Spend less on Defence?
-
ok un is just an exclusive club of people . . .and as in all clubs, it is always the case of self interest over the club's interest. Like in your cca, people also pon ten club meeting cos they have to pak tor or watch movies or simply go to sleep. It is the same as UN. So unless the UN creates their own private army, it is really powerless to do anything at all.Originally posted by Blockhead:International law is seriously not as solid as some people may think. Fact of the matter is, there is no real enforcement. Sometimes, 'responsibility' can be a very flexible word, and so is 'obligation'. -
It is every individual's right to do something they want , and anything they don't want to , its just a matter of choice.Originally posted by aerozapper:Iveco, with respect to JWs, I understand where you're coming from, I was trying to point out that "Holocaust" was too strong a word as while it may be regarded as discrimination, the policy definitely does not require us to KILL them. The use of Holocaust is also inaccurate because in the years before WWII, the JW organisation actually SUPPORTED the Nazis discrimination against the Jews until the Nazis turned around and outlawed the JW as well.
Also, as for the part about Singapore discriminating against JWs, it should be noted that countries such as Canada, France, Greece and even the United States have on previous occasions also discriminated against this group. This is because the group is seen as a radical sect, even within main stream Christianity.
The reason they don't serve military service is because they believe in being "politically neutral".
They refuse to salute the national flag (or say the pledge), refuse participate in military service and refuse to vote. Their refusal to show allegiance to Singapore means that serving in Civil Defence or other uniformed organisations is out of the question too.
Part of their religion also deems blood transfusion to be unholy so they don't donate blood and even if some JW kid is bleeding on the surgeon's table, he can't accept blood.
I'm pointing out the facts, can you really say that our government is doing something that is wrong? I've debated it in my head repeatedly, while I don't really like the idea of imprisoning them, I don't see how a small country like us can accomodate a big group of them if they were allowed to spread. Are there any good alternatives to suppressing the group? What are they?
Not trying to defend the JW , but what makes you think the citizens are the property of the state from the moment they are borned
-
less on defense...yar right
how the hell do you think singapore can still be a country, malaysia would have invaded us right now if we dun show off our tanks last time...also, if you want to avoid war by begin neutral, you will be like begging others to have mercy on you...and other country dun care if you are neutral or not? die lar! -
everything is about money. without money UN is nothing.
there will never be disarmament on a worldwide scale.
imagine how much business will be lost. -
Did you take history? , Malaysia is not that stupid , they are smart enough to know that under the same thing as with what happened to Iraq about roughly the same if they try anything stupid. .Originally posted by ray243:less on defense...yar right how the hell do you think singapore can still be a country, malaysia would have invaded us right now if we dun show off our tanks last time...also, if you want to avoid war by begin neutral, you will be like begging others to have mercy on you...and other country dun care if you are neutral or not? die lar!
That means fate of SG = KW , Iraq = M'sia..
Saddam is humiliated in public..caught with his pants down..literally on newspaper , in such a dilapidated state . Would any Malaysian leader risk it?
I doubt so.
Therefore , i conclude that Malaysia still wouldn't have invaded us. -
You forgot one thing, would the United States have a vested interest in running Malaysia?Originally posted by SMAPLionHeart:Did you take history? , Malaysia is not that stupid , they are smart enough to know that under the same thing as with what happened to Iraq about roughly the same if they try anything stupid. .
That means fate of SG = KW , Iraq = M'sia..
Saddam is humiliated in public..caught with his pants down..literally on newspaper , in such a dilapidated state . Would any Malaysian leader risk it?
I doubt so.
Therefore , i conclude that Malaysia still wouldn't have invaded us.
-
control of palm oil maybe no...but control of the malacca straits...yes!
-
As long as got a excuse to attack , you think they don't want?Originally posted by LazerLordz:You forgot one thing, would the United States have a vested interest in running Malaysia?
Even Afghanistan , they also want... -
So by your arguments, we should all bank our defence on a foreign power, just like we did the British before the Japs overran us?Originally posted by SMAPLionHeart:As long as got a excuse to attack , you think they don't want?
Even Afghanistan , they also want... -
The Japs were dumb enough .Originally posted by Obersturmfuhrer:So by your arguments, we should all bank our defence on a foreign power, just like we did the British before the Japs overran us?
Look at them..shitting inside their pants because of a potential invasion from China.
Im just trying to argue that , if someone is smart enough to be an aggressor, he should also be smart enough to forsee the consequences..
Look at those former military aggressors (other then USA/Israel)
Iraq (1990)
Japan (1942)
Argentina (1982)
They are suffering, directly or indirectly as a result of the war they have caused , Japanese products have taken a beating in China..Argentina's economy has a taken a slump , Iraq has so many UN sanctions against it..
As for reunification with SG ,Mahathir also knows , the racial balance in Malaysia will be tipped over if another SG joins..Not trying to do racial stereotypes , but i can tell you most of the intellectuals and scholars are of another race other then bumiputras and they will control the economy as well.
In conclusion , reunification or invasion is almost impossible. -
Somehow as a NSman, I always wonder how effective is our training. But I guess it's such compliments from outsiders(see below) that we know that we're donig fine.Originally posted by CenturionMBT:And indonesia have a 700 000 strong army. Even if they are 1/2 trained as you claimed they are, if they decide to do a major human wave some how, you want some 1/2 trained 1/2 farked singapore ns men to defend the shores?
