Women shd also serve NS. Do u agree? share ur views.
-
seriously,not worth discussing/ probing into such issue.
we have mother, sister, daughters, girlfriend, wife.
just leave things as it is.
-
Originally posted by 4Justice:
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. ^^
the so called elite units in WWII are simply a bunch of men with outstanding merits, where they promote from regular infantry into ranger unit. yes, they are good, but these "rangers" are not the commandos we are familiar with now. it is essentially just a brand name, establishing the fame of the fighting unit.
Likewise, you do not equate the top fighting unit of the SAF infantry to commandos, guards. they simply differ in the type of training they were given.
SEALs are elite naval units, equivilent to our commandos. but a Marine is not. you are mistaken if you call the marines as "crack units". they are essentially the land base fighting forces of the united states navy. and for your information, the united states navy, is the largest of the 3 services, due to the USA's needs to maintain a worldwide fighting force.
and airborne units are out of necessity. they are also not elite units. they are simply regular infantrymen who make their entrance into enemy territory by air. consider the scenario where the allies did not have any base established in mainland europe yet. the scope of a regular airborne unit and a commando unit are different. the former fought as regular infantry on land, while the latter is responsible for stealth attacks.
if you studied history , you would have no doubt came across numerous texts which labelled most post WWII US-led wars as failures. korea included. both parties made use of propaganda and claim victory for the stalemate.
IMO, the closest thing you can classify as a victory is the 1st Gulf War. although the allies didn't remove saddam hussein from power, the region was left in relative peace, until 911, when we then start looking at the civilian led terrorist movements.and also, before you utter any crap about vietnam, check out the facts first. elite troops like SEALs did fought, but they form the absolute minority of the forces there. most of the troops are conscripts in the late teens. 18-early 20s. you call that elite?
after they serve their 1 yr of service, they are sent back home to be replaced with fresh conscripts, causing the entire force to be relatively inexperienced. in addition, 40% of the these troops were addicted to heroin and morphin. are these the well-trained elite troops you were trying to convince me about?
and why did the north vietnamese stop in 1970, before resuming their conquest of the south in 1972? no doubt, you, being a self-acclaimed historian, will know that there is this triangular relationship going on between china, USSR and USA. USSR and USA were practicing detente, and the USA and China were practicing the ping pong diplomacy, initiated by Nixon, in an effort to get China to pressure North Vietnam into showing face to USA, to allow USA to withdraw without a significant loss of face.
in the late 1960s, the antiwar protests were so great that LBJ gave up his chance of running for a 2nd term. the americans were ready to vote for any candidate who offered to withdraw from the unpopular war. Nixon promised withdrawal, and he won the election.
Nixon then implement this Vietnamisation, where he prepare for a gradual withdrawal, replacing american troops with local troops, as an effort to "save face" and maintain the size of the South Vietnamese forces. Meanwhile, China, then being N. Vietnam's wartime ally managed to persuade N. Vietnam into a temporary ceasefire, which make possible Nixon's plan for US withdrawal.
however, the N Vietnamese eventually attack before the US withdrawal was complete. so there you have the classic scene where the last of american choppers lift off as the N. Vietnamese were entering the city. it is like you fleeing to batam when enemy forces overrun singapore and sentosa. do you not call that a defeat?
the North vietnamese did not take over the south after the USA left. they took over it while the USA is still withdrawing. that, to me, is a clear N. vietnamese victory. yes, they have great losses, but in the end, they won the war.
and regarding the modern war of Iraq and Afghanistan. do you not recall Canada's threat to withdraw if the USA did not send in extra forces? Do you not read international publications.e.g. Times, Newsweek, that the NATO countries were hard press by domestic pressure to withdraw? Germany and Spain had already withdrew their forces when their soldiers were kidnapped by the muslim fundamentalists a couple of years back.
Did you not hear Barrack Obama's promise to withdraw within a certain time limit, regardless of the situation then, in his campaign election? he is poised to be the next US president, so his words carry weight in them.
Tony Blair left politics in shame, with the war against terrorism being his archille's heel in his outstanding accolades of achievements. a blemish which covered all his notable achievements in life.
and FYI, the increased force in Iraq was only possible because of Bush's promise of imminent withdrawal, that the congress approve the surge. they are due back in a short while.
so in other words, the USA had wage a war it could never win, biting more than it could chew. it is poised for defeat.
-
Originally posted by jojobeach:
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.
well, there could be.
but haven you heard of 兵�?
-
Angel 7030:
"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??"
** If any of you look at my previous thread on why women should serve NS, increasing the birthrate was not the main reason I listed, although it was one of the benefits.
And do not think that doing physical training will turn you into a female Arnie.
You would be surprised how many girls are physically active- like the Netballers you see on posters at MRT stations, or black belts in martial arts, but in their civies look like demure feminine babes.
And physical training will make everyone look better, since you have to move- so no more fat people. (hopefully)
Girls are already tougher and more confident these days since many of them go to uni. There's a heap of threads complaining that females are now too career focused. Armed Forces training is hardly likely to change that.
-
Originally posted by OneWithTheForce:
"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.
Harlow.. you think NS is musical chairs meh ? You think female officers all stand in a straight line so the army guys can bio them issit ?
Yes the Army VERY BIG.
But how many NS guys get to know ALL the NS guys during their 2 years stint ?
No matter what.. the social interaction will always be limited according to scope of work. So hor.. your logic does not apply lah
You think females will get to march in the same platoon as you ah ? Wishful thinking lor.
Then you get to interact with ALL the female officers ah ? In your wet dreams maybe lah.
