Singapore Armed Forces to go to Iraq?!
-
Wa liao, this could be the largest oversea operational deployment in the history of SAF. Since they are so secretive , most probably only regulars are involved , otherwise all the parents will KPKB.
Wonder what heavy assets are we sending over in C130s & LST.
And for the guys going over there , good luck and may God bless you. -
Report from CNA:
Singapore will be sending a C-130 transport aircraft and a Landing Ship Tank to Iraq to provide logistics support to help with its reconstruction.
Defence Minister Teo Chee Hean will send off the contingent next week.
But unlike press reports, there will be no peacekeeping troops sent.
It is understood that Singapore had already sent a police team to Iraq to help train personnel there.
US President George Bush had expressed gratitude for Singapore's contribution towards Iraq's reconstruction.
During his visit to Singapore on Tuesday, Bush commended the Singapore Police for its efforts to help train the Iraqi police. - CNA
CNN report is inaccurate only crew for a C130 and LST to support the foreign troop over there. i.e. only regulars and no peacekeeping troops from SAF. -
Originally posted by gary1910:
ST put that the C-130 and LST will transport and support ground troops leh....
Report from CNA:
[b]Singapore will be sending a C-130 transport aircraft and a Landing Ship Tank to Iraq to provide logistics support to help with its reconstruction.
Defence Minister Teo Chee Hean will send off the contingent next week.
But unlike press reports, there will be no peacekeeping troops sent.
It is understood that Singapore had already sent a police team to Iraq to help train personnel there.
US President George Bush had expressed gratitude for Singapore's contribution towards Iraq's reconstruction.
During his visit to Singapore on Tuesday, Bush commended the Singapore Police for its efforts to help train the Iraqi police. - CNA
CNN report is inaccurate only crew for a C130 and LST to support the foreign troop over there. i.e. only regulars and no peacekeeping troops from SAF.[/b]
Honeslty i do not think we should even be there...not with UN mandate anyway. -
The equipment? Well a good way to test the home made byonics, Broncos LST and upgraded C130 avionics under battle conditions and get feedback from american users of these assets.Originally posted by cavsg:Singapore sending troops to Iraq
SINGAPORE (Reuters) --Singapore will send soldiers, airforce planes and navy ships to Iraq, its first military contribution to the U.S.-led reconstruction, the government said after a visit by U.S. President George W. Bush.
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/southeast/10/21/sprj.nitop.singapore.military.reut/index.html
Then later marketed by unicorn international as "Battle Proven" Platforms for sale to allies.
Then when bush give angpow of contracts worth 87bil per year for building new bridges, roads, highways, sewage systems, homes, telco etc etc etc ... to bring freedom to poor iraqi's
we also got share mah ...
-
Originally posted by gary1910:
By refusing to send our Fully operational NS men into Iraq , we will be giving an open message that those NS trained personnels are nothing but for show.
[b]Wa liao, this could be the largest oversea operational deployment in the history of SAF. Since they are so secretive , most probably only regulars are involved , otherwise all the parents will KPKB.
War is war and military life will be military life. I dun see an acute contrast between the regulars and the NS men , if we aint willing to deploy them .....when are we going to?
No one want his or her son to be under any kind of peril , however are we going to soften a tradition system of military peril jus to please the parents and push responsibilities a side? As far as im concern , the regulars and the NS men have the same responsibilities , if we aint willing to sent them to face action ....forget abt senting them in face of action.. -
True....and the US has sent the National guard...Originally posted by foxtrout8:By refusing to send our Fully operational NS men into Iraq , we will be giving an open message that those NS trained personnels are nothing but for show.
War is war and military life will be military life. I dun see an acute contrast between the regulars and the NS men , if we aint willing to deploy them .....when are we going to?
No one want his or her son to be under any kind of peril , however are we going to soften a tradition system of military peril jus to please the parents and push responsibilities a side? As far as im concern , the regulars and the NS men have the same responsibilities , if we aint willing to sent them to face action ....forget abt senting them in face of action.. -
The reason why they could not send NS men becos they need the NS men to sign on a agreement for oversea operational deployment, the govt has no right or suka suka to send our NSF & NS men to any foreign land into harm way which has nothing to do with the security of SG.Originally posted by foxtrout8:By refusing to send our Fully operational NS men into Iraq , we will be giving an open message that those NS trained personnels are nothing but for show.
War is war and military life will be military life. I dun see an acute contrast between the regulars and the NS men , if we aint willing to deploy them .....when are we going to?
No one want his or her son to be under any kind of peril , however are we going to soften a tradition system of military peril jus to please the parents and push responsibilities a side? As far as im concern , the regulars and the NS men have the same responsibilities , if we aint willing to sent them to face action ....forget abt senting them in face of action..
Our NS services is only liable us to be trained as a soldier, and if war come to shore of SG to protect her. -
foxtrot, one of the most abject lessons the US Army learned in Vietnam was that sending a conscript army to fight in a war that did not directly threaten a country's security was an untenable concept, both politically and militarily, and this drove their restructure into an all-volunteer force in the post-Vietnam era. Because of the US' military commitments across the world, they had no choice but to go with volunteers.
