Women shd also serve NS. Do u agree? share ur views.
-
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.
u sure? alot of army guys running around bare chest in the neighbourhood. and not that singapore has chio bu-s to begin with. -
Originally posted by jojobeach:
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.
but it does show that there is not many, and there is not enough.not to mention a birthrate of 1.29... assume that it follows a normal distribution. you can calculate the possibility of the women not having children.
and for a direct answer, ask yourself this qsn. you are female, you can bear a child, but have you, and will you?
-
Originally posted by jojobeach:
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.
it takes the consensus of both sides for a marriage. if the girl is so against child bearing and marriage, she has the choice to choose not to. no one is forcing the girl to have a child or to marry. when she does have a child, it is of her own free will. it is optional.
and clearly, many sg girls are choosing to exercise that choice of not having children.
it is like smoking and drinking. you can smoke and drink all you want, but at the end of the day, you still have to serve NS. i think the same should apply for females doing NS. they can have all the child they want, (may it be zero or a dozen), but end of the day, they should also be subjected to NS also.
and again, i reemphasize that NS here does not refer to army.
-
Originally posted by deathmaster:
but it does show that there is not many, and there is not enough.not to mention a birthrate of 1.29... assume that it follows a normal distribution. you can calculate the possibility of the women not having children.
and for a direct answer, ask yourself this qsn. you are female, you can bear a child, but have you, and will you?
Making female go NS doesn't increase birth rate.. it will in fact only further reduce it.
Females has a shelf life for giving birth. Good only between puberty to around age 35.. with health technology advancement.. that expiry date gets pushed to about 45. After that.. it's a high risk pregnancy.
You take away 2 years of their fertile life .. you're also pushing back their age to get married and have children. To wat.. fight a imaginary war ? Is it really worth it ?
Yes I want to have kids. Right now.. I only get 50/50 my kids needs to go NS and reservist. If you make it 100% my children will have to serve NS..
I'd rather choose to marry a non-singaporean men. That way.. non of my kids needs to serve NS... be it girl or boy.
This way.. even if SG women are giving birth.. the children will not be Singapore Citizens.
You guys are just screwing yourself over.. big time.
-
potential 80pages thread...
-
eh...arbo you all meet up and debate lah....
-
Originally posted by deathmaster:
Deathmaster:
"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."
If thats your criteria for a victory, then there is no country that has, in recent history, won a war. WW1 lead to recriminations against the Allies, and the resulting simmering sentiments lead to WW2. Between the 2 wars, political and civil unrest pushed the world ever closer towards WW2. There was no absolute peace.
WW2 lead to the cold war as 2 superpowers and 2 political ideals split up the defeated nation, leading to Germany becoming 2 countries for the better part of 20 odd years. There was no absolute peace either.
Korean War lead to the split of Korea which is still not resolved today. Absolute peace? Hardly. Vietnam? Did the commies win? A look at the poverty of the country today suggests otherwise, and certainly the conquering of the South by the North didn't end in peace. The current calm came about after 2 more decades of people rebuilding amidst the chaos.
Btw, its common misconception to think that the US were "forced" in any way. Try speaking to a learned military historian, you'll be surprised. It was a poltical decision taken by the nation's leadership. They weren't outnumbered, they weren't in an untenable position, and could have stayed on if they wished to. They wished not to. Maybe you'd like to explain who forced them to?
"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."
Um, the Allies have actually INCREASED the number of troops they're sending there. You do realise that socially and financially they have no problems "tahaning" the war right? The only issue the public here in UK have with the Allies going to war is that the justification was "because Iraq have WMDs". They don't. And the NEXT purpose of the war was to enact a regime change, not to wipe out terrorism. Terrorism is impossible to wipe out, and nobody with any knowledge of world affairs and politics would even think that was the goal of USA. You seem pretty naive to have even said that. Truth is, USA's goal was not wiping out terrorists, it was payback and somewhere to direct their military's anger at 9/11, and what better scapegoat than Afghanistan and Iraq?
