SAF personnel come to school give talk to JC boys..
-
Originally posted by 4Justice:
Fact remains that most naval ship captains WILL rather go down with their ship even if they weren't in charge on the bridge.
what logic is it for the CO of the ship to go down with the ship if adequate life saving support is available? -
Originally posted by 16/f/lonely:
Then it's not SOP what.....
And I would rather my command try to save his arse.
Thats because you're not thinking like a ship captain. Neither is Courageous' ship captain tho -
Originally posted by 4Justice:
Thats because you're not thinking like a ship captain. Neither is Courageous' ship captain tho
Actually you know why I would rather he not go down with the ship?Then he can stand as witness or be shot down on land through investigations mah.
-
Originally posted by Hellraiza:
Well, if someone is trying to kill me, i would damn hell try to kill him first. Basic survival instincts. Does that make me a hardcore nutjob?
I think you need to read some proper accounts of soldiers in battle. For eg. Princess of Wales Royal Regiment, Sniper Platoon. 2 of them, Des and Oost, joined the military because "its where we can legally kill people"You realise that even nutjobs can be professional about it, but it doesn't diminish their enjoyment of their job (and killing people).
-
Originally posted by foxtrout8:
Are u that stupid to think that US citizens are not spoilt pansies (im not saying that they are, neither are we) solely because they own guns?There is no distinction between regular, NSmen and NSF. All will react accordingly when their lives are threatened.
And yet when those Guardsmen were robbed in M'sia, their first instinct was to simply hand over their money to the robber.
I know generalisation from an incident is inappropriate, but just take a look around Singapore and see if those NSmen fit my example more so than it fits yours of garang commandos.
-
Originally posted by rooki:
If you'd bother to research, most US troops are hicks that come from poorer, rural areas where hunting is a pastime and gunfights are common. Almost all Singaporeans, on the other hand, resemble the cosseted pansies in NYC when it comes to physical toughness. But of course those NYC pansies have not undergone the mindwashing effect of NS, so in the end they're still tougher than SG NS guys.
If caucasians freeze under simulated rounds, you can bet that the soft asians from Singapore will do worse.
LOL. i cant believe it. '' most US troops are hicks that come from poorer, rural areas where hunting is a pastime and gunfights are common''. '' But of course those NYC pansies have not undergone the mindwashing effect of NS, so in the end they're still tougher than SG NS guys.''eh wuss, show your supporting evidence for your claims if not stop making a joke out of ur pathetic soul.
-
Originally posted by 4Justice:
Can I suggest you look up the meaning of "in anger" with regards to military usage? You who just accused me of being a civilian who "don't get it", failed to understand a common and simple military term? Thats ironic it is. Even the cadet-trained people here I train
with know what "firing a weapon in anger" means.Trust me when i say i know what doing anything "in a fit of anger" will result in, military or otherwise. Oh. And i never 'accused' you of being a civilian (is that a crime?).
and what's with the "even the CADET-TRAINED PEOPLE" ? Are you talking about NCC cadets or OCS cadets? But it doesn't really matter because to me, they are equally useless.
-
Originally posted by foxtrout8:
Not to be sexist, u are as honourable to me as any other forumner here.We assume your lack in military experience for the fact that u have not demostrated to us ur understand of our armed forces in the context of our region.
Oh but I have, it's just that your nationalistic ego and pride prevents any of you from seeing it. -
Originally posted by foxtrout8:
what logic is it for the CO of the ship to go down with the ship if adequate life saving support is available?
Professional pride. Which seems to now only extend to going on the forums and saying "my armed forces is not teh sux!" rather than going down with your ship. -
Originally posted by rooki:
And yet when those Guardsmen were robbed in M'sia, their first instinct was to simply hand over their money to the robber.
I know generalisation from an incident is inappropriate, but just take a look around Singapore and see if those NSmen fit my example more so than it fits yours of garang commandos.
Wont u do the same if u are in M'sia? Why risk getting stab if u can settle it with money.In war, it is not about settling with money and thats why we kill and risk getting killed.
-
Originally posted by 4Justice:
Professional pride. Which seems to now only extend to going on the forums and saying "my armed forces is not teh sux!" rather than going down with your ship.
Ur sense of professional pride is weird. yah most probably it is better for him and his son to perform seppuku also. -
Originally posted by 4Justice:
Professional pride. Which seems to now only extend to going on the forums and saying "my armed forces is not teh sux!" rather than going down with your ship.
Have you actually seen the Courageous wreck before? -
Originally posted by 4Justice:
Oh but I have, it's just that your nationalistic ego and pride prevents any of you from seeing it.
4justice, look around, its not onli me that fail to see your understanding of the subject. -
Originally posted by Hellraiza:
Trust me when i say i know what doing anything "in a fit of anger" will result in, military or otherwise. Oh. And i never 'accused' you of being a civilian (is that a crime?).
and what's with the "even the CADET-TRAINED PEOPLE" ? Are you talking about NCC cadets or OCS cadets? But it doesn't really matter because to me, they are equally useless.
"I've already conceded that there's no point explaining to CIVILIANS about the intricacies about the armed forces. Like that tagline for the ladie's credit card....THEY JUST DONT GET IT"The insinuation is there.
