WAR???
-
Alamak,
I'm out. Huting season is over. Can't trace that animal. Got to work tomorrow. See ya! -
singapore armed forces, i hv no idea how strong la.. but all i know is. singapore can only play defensive. cuz of limited resources and people. we can only play hit and run tactics. thus the air forces comes in very important. in any case of war, the air forces will try to strike down key areas. its not so easy to take over malaysia lor. cuz of limited ppl in the army. u tink war is just rolling 5 dices see how many ppl u lose. tts why singapore more or less always try to tolerate and be diplomatic. we cannot afford a war.Originally posted by Quad:Agree. But to add. Tripwire is the best. he can order PM to attack until kedah and have a cup of cuppa.
I think if given a choise, we should not talk WAR so emotionally (Not refer to you, lah),. As if we can do forum, so can anyone across the causeway, read our forum.
Probably, Utusan newspaper will read and think. Ah...I think tomorrow topic will be cut water supply, let blow it a bit out of context. It will be a sell-out.
Valid?
-
none taken. i fancy this nick. cuz in cs we always keep screaming follow the dumbdumb! sounds funny. so i adopt it.Originally posted by awestruck:
In contrast to his nickname. he shows a remarkable amout of sense...No offence intended at all...
Honestly Tripwire....mighty though the armed forces of Singapore maybe...do you honestly believe it can take over the whole of Malaysia?
-
Originally posted by dumbdumb!:
Agree. You make my day.
[b]tts why singapore more or less always try to tolerate and be diplomatic. we cannot afford a war. [/b]
Good night to you. Sleep early and have a wonderful day ahead as it TGIF.
Bye. -
*really enjoying himself*
plus... just shut out the trading, singapore game over liaoz. -
Originally posted by Quad:Ok,
Pass my test first. PM me and we will meet outside. Let me see if you are brave enough to handle me. I think I can spare 3 mins for you.
dont bother to give me 3 minute your highness... cos i wont even give you 3 seconds cos you are too stupid and dumb to even challenge my post on the net..... so wat if you got abit of muscle... its damn obvious that when facing a stronger foe.. your highness would simply high butt yourself off as fast as your 2 piggy leg can carry you... 
your multiple post clearly showed you fear a bigger opponent, showed your desire to preserve yourself over others... wat more can anyone says?? coward is a coward lah... cannot tong the fact, feel hot under the neck?? loose face har?? feels a need to show the netters you got ball by issueing challenging to a fight when lost the argument?? will this prove that you are smarter or simply idiotic beyond measure?? obvious lah..... i am so so so so sorry if i hurt your pride.... i didnt think you had one...
If you can't PM me, then I'm sure that you are a kid, who is still asking for allowance, who like to be a nameless net hero while enjoing wet dreams and calling mama at the same time. I will forgive you for that. Otherwise, I will still be waiting. blah blah blaha blahablahaba lahh..... dont you have any words of real intelligience??? forgive me?? sorry old chap... but... eh.... i didnt ask for your royal forgivness, so dont try to act magnamonious... in fact... i think you need to rethink your self preserving characteristic....
I can't stand kids who blurt things w/o going thru their brain on the consequence. These people cannot be leader in life as they will lead people to their death. Talking about coward, have you assailants like I do? Coward, eh? BEHOLD... the king of the guniang moutains speakth.... another paragraph of garbage,..... now we know wat mountain king you are... garbage mountain... -
Originally posted by Quad:Hi tripwire,
If you want to have a good discussion. Lets ahve a good one, personnel attack to be excluded. We can always do it on a separate arrangement, physicall. I'll bring a cane along, the one that Ah Mah used on me 20 years ago. face it chap.... you aint got the level of intelligience, IQ, wisdom, experience and foresight to give a good discussion... though you may try... but i think you got to grow more white hair, fall down a few more times before you are there.... no offense... but your ah mah's cane is hardly a prove of your capability nor your capacity in thought exercise... try cooking that cane into a soup... drink it at night before you sleep... it should boost your brain power a bit....