As for our defence budget, some ways to save:
1. Buy less NGF, 10 should be enough and wait for F35. After all, we have 60 F16.
2. Consolidate overseas training bases. MINDEF made the right choice to close down one of the F16 training detachment in US.
3. Call NSmen more often within the 1st five years of ORD. usually, our pay are lower during the 1st few years of our career & we are physically more fit.
4. New equipment are usually better. So, we need not buy so many. EG. Bionix, we don't have to replace one Bionix for one M113. Same for our new tanks.
Monday, June 20, 2005. 1:00pm (AEST)
OZ Defence Dept outlines benefits in Singapore defence training
[http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200506/s1396010.htm]
Australia's Defence Department says training in Australia by Singapore's Armed Forces offers important benefits to Australia and the region.
The department was giving evidence to a parliamentary hearing on a five-year extension of Singapore's right to conduct military exercises in the Shoalwater Bay Training Area near Rockhampton in central Queensland.
The proposed treaty allows Singapore to deploy up to 6,600 troops for a maximum of 45 days a year.
A deputy secretary of the Defence Department, Shane Carmody, says Singapore uses sophisticated technology and is a high quality exercise partner for Australia.
"With inadequate training areas in Singapore, the use of the Shoalwater Bay Training Area allows the Singaporean Armed Forces to hone their military skills and maintain their technologically advanced capability," he said.
"This technology benefits Australia by making Singapore a more effective coalition partner - for example in the five-power defence arrangements - and [as] a contributor to regional security."
Mr Carmody says Australia does not have the same defence training links elsewhere in South-East Asia.
He says not many others in the Association of South-East Asian Nations could offer the same level of sophisticated military technology as Singapore.
"Within the agreement, over 6,000 troops can be deployed," he said.
"It is a very high-end exercise and so we have not considered inviting anyone else, mainly because I think, there's no-one else that is operating quite at that level and this relationship does provide us the opportunity to do something special for Singapore."
© 2005 Australian Broadcasting Corporation
Copyright information: http://abc.net.au/common/copyrigh.htm
Privacy information: http://abc.net.au/privacy.htm -
Meaning what? I don't quite get this point.Originally posted by 84mmrr:4. New equipment are usually better. So, we need not buy so many. EG. Bionix, we don't have to replace one Bionix for one M113. Same for our new tanks.
-
With better and more powerful tanks & APCs, we can have lesser of them, ie lesser armour units.Originally posted by iveco:Meaning what? I don't quite get this point. -
Ah, that's better.Originally posted by 84mmrr:With better and more powerful tanks & APCs, we can have lesser of them, ie lesser armour units.
-
While buying 10 NGF might be good enough it might not be the most efficient.
Things such as training costs,operating costs buying of spares and stuff there might be a baseline cost which maybe the same as for 25 planes?Which means buying 10 would put efficiency at a mere 40%?That might have played a factor in how many we bought.Plus the fact that at anyone time up to 2 or 3 planes might be not operational and if u had to keep 4 in the air......well it'd be cutting things close. And we would end up renting planes for trainings which might add to the cost. -
i believe that to "lock-up" ppl who are jehovah witnesses is due to the fact that its against the law to not serve national service. if they dun have to be locked- up, everyone can say that they are jehovah witnesses n not have to serve national service.Originally posted by iveco:Aerozapper: I get your drift on both the issue of disarmament and JWs. However, if you consider North Korea, the citizens are dying of starvation while millions of dollars are invested in nuclear weapons. The money could have been better spent getting food for the people. South of the border, conscription is practiced. However, Seoul makes provisions for conscientious objectors and that includes JWs. In Singapore, the JW community is treated like common crooks even though they have done no wrongs. It seems a little like discrimination to me.
Blockhead: Any member of the UN must be aware of its responsibilities. If it decides to flout rules and do things its own way, it is not being very responsible.
*disclaimer: i do not noe a lot of this topic, but heard a bit about ns stuff n jehovah witnesses n thus, pieced up the above based on what i understand from previous conversation with frenz..
if i say anything wrong, dun bombard me >.<* -
*makes a mental note.. this is wat JW's about..*Originally posted by aerozapper:Iveco, with respect to JWs, I understand where you're coming from, I was trying to point out that "Holocaust" was too strong a word as while it may be regarded as discrimination, the policy definitely does not require us to KILL them. The use of Holocaust is also inaccurate because in the years before WWII, the JW organisation actually SUPPORTED the Nazis discrimination against the Jews until the Nazis turned around and outlawed the JW as well.
Also, as for the part about Singapore discriminating against JWs, it should be noted that countries such as Canada, France, Greece and even the United States have on previous occasions also discriminated against this group. This is because the group is seen as a radical sect, even within main stream Christianity.
The reason they don't serve military service is because they believe in being "politically neutral".
They refuse to salute the national flag (or say the pledge), refuse participate in military service and refuse to vote. Their refusal to show allegiance to Singapore means that serving in Civil Defence or other uniformed organisations is out of the question too.
Part of their religion also deems blood transfusion to be unholy so they don't donate blood and even if some JW kid is bleeding on the surgeon's table, he can't accept blood.
I'm pointing out the facts, can you really say that our government is doing something that is wrong? I've debated it in my head repeatedly, while I don't really like the idea of imprisoning them, I don't see how a small country like us can accomodate a big group of them if they were allowed to spread. Are there any good alternatives to suppressing the group? What are they?