As for Vietnam once again, the US were very successful at their gold of preventing an invasion of the South by the North. At no time was their goal ever the erradication of communism from both the north and the south. In fact one'd be stupid to think its possible to erradicate a political philosophy from ANY society; USA can't even get rid of communists within its own country, why would they desire to get rid of communism in Asia? Their goal in South Vietnam was always "the prevention of an invasion of a democratic republic by it's neighbouring country". I don't support USA's policies, but in this case, while it decided to get involved, it was successful.
"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."
Acknowledge by the layman, not by people who know better. You can continue to assume you're right thru your ignorance, it doesn't change the facts :)
"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."
Funnily enough, you seem to get your facts all wrong. Vietnam was in fact fought heavily by elite troops like Airborne and US Navy SEALS. Of course according to you, they lost, hence it seems like you've just disproved your own theory that fighting with elite troops is the way to go. Much fun shooting yourself in the foot?
Russia also had heavy involvement of entire Spetsnaz divisions in Afghanistan. They lost (this I agree). So much fun shooting yourself in the foot twice? LOL. Whatsmore, you seem to be a bit thick. I mentioned Russia's CURRENT INVOLVEMENT IN GEORGIA WITH CONVENTIONAL FORCES. Please, learn to read. Or maybe you're just so out of date for someone who keeps claiming that we're obselete talking about WW2, that you don't know about the recent Georgian conflict.
"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."
Note: in military terms, when speaking about conventional forces, it means ALL conventional forces like artillery, armor, infantry, air force, navy. I don't know what discussion you think this is, but this is a military discussion and I'm going to go with what it means when used in a military context.
And more ignorance on your part. Whee. The use of elite units was almost non-existant in WW2? ORLY? They were used heavily on both sides. Let me kindly give you a long list of SOME of the elite units that operated in WW2:
Identified Units:
US Airborne:
11th Airborne
13th Airborne
18th Airborne
82nd Airborne
101st Airborne
503rd PIB/R
509th PIB
517th PIR
551st PIBUS Army Rangers
1st Bn
2nd Bn <- Pointe du Hoc Raiders
3rd Bn
4th Bn
5th BnUS Marine Raiders
1st Raider Bn aka Edson's Raiders
2nd Raider Bn
3rd Raider Bn
4th Raider BnBritish Army Commandos <- responsible for the St Nazaire Raid
Special Operations Executive <- Trained and organised the Telmark Raid
Section F
Section N
Section TSpecial Air Services
1 SAS
2 SAS
3 SAS
4 SAS
5 SASSpecial Boat Services
1 SBS
2 SBSSpecial Raiding Forces
Royal Marine Commandos
1 SSB, No. 45 Cdo
2 SSB, No. 40 Cdo, No. 43 Cdo
3 SSB, No. 42 Cdo, No. 44 Cdo
4 SSB, No. 41, 46, 47, 48 Cdos.Royal Navy Commandos
Royal Canadian Navy:
Commando 'W'MISC:
Z Force (Australian-British-NZ)
2/1st Independent Company (Australian)
2/2nd Independent Company (Australian)
1st SSF aka Devil's Brigade (Canadian-USA)
SMERSH (Russian)
Großdeutschland Division (German)
Panzer-Lehr-Division (German)
Brandenburger Regiment (German)
Decima Flottiglia MAS (Italian)
Teishin Shudan detachment (Japanese)
Giretsu detachment (Japanese)Informal units:
Merrill's Marauders
Popski Private Army
ChinditsYou asked me to name you one, I believe the above list is more than one. Having fun eating humble pie?
"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."
I find your definitions contradictory. You say there must be piece, but is there really peace in tibet? BAD example. Germany? It split into EAST and WEST german, 2 slices of a pie divided amongst the Allies. HOW stable is that?
There. Have fun refuting all the solid points, I've named you more than one WW2 elite unit. Now eat humble pie and apologise for being obviously ignorant and speaking crap here when you've not obviously done your research doofus.