Otherwise, please restrain yourself from unnecessary personnel insult or religious insult. It is absolutely unnecessary and not appropriate. oh.... dont moral high horsies with me... i have seen too many a time... netters who could not face the argument point by point and switch talk about insult or watever... in fact.. i think you never read my post in full and simply pre-empt your thoughts... perhaps it would be in your interest to fully read my post, digest it... before you rush to reply... dont worry... i will be around...
Please consider thes clearly for a healty forum.
Otherwise, I have challenge you and is waiting with a trusty old cane. i give you suggestion... you go and cane your LP .... -
obviously my dear friend.... this is wat i worry about....Originally posted by dumbdumb!:hmm. WE compromise to their whims, or goto war. but war not the solution. how hypocritical is that?
they probably believe that... WAR is a solution from their perspective... -
lets put it clear and sharp to the point...Originally posted by Quad:The Malaysian minister are only fanning the fire to garner votes for their upand coming election. They need to have a common target to wack like "Singapore". Being the closet neighbour with historical ties, more reason to do so.
I do heard from my associate who is in a step-board. He mentioned that the intention is to win in election thru supports from voters and not war with us. I think it is credible as it stir up emotions of the voters to vote them. This was also reported a couple of days ago that "PAS had cry foul on UMNO method of getting votes. Sorry I can't manage to attach the source. The new was only early this week.
malaysian politicians can say watever cowdung they want... but as long as they are not translated into actions of provocations... i think most in singapore wouldnt even be bothered by their rubbish... aint singaporeans problem if malaysian leaders love to lie and wayang infront of their fellow citizens, thinking that they are 3 year old kid...
BUT... when you send your ships into singapore water.... we arent interested in your excuses nor your position... as far as we sees it... just becos malaysian election is round the corner... does not give them the right to violate singapore's national sovereignty or our integrity...
YOU try that... we will show you the stupidity and errorness of your actions after given ample warning...
THUS my advice to malaysia.... dont play with fire... you might get chao da accidentally... -
Originally posted by dumbdumb!:admirable bravery... but simply put lor... we dun hv enuff ppl in the army to take over johor. example is hitler, he so nearly took over the european countries. but in the end fail. why? cuz not enuff soldiers to maintain the countries he took over. think of the board game risk. same thing.
please lah.... you think we need to have an SAF soldier every 5 foot from the next to ensure complete cover over malaysia?? occupation depends not on whether you can saturate another nation with troops... but depends on your ability to assume command over the structure of governace of the previous authority... to move its people and resources to work once more under a new leadership towards an alternative objectives... there will be rebels and criminals... plus some arnachy in certain part of the country... when their police and military has been decimated... thus the need to re-establish security, law and order would be the utmost priority... harsh marshall laws, curfews and even rationings can be imposed to ensure a certain level of compliance... then other measures will be taken... over time.....
but ultimatly la. the desision still lies with the government. we can post our views here. but in the end? the gov makes the call. ya? obviously... ... this is a net forum... -
it is said... it matters little how many troops you have... BUT it MATTERs on how you use your troops... if you dont know how to use your forces..... give you a million men... and you will only end up with rebellions..Originally posted by awestruck: In contrast to his nickname. he shows a remarkable amout of sense...No offence intended at all...
Honestly Tripwire....mighty though the armed forces of Singapore maybe...do you honestly believe it can take over the whole of Malaysia?
and honestly... yes... we can take over the entire malaysia minus the east malaysia part with ease....
alternatively... if we cannot take over the entire malaysia... then we are a paper lion... cos then... the malaysian authority would think that they are sure to win in a war with singapore becos we cant take over them totally...
Thus... its not a question of whether we can ... but that we MUST in order to maintain our deterence... -
that is old topic liow... potong potong potong.... right??Originally posted by Quad:Agree. But to add. Tripwire is the best. he can order PM to attack until kedah and have a cup of cuppa.
I think if given a choise, we should not talk WAR so emotionally (Not refer to you, lah),. As if we can do forum, so can anyone across the causeway, read our forum.
Probably, Utusan newspaper will read and think. Ah...I think tomorrow topic will be cut water supply, let blow it a bit out of context. It will be a sell-out.
