Women shd also serve NS. Do u agree? share ur views.
-
well, at least you know how life in the armed forces is and how they operate...
it's already a lot better than those who has never experienced it before but yet think they know a lot from hearsay..
-
Originally posted by GHoST_18:
clerk during ns is still ns...pass...
the pen can be mightier than the sword at times...
I think you misread me, I am a clerk now.
During NS I was not a clerk. =)
-
Originally posted by yamizi:
I think you misread me, I am a clerk now.
During NS I was not a clerk. =)
im sorry.. -
No one should be FORCED to serve NS, be it guy or gal. For those who want to, they should sign on, be it guy or gal ~Period~
-
Originally posted by rokprince:
No one should be FORCED to serve NS, be it guy or gal. For those who want to, they should sign on, be it guy or gal ~Period~
Agreed in principle. -
Originally posted by 4Justice:
1) Logistics is a trueism of war you cannot escape from, whether its WW2 or WW3.2) Factors like terrain, weather, force multipliers are all still trueism of wars, whether WW2 or WW3.
If you bother reading stuff from military analysists, war historians etc, you'll see that much of modern day tactics are developed from WW2 lessons, and that within the military community, there are lots of parallels drawn up between WW2 and modern day wars. In fact there was a documentary comparing the Battle of Britain and the 91 Gulf War, analysing why in one the attacker failed and while in the other the attacker succeeded.
Only those with a superficial understanding of anything military would make the claim you've made. Nobody with a real in-depth understanding of military affairs would dare claim that WW2 is irrelevant. Stop making yourself sound like an ignorant joke please
then explain to me why the USA lost in vietnam, and currently losing in Iraq and afghanistan. since from ur theory abt the relevance of WWII, usa being the victor of WWII, should have more than enough experience to win these localised wars. -
Originally posted by jojobeach:
59% of babies this year born by Singapore women. So what happened to the rest of the babies ?
born to PRs and foreigners. duh. -
Originally posted by deathmaster:
then explain to me why the USA lost in vietnam, and currently losing in Iraq and afghanistan. since from ur theory abt the relevance of WWII, usa being the victor of WWII, should have more than enough experience to win these localised wars.
The USA never lost in these wars. Tactically speaking. -
Originally posted by yamizi:
That's why in Singapore, it's very hard to find a woman to talk about social issues seriously.Because when you talk about needing them to contribute, in no time they will throw out the tradition feminism, about giving birth, taking care of parents, in-laws, etc, so that to shrink their contributions away.
But when there's a benefit or something, in no time again they will whip out about the equal gender theory to try to reap something out of it too.
They only like to be women, of course there are exceptional, really nice women around =)
i agree totally. if u want to argue for equal rights with 'gender equality', well, you have to take the entire concept of 'gender equality' in whole. you don't take selectively what is beneficial to you.
so what if women can give birth. not every men are interested in having children.
-
Originally posted by 16/f/lonely:
The USA never lost in these wars. Tactically speaking.
they won the initial territorial conquest. but it is the holding on to territory part of the war which is the most difficult for them.if i rmb correctly, the usa withdrew from vietnam in shame, with their last helicopter lifting off from saigon as the north vietnamese are entering the city.
and the iraq and afghan wars, the usa is being force to withdraw by pressure from within and abroad.
i'm sure you know of that.
-
Originally posted by deathmaster:
they won the initial territorial conquest. but it is the holding on to territory part of the war which is the most difficult for them.if i rmb correctly, the usa withdrew from vietnam in shame, with their last helicopter lifting off from saigon as the north vietnamese are entering the city.
and the iraq and afghan wars, the usa is being force to withdraw by pressure from within and abroad.
i'm sure you know of that.
That's why I said they never lost tactically.
-
Originally posted by deathmaster:
born to PRs and foreigners. duh.Duh your head lah duh !
That statement only tells you how many women who gave birth to SG babies are local.
It does not tells you how many SG women are NOT giving birth.