If you were to even come and play where I do in a REAL milsim forum, you'd be laughed all the way home by the people there for the obviously clueless "name me one elite unit in WW2" remark alone. Friendly bit of advice: learn to realise when you're out of your depth and stop before you further embaress yourself. ^^
-
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.
that book you read is probably written by american who believe they dint lost the war but push the blame of withdrawal at the anti war protestant. that naive. it is a war american lost big time. they underestimate the will power of the north vietnamese ppl, NVA, and viet gong. the supported the south vietnamese regime that are weak and corrupted whom they soon realise are not going to win anyway. of course at that time, there wasnt any bunker bomb or tomahawk to do the dirty work for marines these days.
americans just simply dont have the will power and financial resources to drag the war further in vietnam. they casulties are high, they cannot see how they could ever win in the war of resources and will power.
if that aint losing war, no war is simply lost.
hey, german could say,dint lose to americans if hitler didnt fight the war on 2-3 front at the sametime,right?
give us a break of your stupidity explaination. sometimes only you can believe that shit!
read more
-
Originally posted by reyes:
that book you read is probably written by american who believe they dint lost the war but push the blame of withdrawal at the anti war protestant. that naive. it is a war american lost big time. they underestimate the will power of the north vietnamese ppl, NVA, and viet gong. the supported the south vietnamese regime that are weak and corrupted whom they soon realise are not going to win anyway. of course at that time, there wasnt any bunker bomb or tomahawk to do the dirty work for marines these days.
americans just simply dont have the will power and financial resources to drag the war further in vietnam. they casulties are high, they cannot see how they could ever win in the war of resources and will power.
if that aint losing war, no war is simply lost.
hey, german could say,dint lose to americans if hitler didnt fight the war on 2-3 front at the sametime,right?
give us a break of your stupidity explaination. sometimes only you can believe that shit!
read more
A single book? No. Various military analysist around the world are of the view that America did succed in its military goals till 1970 in Vietnam: to prevent invasion of the south by the north. There is nothing wrong or propagandastic about that. Was that the US goal? Yes. Did the North invade the south successfully? No. Thus was that a goal achieved? Yes. Is a goal achieved a success? Yes.
If you cannot understand simple logic, don't come play with us adults. Thanks. And from someone who claimed the Vietnamese won in 68 several pages ago, when they didnt invade till 72, its ironic that you're asking me to read. Why don't you try that 1st and make sure you don't make stupid misakes like that before calling other people's detailed and analytically presented points stupid.
So if Vietnam won, why aren't they prosperous today? Why did it take another 10 15 years before things even calmed down? Lol you got some dodgy definitions of winning.
-
Originally posted by 4Justice:
A single book? No. Various military analysist around the world are of the view that America did succed in its military goals till 1970 in Vietnam: to prevent invasion of the south by the north. There is nothing wrong or propagandastic about that. Was that the US goal? Yes. Did the North invade the south successfully? No. Thus was that a goal achieved? Yes. Is a goal achieved a success? Yes.
If you cannot understand simple logic, don't come play with us adults. Thanks. And from someone who claimed the Vietnamese won in 68 several pages ago, when they didnt invade till 72, its ironic that you're asking me to read. Why don't you try that 1st and make sure you don't make stupid misakes like that before calling other people's detailed and analytically presented points stupid.
So if Vietnam won, why aren't they prosperous today? Why did it take another 10 15 years before things even calmed down? Lol you got some dodgy definitions of winning.
Go Vietnam see for yourself lah.
The South is more modern and better developed than the North.
-
wah seh....sibei eh sai....just a S'pore NS topic nia can talk until other countries....
eh sai eh sai....haha
-
Originally posted by jojobeach:
Go Vietnam see for yourself lah.
The South is more modern and better developed than the North.
Makes you wonder who really won. Vietnam today isn't exactly communist anyway.
-
Again....USA did not lose in the tactical sense in Vietnam. In fact, despite the Tet Offensive's initial success, the Viets still lost in most battles, tactically.