Valid? -
singapore is tolerant not because we are weak or simply unable to defend our interest...BUT becos we understand the destruction of war... furthermore.. war is not considered the BEST option on resolution of disagreement...Originally posted by dumbdumb!:singapore armed forces, i hv no idea how strong la.. but all i know is. singapore can only play defensive. cuz of limited resources and people. we can only play hit and run tactics. thus the air forces comes in very important. in any case of war, the air forces will try to strike down key areas. its not so easy to take over malaysia lor. cuz of limited ppl in the army. u tink war is just rolling 5 dices see how many ppl u lose. tts why singapore more or less always try to tolerate and be diplomatic. we cannot afford a war.
HOWEVER... do not mistaken singapore tolerance as weakness... when challenge...we are more then a match for malaysia... just the army alone... we out number theirs 300,000 to 70,000.. thus if malaysia wanna try .. they can... but they will regret it...
Secondly... singapore cannot play defensive... its a sure losing war if we are simply defensive as they got more men and resources then us...
we need to move in... take over their resources and men to supplement our limited manpower pool and resources to bring an end to the war on our terms... -
trading is singapore's main economic function... likewise... its the same for many many nations... questions become... will singapore just sit there without doing nothing if threatened??Originally posted by dumbdumb!:*really enjoying himself*
plus... just shut out the trading, singapore game over liaoz. -
they will use brain, not brawn. maybe outwit the other party lor, but the gov wun go into war until its the last option, or it's under attack. why do you think there was the paper war a few years back? singapore dun dare goto war, so only can whack with words.Originally posted by tripwire:trading is singapore's main economic function... likewise... its the same for many many nations... questions become... will singapore just sit there without doing nothing if threatened?? -
that is the greatest misconception i can assure you... back in 1989... the same PB incident have SAF on a hair's breath away from all out assault into peninsula malaysia...Originally posted by dumbdumb!:they will use brain, not brawn. maybe outwit the other party lor, but the gov wun go into war until its the last option, or it's under attack. why do you think there was the paper war a few years back? singapore dun dare goto war, so only can whack with words.
I can assure you... even MAF also respect SAF.....
war on the economic front is an unending one... but there in lies the beuti of economic warfare... cooperation is always better then competition... cooperation entails big big profit... e.g. if singapore PSA and malaysia TPT collaborate and both jack up their prices... we all make extra.. but competition on the other.. makes both the looser.... lower price.... -
the point is that u agree tt singapore going to war with malaysia is not so wise after all la. good.
-
Originally posted by tripwire:it is said... it matters little how many troops you have... BUT it MATTERs on how you use your troops... if you dont know how to use your forces..... give you a million men... and you will only end up with rebellions..
and honestly... yes... we can take over the entire malaysia minus the east malaysia part with ease....
alternatively... if we cannot take over the entire malaysia... then we are a paper lion... cos then... the malaysian authority would think that they are sure to win in a war with singapore becos we cant take over them totally...
Thus... its not a question of whether we can ... but that we MUST in order to maintain our deterence...
Can (meaning ablity to me) and must (which is importance) seem to be 2 extremely different things...
Pop. of Sing. - 4,452,732 (July 2002 est.)
Pop. of Peninsular Msia - 18,129,892 (July 2002 est.)
Land mass of Sing. - 637.5 sq km
Land mass of Peninsular Msia - 131,600 sq km
I mean the figures speak for themselves...350,000 men for 131,600 square kilometers...
Lets say then, theoretically, we call up every single Singaporean who can point and shoot...
Sing. absolute military manpower availability:
males age 15-49: 1,354,857 (2002 est.)
Msian absolute military manpower availability:
males age 15-49: 5,933,296 (2002 est.)
...
I admire your faith in the armed forces, I really do. I know the SAF is as strong as can be but to expect them to do the physically impossible is stretching things a bit thin i think...
Im not saying Singapore is a paper lion. Im just questioning how you think its possible for total domination. I also think that the higher ups in Sing's govt cant possibly have that in mind... Im sure deterrance can be kept up without needing to completely take over ur enemy -
Taking the whole of Malaysia is not an option, and I doubt either side would come to a point to resort to mass gender genocide in which every body must have gun (not that they have that many guns anyway).