-
Originally posted by deathmaster:
i agree totally. if u want to argue for equal rights with 'gender equality', well, you have to take the entire concept of 'gender equality' in whole. you don't take selectively what is beneficial to you.
so what if women can give birth. not every men are interested in having children.
Correct, not every men are capable of having children. Some are talented in producing blanks.
Gender are not supposed to be equal in the first place, to normalise them would be evil isn't it?
-
Originally posted by jojobeach:
Oh really ?Your mother .. she is very consistent lor ?
If I offended you in any other way, I apologise. Didn't realise that you were so petty, had good impression of you in forums actually.
And yes! My mom is consistent. She doesn't contradict herself.
All these talk about sexes will never end because everyone have varying ideologies. God never make everyone equal, male and female have different roles to play. Mind you, I respect women because giving birth is a very painful process, since you are talking about why not let men do the child-bearing thing, which is like so out of the world.
Regarding the topic, we as men just feel sore about the 2 year disadvantage compared to female citizens in Singapore. It is just an opinion if women should serve also. In my opinion, NS should be scrapped, the country is rich, just hire professional soldiers and pay them like crazy. Since we are paying our ministars like crazy also.
Ego aside, give us a break, chill, we all have our ups and downs. How can we hate each other if nature's law says 'opposites attract'? Give and take, people.
-
I believe every girls will have an opportunity to join the military, but it HAS to be based on her OWN FREE WILL.
Enforcing girls to serve NS is wrong. It doesn't shows equality, but it does shows the little value and respect that guys have for girls.
Or we can put it this way, only people whose Mum and Sisters are/were in the military have the rights to suggest or push for this kind of enforcement.
Otherwise, try asking your own Mum and sisters and girlfriends to join NS before you even think of suggesting it. Cos it would be more credible to generate more positive response if the females in your family has done it.
The rest of them should go sever their own sg cocks and be an ah kua to earn the rights to push forward this suggestion.
Try growing some breasts if you can't grow your balls any larger.
-
Originally posted by Evangel:
If I offended you in any other way, I apologise. Didn't realise that you were so petty, had good impression of you in forums actually.
And yes! My mom is consistent. She doesn't contradict herself.
All these talk about sexes will never end because everyone have varying ideologies. God never make everyone equal, male and female have different roles to play. Mind you, I respect women because giving birth is a very painful process, since you are talking about why not let men do the child-bearing thing, which is like so out of the world.
Regarding the topic, we as men just feel sore about the 2 year disadvantage compared to female citizens in Singapore. It is just an opinion if women should serve also. In my opinion, NS should be scrapped, the country is rich, just hire professional soldiers and pay them like crazy. Since we are paying our ministars like crazy also.
Ego aside, give us a break, chill, we all have our ups and downs. How can we hate each other if nature's law says 'opposites attract'? Give and take, people.
Har ? Since when I ask men to bear a child ?
You guys keeps discrediting women's ability to child bearing. You should be telling what you think to those guys instead.
I can understand SG men's frustration to that disadvantage.
But why keep pushing this same misery to the women ?
If the guys are not happy with NS in SG.. it's up to the guys to fight for the rights.
Insisting females join NS and discounting their contribution to society.. does not make the arguments any more creditworthy.
Yes, we'd love to give you guys a break.. but are you guys giving us the female folks a break ?
And remember.. you don't insult another female and yet exalt your own mother and sisters.
-
don't use child bearing as a damn shield lah. I would be happy to see our girls (GIRLS) serve NS, so they won't have the bloody attitude that the whole world owes them a living.
-
Originally posted by Hellraiza:
don't use child bearing as a damn shield lah. I would be happy to see our girls (GIRLS) serve NS, so they won't have the bloody attitude that the whole world owes them a living.
Oh.. why not ? It's the fact.. and there's no need for you to discredit this ability.
Sure.. the world don't owe the girls a living.. we also don't owe you guys a living either.
Fair and square.