And all these talk about who won and lost is bull-shit, the biggest losers were the Viets who had to endure bombings, conflicts and even Agent Orange.
-
Originally posted by 16/f/lonely:
Again....USA did not lose in the tactical sense in Vietnam. In fact, despite the Tet Offensive's initial success, the Viets still lost in most battles, tactically.
And all these talk about who won and lost is bull-shit, the biggest losers were the Viets who had to endure bombings, conflicts and even Agent Orange.
Trueism of war: War is not about who's right. It's about who's left.
-
Originally posted by 4Justice:
Trueism of war: War is not about who's right. It's about who's left.
Truth.
-
"Making female go NS doesn't increase birth rate.. it will in fact only further reduce it."
Not so.
As I said in a thread on Women serving NS I put up last year, making women do NS will provide a once in a lifetime opportunity for all the 38,000 to 40,000 people of that age to potentially meet. This will lead to possible immediate and future relationships. Some might get the bug straight away and marry, others will meet and become a couple for years before marrying, and some might meet, not see each other for yers, bump into each other and tie the knot.
Obviously you cant meet every single person. But you will see hundreds and thousands more, and meet many of them. Singaporeans are naturally shy. This way you have something in common you can talk about, an "in".
It makes it much better than all19,000 women not knowing the other 19,000 men of their own age.
-
Originally posted by OneWithTheForce:
As I said in a thread on Women serving NS I put up last year, making women do NS will provide a once in a lifetime opportunity for all the 38,000 to 40,000 people of that age to potentially meet. This will lead to possible immediate and future relationships. Some might get the bug straight away and marry, others will meet and become a couple for years before marrying, and some might meet, not see each other for yers, bump into each other and tie the knot.
that depends on the type of ns, like what some of us here mentioned it need not be the army. it might even be something that only consists of girls.
a lot of parents are already going crazy with the thought of any guys taking a liking to their precious daughter and you want to throw them all together to increase the birth rate?
-
Originally posted by OneWithTheForce:
"Making female go NS doesn't increase birth rate.. it will in fact only further reduce it."
Not so.
As I said in a thread on Women serving NS I put up last year, making women do NS will provide a once in a lifetime opportunity for all the 38,000 to 40,000 people of that age to potentially meet. This will lead to possible immediate and future relationships. Some might get the bug straight away and marry, others will meet and become a couple for years before marrying, and some might meet, not see each other for yers, bump into each other and tie the knot.
Obviously you cant meet every single person. But you will see hundreds and thousands more, and meet many of them. Singaporeans are naturally shy. This way you have something in common you can talk about, an "in".
It makes it much better than all19,000 women not knowing the other 19,000 men of their own age.
Oh gimme a break.The schools are co-ed (male and female in same school.. same class), how come that is not working to push up couplehood ?
Please lah.. are you saying that ONLY in NS.. will male and female mate ? Pffttt !!.
Not a very well thought out comment.. if I may say so.
-
Originally posted by OneWithTheForce:
"Making female go NS doesn't increase birth rate.. it will in fact only further reduce it."
Not so.
As I said in a thread on Women serving NS I put up last year, making women do NS will provide a once in a lifetime opportunity for all the 38,000 to 40,000 people of that age to potentially meet. This will lead to possible immediate and future relationships. Some might get the bug straight away and marry, others will meet and become a couple for years before marrying, and some might meet, not see each other for yers, bump into each other and tie the knot.
Obviously you cant meet every single person. But you will see hundreds and thousands more, and meet many of them. Singaporeans are naturally shy. This way you have something in common you can talk about, an "in".
It makes it much better than all19,000 women not knowing the other 19,000 men of their own age.
Like this huh???Wow!!! Later the army boys, instead of courting and marrying us, they take us as comfort women only, then how??? -
51 more pages...
-
"that depends on the type of ns, like what some of us here mentioned it need not be the army. it might even be something that only consists of girls."
**That is true. It may turn out to be all girl. However, once masses of females arrive, there no doubt will be social activities, like annual balls etc. THis will give people a chance to know other people
" Oh gimme a break.