However, what any basic commander knows is, how Singapore intends to fight a war is to use technology as a force multiplier, allowing less units to be more effective. At the break of a war, Singapore would certainly go for disabling the C3 network of an enemy and the main staging areas for delaying or distrupting the enemy counterassualt. If done well, the enemy's readiness and effectiveness drops massively unit a point it becomes so disorganized that it's no longer effective as a fighting force. Modern wars are fought by information and technology, less frequently by numbers. Air superiority must be achieved and doing so will massively distrupt the enemy further. When command is sparodic, supplies are low and morale is constantly bombarded, any army will be very ineffective.
So what would probably be the land "ambitions" of Singapore? Probably enough to create a "buffer" state and then sue for peace, if the Malaysians have no aready considered that option. That buffer state would probably consist of JB and not much more, enough to push the artty back so that they are shelling their own land, and to get counterbatteried or airstuck. In a 1 to 1 battle of attrition, Singapore artty will win out with much to spare, and that's not factoring the advanced technology.
So I propose that Singapore main tatics will lay on a few fronts, force multiplication via technology, preemptive or aggressive reactionary action, and limited land gains to bring the war away to enemy soil. Which has been pretty much any small country reaction reaction to larger foes, be it Germany versus Europe or Israel versus Arab Nations... -
Originally posted by awestruck:
Haiyah.. you're just another pai kia quoting CIA facts. Has anyone told you that the total population of a country is no indication of its actual military strength? A larger population does not equate a stronger army. Not every idiot who takes up arms is a competent soldier. He usually is as much a danger to himself and his comrades as he is to the enemy.
[b]
Can (meaning ablity to me) and must (which is importance) seem to be 2 extremely different things...
Pop. of Sing. - 4,452,732 (July 2002 est.)
Pop. of Peninsular Msia - 18,129,892 (July 2002 est.)
Land mass of Sing. - 637.5 sq km
Land mass of Peninsular Msia - 131,600 sq km I mean the figures speak for themselves...350,000 men for 131,600 square kilometers...
Lets say then, theoretically, we call up every single Singaporean who can point and shoot...
Sing. absolute military manpower availability:
males age 15-49: 1,354,857 (2002 est.)
Msian absolute military manpower availability:
males age 15-49: 5,933,296 (2002 est.)
Military manpower is determined by the number of TRAINED personnel the country can draw on in times of war... and that happens to be 350 000 for Singapore and 150 000 for Malaysia. See? I can also quote numbers like you.And don't forget, smaller than Malaysia though we may be, we possess much MORE in terms of armanents.
Wars today are not won just by the number of men you have, but by their level of training and the sophistication of their equippment. During the Gulf War, America's 250 000 men humiliated an Iraqi force four times its size.
If we used your logic.... Canada with 7,139,068 men fit for military service outnumbers Israel's 1,262,973, no? Yet Israel is still militarily superior to Canada, and they have a larger standing army. How do you explain that? -
If you just hand out guns to every civilian and ask them to defend their country, you'll get a black hawk down type of incident when a train army invades, assuming they do not bombard them first. 1000+ dead for just 18 soldiers killed. And I doubt they can sustain that kind of kill ratio even with civilians... That's why most basically sane countries, (even malaysia) will not resort to this, they will prefer to keep it between thier armed forces, unless their PM is some power hungry dictator who only cares for his own skin and wealth at any cost, which he is not.
-
Seriously old man Quad,
u get personal with little 'ol me in another topic, u get into another intense discussion here with Tripwire where u disagree with EVERYTHING he said...
i keep saying this: Open Mind... don't u think we've read all the newspapers and journals and heard all the coffeeshop talk available on the market?
don't think that u're the only one who has read the news and come up with moderate, logical conclusions to them...
don't think that everone who disagrees with u is a primary school kid who doesn't know what they're talking about...
if u're only interested in listening to a certain type of views, then maybe this isn't the best place for u to be.
don't get on your moral highhorse and try to whip everyone into compliance with your views. we all believe in different things and there's JACK u can do about it. -
Originally posted by Typhoon:Haiyah.. you're just another pai kia quoting CIA facts. Has anyone told you that the total population of a country is no indication of its actual military strength? A larger population does not equate a stronger army. Not every idiot who takes up arms is a competent soldier. He usually is as much a danger to himself and his comrades as he is to the enemy.