-
Originally posted by deathmaster:
then explain to me why the USA lost in vietnam, and currently losing in Iraq and afghanistan. since from ur theory abt the relevance of WWII, usa being the victor of WWII, should have more than enough experience to win these localised wars.USA did not lose in Vietnam. They succeeded in their goals for as long as they were there. Those goals were to prevent the invasion of the South by the North. They weren't forced to withdrawl by the NVA. They ultimately went home because the people and more importantly, their civilian government no longer gave them the mandate to wage war. If you were stationed at say, place A and told to prevent A from being invaded by B, and you did so until you were brought home 6 months later, Would you say you failed? No. Would you say you've failed if B invaded A AFTER you were brought home? No.
Once again I cannot fail to emphasise on the current stalemate in Iraq. I wouldn't say either side has won, but USA DID smash the Saddam regime, which is a military victory in itself. In fact during the 1st Gulf War in 91, the US won because of lessons from WW2 and Vietnam learnt by their able commander Norman Schwarzkopf.
Again for Afghanistan, I'd be a fool to say outright that the allies have lost. I currently see it as a stalemate, but similiar to Iraq, that stalemate came about AFTER a military victory and regime change. How did the US manage to smash thru the standing military of the former Afghanistani regime? Same thing. Lessons and tactics developed, learnt and refined since WW2.
The major sticking point for the latter 2 examples is the heavy involvement of religion, which is why the after-effects of the war continues to be felt.
-
Originally posted by Evangel:
If I offended you in any other way, I apologise. Didn't realise that you were so petty, had good impression of you in forums actually.
And yes! My mom is consistent. She doesn't contradict herself.
All these talk about sexes will never end because everyone have varying ideologies. God never make everyone equal, male and female have different roles to play. Mind you, I respect women because giving birth is a very painful process, since you are talking about why not let men do the child-bearing thing, which is like so out of the world.
Regarding the topic, we as men just feel sore about the 2 year disadvantage compared to female citizens in Singapore. It is just an opinion if women should serve also. In my opinion, NS should be scrapped, the country is rich, just hire professional soldiers and pay them like crazy. Since we are paying our ministars like crazy also.
Ego aside, give us a break, chill, we all have our ups and downs. How can we hate each other if nature's law says 'opposites attract'? Give and take, people.
Ohh PMC! I like PMCs altho they aren't like what they used to be anymore. More "Mr Tacti-Cool" than "Dogs of War" now lol.
Nature's law doesn't say opposites attract. Nature's law says attraction has no definable parameters.
-
Originally posted by deathmaster:
they won the initial territorial conquest. but it is the holding on to territory part of the war which is the most difficult for them.if i rmb correctly, the usa withdrew from vietnam in shame, with their last helicopter lifting off from saigon as the north vietnamese are entering the city.
and the iraq and afghan wars, the usa is being force to withdraw by pressure from within and abroad.
i'm sure you know of that.
Well then how would YOU propose to win these wars? I'd like to see you attempt regime change without a military presence. And oh don't tell me your "spec ops" and "covert force" crap again. Theres are 2 reasons USA has stopped trying to use the CIA to force regime changes like that now.
1) It's very embaressing to get caught trying to do something sneaky
2) One of the last times they tried that, they ended up having a heavily communist state off their southern coast, and led to the Cuban Missile Crisis. More recently, there is Saddam who was CIA supported during the Iran-Iraq war.
Ultimately, in the modern climate, there is no way to win a war in that sense, except for the kind of conventional warfare we're now seeing in Georgia. Witness the Georgian calls for ceasefire and retreat. Did Russia achieve that with special forces alone? No. It actually took days of air operations, artillery and rocket attacks, and conventional infantry and armor tactics to drive the Georgians out of South Ossetia. Please can you repeat that line about conventional warfare being irrelevant again? lol
-
WAH LAN. DUn make singapore unattractive with no chio bu. When the gals go army. They start wearing as a TOM Boy. No Mini ski or bare back.