The schools are co-ed (male and female in same school.. same class), how come that is not working to push up couplehood ?
Please lah.. are you saying that ONLY in NS.. will male and female mate ? Pffttt !!.
Not a very well thought out comment.. if I may say so."
** jojobeach- the comments in your reply are inaccurate. Of course NS will not be used to force preganancy or any other silly things. I meant that it would allow many people to potentially meet hundreds more people than what they might have the chance to meet otherwise.
Schools are not a good example to use because:
- not all schools are coed.
- people are too young physically and immature to be considering parenthood.
- although a school has hundreds of people, it's still a microcosm compared to 38,000 people doing the same thing, like NS.
The only environment which allows hundreds of people of similar age to mingle is polytech and uni. But these are still limited by course, subject and you dont get to meet those who didnt get in.
NS has no intellectual or class barriers.
" Like this huh???Wow!!! Later the army boys, instead of courting and marrying us, they take us as comfort women only, then how???"
** Of course rape and sexual abuse is a real concern in the armed forces. Even in the US armed forces a senior officer said to the media that women there are much more likely to be assaulted by fellow male armed force colleagues than by enemy combatants.
However, being comfort women is highly unlikely.
One thing about being in the armed forces is that you get training- you learn some martial arts, you learn how to use weapons. You will gain confidence and wont be helpless. Remember, currently in the armed forces, females are heavily outnumbered. Once it is about 50:50, things will be different. Women will be trained to fight with the same weapons. It is very possible for a gang of women to inflict the same damage as a gang of men. A man rapes a woman?-> he'll suddenly find himself dragged behind a shed and anal probed.
I know a girl who turned down a job with SIA to join the Air Force. She did all the physical training and can assemble and disassemble rifles no problem- she loves it. Dont think dainty girls will be shy dainty girls. You can be feminine, but still strong of mind and have martial arts skills too.
-
Look, the analogy here is very simple, NS or army camp is not a venue for socialising and match making, it will make the army loose it credibility as a defend force with weak legs soldiers whereby instead of concentrating on war defend strategy, he is wondering if he can match or woo that army gal.
And worst, bear in mind, Army train us to be more discipline and self substainable, as a gal, i may get more tough like man and refuse to marry cos i see myself as self substainable and commanding with a honor army training. So, in the end, less marriage and birthrate occur. And to guys, do you want a commanding wife??
-
Originally posted by angel7030:
Look, the analogy here is very simple, NS or army camp is not a venue for socialising and match making, it will make the army loose it credibility as a defend force with weak legs soldiers whereby instead of concentrating on war defend strategy, he is wondering if he can match or woo that army gal.
And worst, bear in mind, Army train us to be more discipline and self substainable, as a gal, i may get more tough like man and refuse to marry cos i see myself as self substainable and commanding with a honor army training. So, in the end, less marriage and birthrate occur. And to guys, do you want a commanding wife??
its ironic but the idea to introduce girls into ns is to allow more couples to be formed and ensuring there'll be the next generation of soldiers and that basically means its a war strategy.
and having been though ns......... i'm not that sure it'll have that effect on women expect on the hardcore ones. so far it hasn't had that effect on guys i know.
and as for my wife, being commanding depends on her capablities, if she's capable then why not?
-
Originally posted by angel7030:
Look, the analogy here is very simple, NS or army camp is not a venue for socialising and match making, it will make the army loose it credibility as a defend force with weak legs soldiers whereby instead of concentrating on war defend strategy, he is wondering if he can match or woo that army gal.
And worst, bear in mind, Army train us to be more discipline and self substainable, as a gal, i may get more tough like man and refuse to marry cos i see myself as self substainable and commanding with a honor army training. So, in the end, less marriage and birthrate occur. And to guys, do you want a commanding wife??
Some guys' fantasies includes Humiliating army girls, commanding wifes (girls in some form of powerful position), and some even desires to be spanked and tortured by those women.
-
I dun mind to being dominated by women trained to kill. lol