For the 2 years they serve.. gahmen brings in more foreign workers to take their job.
Now you want for 2 years the females serve... more foreign workers will be invited with open arms.
You want to be so stupid ... go ahead.
go back and read point 3)
besides, driving women out of Singapore is no bad thing. I'm enjoying myself outside of Singapore. And so are you.
Anyways if the topic is "Do you agree women should also serve NS IN SINGAPORE" I would probably more strongly disagree on the condition that men should not serve too, because PAP does not deserve our dedication.
-
Originally posted by 4Justice:
go back and read point 3)
besides, driving women out of Singapore is no bad thing. I'm enjoying myself outside of Singapore. And so are you.
Anyways if the topic is "Do you agree women should also serve NS IN SINGAPORE" I would probably more strongly disagree on the condition that men should not serve too, because PAP does not deserve our dedication.
So there we have it.
Why you want to pwn your own sisters who are still stuck in SG ?
You are lucky.. so you can talk canon. Do spare a thought for the not so fortunate ones.
-
Originally posted by jojobeach:
So there we have it.
Why you want to pwn your own sisters who are still stuck in SG ?
You are lucky.. so you can talk canon. Do spare a thought for the not so fortunate ones.
Because this discussion isn't specific enough and I feel as a matter of principle, taking regime out of the equation, women should serve as well if there is NS. If regime is taken into account then both genders should not serve. -
Originally posted by Fatum:
muahahahahahaha .....
my dear .... I think you've failed your geography ...
so you think our neighbours love us ? ....
I am glad to see the word "my dear" so warm indeed.Anyway, who love their neighbour, not even you rite? But life is like that, you hv to learnt to live with each other, anyway, i love malaysia, they give us cheap petrol for many years and also good shopping for DVD, fashion and makan.
As for Indonesia, alot of men will love them, bintan, batam, jakarta, etc etc,...fun place for sg guys. For me, again shopping, Polo fashion, kuay, keropok, batik, bali foods, etc etc
-
ok..
who has served NS before and who has not?
-
Originally posted by 4Justice:
If you read point 6, you can see I said that for pratical purposes, women should be able to serve in civil/social services as part of NS.
And you asked a question out of ignorance and got pwned. Don't follow it up with belligerence because that won't get you out of the hole you dug yourself. It just gets you deeper.
its not a matter of getting pawned or not, that dun hurt me a single cents lost, But your insistence in getting we women folks into NS is quite ridiculous indeed.
Dun worry, when the war come, give me a SAR rifle, and i shoot u first.
-
dun forget the safety...
-
Originally posted by GHoST_18:
dun forget the safety...
it either semi or auto, no safety for me....charge to war after shooting him. -
dun forget the 4 secs rule...