And please lah.. school is not = primary and secondary school lah. Wah liew.. you what pedophile issit ?
Even in universities .. guys also got problem getting a GF. You mean to say.. the guys will grow some balls when they are holding a weapon issit ?
And dude.... you are already such a horny kid.. later you see so many females holding a gun sashaying infront of you everyday... you'd be DIY-ing till your leg soft soft ok ?
-
this thread is degrading...
-
Originally posted by parn:
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.
Seems our women have big breasts and small brains
-
Originally posted by jojobeach:
Can compare one wat.Men go school.. girls also go school.
Men earn money.. girls also earn money.
If
Men go NS..girl also go NS.
Then girl can give birth.. men can.... (please fill in the blanks)....???
Can give birth does not equal will give birth. What do you propose? Those who have no children by 30 be sentenced to repeated rapes until their conceive? :)
-
Originally posted by oxford mushroom:
Seems our women have big breasts and small brains
Seems you have no breast and no brains.
-
Originally posted by oxford mushroom:
Can give birth does not equal will give birth. What do you propose? Those who have no children by 30 be sentenced to repeated rapes until their conceive? :)
Yah lah.. you will be the first to offer the raping service right, pervert ?
-
Originally posted by jojobeach:
Yah lah.. you will be the first to offer the raping service right, pervert ?
With your genes, we'll have a nation of imbeciles with your offspring. Keep your eggs...we can have century egg porridge with it later :)
-
Originally posted by oxford mushroom:
With your genes, we'll have a nation of imbeciles with your offspring. Keep your eggs...we can have century egg porridge with it later :)
A nation of imbeciles?.. HAHHHAHHAHHH ....Your mother may be a sow...how many siblings do you have ?
-
degraded...
-
Althought nowadays in society,Women and men are equally potential.Yet i thk women shouldn't go for NS.From my point of view,Women should be more perserve and have not to expose so much to tough assignment or training.For men,we are different.We have to protect the country.It's a must for men to go for NS althought i personally think that it's quite unfair to us.If women are trained to protect the country,i could not imagine how the women thinks and the way they going to act in the future.Definitely,u guys hate to see "tom boy gal" rise in singapore.Who going marry Them?So i thk we should remain in the traditional ways.Men do the "tough jobs" and women do "Soft" jobs.
-
Originally posted by GHoST_18:
degraded...
Yes , I agree.. and that's what happens to all things as they grow old.. this thread is already 700++ posting old.
So is our LKY.
-
Originally posted by GHoST_18:
this thread is degrading...
and its just turned into something else
-
yah..
from woman should also serve NS to your mother may be a sow...
very outta point ya?
-
Originally posted by GHoST_18:
yah..
from woman should also serve NS to your mother may be a sow...
very outta point ya?
hmmm....now i understand the logic of 7th month ghost festival better...
-
Originally posted by OneWithTheForce:
Angel 7030:
"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??"
** If any of you look at my previous thread on why women should serve NS, increasing the birthrate was not the main reason I listed, although it was one of the benefits.
And do not think that doing physical training will turn you into a female Arnie.
You would be surprised how many girls are physically active- like the Netballers you see on posters at MRT stations, or black belts in martial arts, but in their civies look like demure feminine babes.
And physical training will make everyone look better, since you have to move- so no more fat people. (hopefully)
Girls are already tougher and more confident these days since many of them go to uni. There's a heap of threads complaining that females are now too career focused. Armed Forces training is hardly likely to change that.
There are many women in the army who are still not married, cos men see them like tomboyish and no feminism in it. Some are warrant officers and officers commanding 18 yo kids and men, as a male yourself, do you want to get commanded by a female back at home...i think even sex also must stand by bed.
We dun need so much exercise, exercise reduce our boobs size and feminist hormone, we go those aerobics, spa and some slimming centre can already. I bet most guys will like to see a white soft, nice and tender with good shape and busty rather than a muscular gal with no tenderness and very rough in texture.
Me former NCC commander. WO2
-
please stick to topic
-
Originally posted by oxford mushroom:
Seems our women have big breasts and small brains
tell that to your mother. -
Originally posted by angel7030:
There are many women in the army who are still not married, cos men see them like tomboyish and no feminism in it. Some are warrant officers and officers commanding 18 yo kids and men, as a male yourself, do you want to get commanded by a female back at home...i think even sex also must stand by bed.
We dun need so much exercise, exercise reduce our boobs size and feminist hormone, we go those aerobics, spa and some slimming centre can already. I bet most guys will like to see a white soft, nice and tender with good shape and busty rather than a muscular gal with no tenderness and very rough in texture.
Me former NCC commander. WO2
my friend's a former ncc, and her boobs seems normal so i don't know if that affects boob size but her arms are slightly bak bak, she claims its because her muscles turned into fats with a lack of exercise.
(she's definately not skinny so i can't vouch for her arm theory either)
-
Originally posted by angel7030:
There are many women in the army who are still not married, cos men see them like tomboyish and no feminism in it. Some are warrant officers and officers commanding 18 yo kids and men, as a male yourself, do you want to get commanded by a female back at home...i think even sex also must stand by bed.
We dun need so much exercise, exercise reduce our boobs size and feminist hormone, we go those aerobics, spa and some slimming centre can already. I bet most guys will like to see a white soft, nice and tender with good shape and busty rather than a muscular gal with no tenderness and very rough in texture.
Me former NCC commander. WO2
WO2 is what rank? -
Hmmm...How come it's a boobs topic? lol!
-
WAR WITH HOT AMAZONIANS!
I will enlist to fight that war. lol
Volunteering as forward scout..
then go MIA