No life man. Life is already so hard for guys working like us. You expect us to see TOM BOY on the street everyday. Very sianz leh. Need some chio bu to boost the morale. Let guy feel high can a not.
-
Originally posted by Itedino:
WAH LAN. DUn make singapore unattractive with no chio bu. When the gals go army. They start wearing as a TOM Boy. No Mini ski or bare back.
No life man. Life is already so hard for guys working like us. You expect us to see TOM BOY on the street everyday. Very sianz leh. Need some chio bu to boost the morale. Let guy feel high can a not.
Then guys go army become macho let girls feel high also right?
-
Ya you are so clever. Gals love guy in army uniform ma. I love gals in office wear.Lol
-
Originally posted by 4Justice:
Well then how would YOU propose to win these wars? I'd like to see you attempt regime change without a military presence. And oh don't tell me your "spec ops" and "covert force" crap again. Theres are 2 reasons USA has stopped trying to use the CIA to force regime changes like that now.
1) It's very embaressing to get caught trying to do something sneaky
2) One of the last times they tried that, they ended up having a heavily communist state off their southern coast, and led to the Cuban Missile Crisis. More recently, there is Saddam who was CIA supported during the Iran-Iraq war.
Ultimately, in the modern climate, there is no way to win a war in that sense, except for the kind of conventional warfare we're now seeing in Georgia. Witness the Georgian calls for ceasefire and retreat. Did Russia achieve that with special forces alone? No. It actually took days of air operations, artillery and rocket attacks, and conventional infantry and armor tactics to drive the Georgians out of South Ossetia. Please can you repeat that line about conventional warfare being irrelevant again? lol
with rgds to ur earlier post. i consider being forced to withdraw, regardless of whether the pressure is from abroad or from within, as defeat. it is like in a gang fight, u may knock out the opposing ringleader. yes, you won a battle. but if you kena hamtam until u cannot tahan and call for a retreat, i would say that you still lost in the end.only when you can leave in absolute peace, without succumbing to external pressure, do i classify that as a win. in vietnam, the usa is forced to withdraw because they can't take it anymore. and like i said, the us retreat in shame, with the north vietnamese entering Saigon as their last helicopter leaves. they are forced to retreat before they become POWs.
same in Iraq and Afghanistan. the americans can't tahan the war anymore, socially and financially. and right now, they are being force to retreat, before they have reach their objective to eradicating terrorism from the middle east. same thing in vietnam. not only did they not manage to wipe out communism from north vietnam, they too are unable to hold off communism from south vietnam.
and stop insisting that you are right. Vietnam is acknowledged to be a defeat, from all accounts, may it be by a brit, french, chinese, viet or american.
and by strike force, i don't mean CIA. i mean elite forces. e.g. commandos. in modern wars, territory are gained by elite forces, and hold by regular forces. WWII is where the general infantrymen chiong at the frontline. you try chionging with normal troops today, u will get another vietnam.
and if you want to quote russia, fine, i shall play along with you. Russia invade afghanistan with regular conventional army and in the end still lose the war. the government was force into withdrawing by the circumstances, not of their own free will.
and note, the conventional im refering to doesn't mean all sort of conventional forces. i am talking about regular forces, i.e. general infantry.
and the use of elite units was almost non-existant in WWII. name me any WWII elite units with the likes of commandos, SEALs, etc.
one last example. look at WWII japan. they held on to singapore until WWII was over. do you say that they won the war? no. the japanese army was forced to pull back and surrender, when they could easily continuing holding on to singapore until the americans arrive with armed forces to drive them out. therefore, this shows my point again that holding on to territory doesn't equate to winning a war. winning a battle it is. but winning a war it is not.
and i define winning as:
1) successful permanent hold on territory. i.e. china held on to tibet and xinjiang for hundreds of years. that is a real victory. up till now, they haven been force to withdraw their presence from these territorities yet.
2) ability to leave conquer country in peace, as in post WWII, where the allies are able to occupy germany and leave the country 5 yrs later with no insurgency against them. the country remains stable even when occupied.