Military manpower is determined by the number of TRAINED personnel the country can draw on in times of war... and that happens to be 350 000 for Singapore and 150 000 for Malaysia. See? I can also quote numbers like you.And don't forget, smaller than Malaysia though we may be, we possess much MORE in terms of armanents.
Wars today are not won just by the number of men you have, but by their level of training and the sophistication of their equippment. During the Gulf War, America's 250 000 men humiliated an Iraqi force four times its size.
If we used your logic.... Canada with 7,139,068 men fit for military service outnumbers Israel's 1,262,973, no? Yet Israel is still militarily superior to Canada, and they have a larger standing army. How do you explain that? If you'll be so kind as to just read a few of the posts you'll see that I was just questioning Tripwire's faith in taking the area between JB and Kedah. I never mentioned anything about the relative strengths of any armies...
Also, I too congratulate your ability to quote -
As for the tripwire hunting, I had great trouble stalking him from thread to thread. He started personnel attack first and I launch mine. As I had mentioned before, who threw the first punch. In law, the first attacker is always guilty until proven right. Unless you are in State, innocent until proven guilty. Really, I would like to meet up with him and U too. Who knows we can become friends, I may even offer you a job.Originally posted by CX:Seriously old man Quad,
u get personal with little 'ol me in another topic, u get into another intense discussion here with Tripwire where u disagree with EVERYTHING he said... The point is it is a forum discussion, personnel attack is unwarrant and totally unnecessary. I listern to you view and how you present it. It should be done without the intent of malice to injury and hurt to the receiver. That should be the way. By adding sacarstic personally on others, doesn't make you or me any good.
i keep saying this: Open Mind... don't u think we've read all the newspapers and journals and heard all the coffeeshop talk available on the market?
don't think that u're the only one who has read the news and come up with moderate, logical conclusions to them...
don't think that everone who disagrees with u is a primary school kid who doesn't know what they're talking about... Based on the earlier situation, the forum will be disussed out of proportion, deviating from the main point. As I had wrote earlier, other people will be laughing at our ignorance cus of internal arguement & silliness.
if u're only interested in listening to a certain type of views, then maybe this isn't the best place for u to be. On the point of agreement, I disagree and I state my point, You disagree and you state your point. No words like "cowards" is required. When the time for you to lay your live for the country, it is because you are afraid that you will be killed first, so you would probably shoot first to kill. May not be true and entirely accurate. There is no coward anymore, it survival.
So to anyone who want to be trigger happy and start shooting off with personnel sacarsm, is it necessary? It doen't proof a point to be a faceless net hero. Analytical critism on the issue will surfice.
Do you agree?
don't get on your moral highhorse and try to whip everyone into compliance with your views. we all believe in different things and there's JACK u can do about it.
So you do have any pride when you were accuse wrongly. Did i whip anyone into compliance? Please quote me. It's more like I state my point of view.
Hi CX, -
Depends on how the battle for JB turns out. If the main core of the MAF is seriously distrupted and destroyed in the JB battle instead of running rear to guard the rest of the states, the SAF should have little trouble, if they wanted, to move in into the rest of the country. However, there is little to be gained in such a manuver, taking JB would in a sense be holding a knife at point at KL's throat, and you dun have to drive it all the way in the prove that you're serious and are more then ready when push came to shove.Originally posted by awestruck: If you'll be so kind as to just read a few of the posts you'll see that I was just questioning Tripwire's faith in taking the area between JB and Kedah. I never mentioned anything about the relative strengths of any armies...
On the issue of arming every single Malaysian male with military weapons, not very likely. Firstly, they do not have anywhere near enough guns, and secondly, what you will get is more of a defensive rabble that is thrown together and will die together under the assault of a trained attacker who not only uses guns, but shells, missiles and other weaponary against which their popguns have no defence. Of course, should it come to this point, severe unintended damage to the civillian population and facilities will be unavoidable and I doubt both sides will think of trying anything like that unless threatened with total destruction. Of course idealogy figures into here too... Would people die for Mahathir or any other PM? Rethoric quickly dissappears in the face of shells and bullets, and I wonder how fast will their tune change. I predict civillians just staring as SM1 tanks roll into and past their streets.