And no, you still don't get it. "Firing your weapon in anger" in common military usage does not refer to firing it in a fit of anger. In a military context, 'to fire in anger' means to shoot for a purpose in war. I wonder who the civilian here really is.
Finally, I don't mean either. I mean the British Cadets. Trust me, My CQB training involves them, as well as ex and current serving British military personnel(including SAS, Royal Marines etc), ex and current serving Territorial Army personal.
-
Originally posted by foxtrout8:
LOL. i cant believe it. '' most US troops are hicks that come from poorer, rural areas where hunting is a pastime and gunfights are common''. '' But of course those NYC pansies have not undergone the mindwashing effect of NS, so in the end they're still tougher than SG NS guys.''eh wuss, show your supporting evidence for your claims if not stop making a joke out of ur pathetic soul.
http://www.heritage.org/research/nationalsecurity/upload/85083_1.gif
I stand corrected on the 'poorer' part, but you cannot deny that rural people are overrepresented in the army.
Now, how about your evidence for tough SG guys? -
Originally posted by 4Justice:
I think you need to read some proper accounts of soldiers in battle. For eg. Princess of Wales Royal Regiment, Sniper Platoon. 2 of them, Des and Oost, joined the military because "its where we can legally kill people"You realise that even nutjobs can be professional about it, but it doesn't diminish their enjoyment of their job (and killing people).
the kind of people you mentioned in the book you read, are usually called sociopaths. Certain units screen people like this.
And by the way i have never said in this thread that you do NOT have military experience. But honestly, if you're not from the Big Four, i don't think i have to explain anything to you.
-
Originally posted by 16/f/lonely:
Have you actually seen the Courageous wreck before?
isnt it obvious she knows little about the topic and u still ask her this kind of question? -
Originally posted by foxtrout8:
isnt it obvious she knows little about the topic and u still ask her this kind of question?
I know the answer.But the fact that she spouts so much despite having little knowledge pisses me a little because unlike her, I see the wreck every now and then and seeing it always saddens me.
-
Originally posted by Hellraiza:
the kind of people you mentioned in the book you read, are usually called sociopaths. Certain units screen people like this.
And by the way i have never said in this thread that you do NOT have military experience. But honestly, if you're not from the Big Four, i don't think i have to explain anything to you.
Don't be insulting. They're called professional soldiers. A sociopath would kill for nothing. They might enjoy killing people but they follow the engagement rules and kill only when there is a purpose to it. -
Originally posted by rooki:
http://www.heritage.org/research/nationalsecurity/upload/85083_1.gif
I stand corrected on the 'poorer' part, but you cannot deny that rural people are overrepresented in the army.
i dont see how ur table demostrate u point about rural folks so on and so forth. -
Originally posted by foxtrout8:
Wont u do the same if u are in M'sia? Why risk getting stab if u can settle it with money.In war, it is not about settling with money and thats why we kill and risk getting killed.
Yeah, how many examples can you provide on Singaporeans killing when they're driven to the wall? I won't be surprised if NSmen actually gave money to the enemy in hopes of sparing their lives.
Your conjecture that NSmen will kill when pushed is just that: speculation. When reality shows a much more meek and submissive way of handling things.
-
Originally posted by 16/f/lonely:
I know the answer.But the fact that she spouts so much despite having little knowledge pisses me a little because unlike her, I see the wreck every now and then and seeing it always saddens me.
I knew before any of you did about how the rescue operation was going, and what the SAR teams were expecting to find. So once again, please don't make your silly assumptions.
-
Originally posted by 4Justice:
.
And no, you still don't get it. "Firing your weapon in anger" in common military usage does not refer to firing it in a fit of anger. In a military context, 'to fire in anger' means to shoot for a purpose in war. I wonder who the civilian here really is.
Finally, I don't mean either. I mean the British Cadets. Trust me, My CQB training involves them, as well as ex and current serving British military personnel(including SAS, Royal Marines etc), ex and current serving Territorial Army personal.
Darling, my training has taught me to NEVER do anything in a fit of anger. "to shoot for a purpose in war"? Yeah of course i have a purpose, ITS WAR! Doesnt mean i have to get personal about it. Since you're here bragging about your credentials, i believe you've read about the Marines retaliation strike on Fallujah after 4 blackwater guys were murdered during a convoy operation. THAT is what happens when you get angry. You make emotion-based decisions. And all of us in the military know what a fat lot of good that does.
-
Originally posted by 16/f/lonely:
I know the answer.But the fact that she spouts so much despite having little knowledge pisses me a little because unlike her, I see the wreck every now and then and seeing it always saddens me.
sad indeed. -
Originally posted by rooki:
Yeah, how many examples can you provide on Singaporeans killing when they're driven to the wall? I won't be surprised if NSmen actually gave money to the enemy in hopes of sparing their lives.
Your conjecture that NSmen will kill when pushed is just that: speculation. When reality shows a much more meek and submissive way of handling things.
You make me laugh.
We don't have to fire a shot to prove our point.
Again, drawing back to Pedra Branca, do you honestly think we have a MEEK and SUBMISSIVE presence there.
Hell, even our neighbour up North frequently complain of our AGGRESSIVE way of doing things.
Who's the meek one?