05, the National Guard is not like our national service - they are an all-volunteer force too. Technically speaking, the National Guard has no business taking overseas deployments, because their defined area of operations is US soil (hence the name). -
Forgive me brother. The Mindef did sent a bunch of soldiers consisting of NSmen and Regulars to Timor Leste. They went there , survive it and did us proud. Eventhough situation in Iraq will be alittle bit more drastic than wat we had experienced in Timor , the basic requirement of a soldier to be ready for the call of duty is still expected.Originally posted by gary1910:The reason why they could not send NS men becos they need the NS men to sign on a agreement for oversea operational deployment, the govt has no right or suka suka to send our NSF & NS men to any foreign land into harm way which has nothing to do with the security of SG.
Our NS services is only liable us to be trained as a soldier, and if war come to shore of SG to protect her.
Wat are soldiers for? Soldiers are essiential chess seeds to defend , secure and fulfil a country's interest. If sending troops to Iraq is Singapore's interest ( be it political or wat so ever ) , then isnt it rightful to send in Nsmen together with regulars to that mission?
In my own humble opinion , sending our soldiers to a foreign country to do humanity a favour cant be a 'suka' affair. If we aint ready to bear the pain sending our loved ones to do the righteous cause for national pride, how are we able to cope with the grief when we send our troops to war? If the country do not have the right to send any of her personnel to fulfil her interest , then refering Nsmen as soldiers is really questionable?
Those soldiers going to Iraq will be train with the necessary skill and be equipped with the necessary gadget . Eventhough those equipment aint heaven's mandate for guaranteed survival , it is the furthest SAF can go to ensure that our soldiers go and return back. Keeping our NSmen from the call for action jus to ensure that they are still 'hopping and alive' cant be optimum. -
Dr Goh Keng Swee's preamble when introducing the NS Bill in Parliament in 1967 stated:
"I consider it to be wrong to believe that there is nothing we can or should do about defending ourselves, even though we cannot achieve complete invulnerability by our unaided efforts.".
This, I believe, aptly sums up the intent of introducing national service when the Act was passed in 1967. The act, and by extension NS itself, was introduced with the express purpose of defending Singapore. Note that unlike the Army or People's Defence Force Acts of 1965, this pertains directly to conscription, and I think it is quite clear that conscription was introduced in Singapore with the intent of defence of Singaporean territory, not for overseas deployments. -
Actually you are wrong.The US during Vietnam was a fully volenteer force apart from the National guard.However shortage of troops lead to the US goverment invoking the right of conscription which is honestly still in the US law.All 18 year olds are required to register with the US goverment for conscription.Originally posted by Gedanken:foxtrot, one of the most abject lessons the US Army learned in Vietnam was that sending a conscript army to fight in a war that did not directly threaten a country's security was an untenable concept, both politically and militarily, and this drove their restructure into an all-volunteer force in the post-Vietnam era. Because of the US' military commitments across the world, they had no choice but to go with volunteers.
05, the National Guard is not like our national service - they are an all-volunteer force too. Technically speaking, the National Guard has no business taking overseas deployments, because their defined area of operations is US soil (hence the name).
Oh and yea the National guard is a fully volenteer force who is also the US reserves that can be used in times of War.They were used in the gulf war 1 also.However i have no idea how they can use the National guard since the National guardmen do have jobs......hmm.... -
I am not a lawyer but I did read from news report stated that why the govt need a written agreement from the NS men b4 sending them into operational oversea deployment becos it is the law.
It is also has great political & economical implications.No parents & wifes will agree to have their sons/husbands to far away land to be in a long term deployment(one year or so) & maybe even killed which the conflict has no implication to national security of SG.
The NS men also most probably the breadwinner/caretaker of the family of babies & old folks and maybe also a impt employee to a company which may also disrupt the economy if the deployment is large enough.
Therefore it must be a volunteer basis otherwise it will be politically disastrous for the govt. -
RMA is what?
-
The National Guard eventhough is a part time soldier outfit but they still volunteer for it. The "draft" will never be invoked unless a national security issue like a world war. It will be politically disastrous to have draftees in a war like Vietnam & Iraq again.Originally posted by |-|05|:Actually you are wrong.The US during Vietnam was a fully volenteer force apart from the National guard.However shortage of troops lead to the US goverment invoking the right of conscription which is honestly still in the US law.All 18 year olds are required to register with the US goverment for conscription.
Oh and yea the National guard is a fully volenteer force who is also the US reserves that can be used in times of War.They were used in the gulf war 1 also.However i have no idea how they can use the National guard since the National guardmen do have jobs......hmm.... -
By 1969, 88 percent of American infantry riflemen in Vietnam were conscripts (or in their parlance, draftees)! I don't count that as anything resembling a fully volunteer force. Please check your facts - we're talking about 648,500 men here, not a handful of poor sods.
Also, what's your understanding of the National Guard? First, you say "a fully volenteer force apart from the National guard", and then agree that the NG is voluntary.
If sending conscripts into overseas conflicts does not have huge political ramifications, why did the US congress replace the draft with an all-volunteer force? -
By 1969, 88 percent of American infantry riflemen in Vietnam were conscripts (or in their parlance, draftees)! I don't count that as anything resembling a fully volunteer force. Please check your facts - we're talking about 648,500 men here, not a handful of poor sods.
Also, what's your understanding of the National Guard? First, you say "a fully volenteer force apart from the National guard", and then agree that the NG is voluntary.
In anycase, arguing about proportions of conscripts and volunteers is a red herring here. If sending conscripts into overseas conflicts does not have huge political ramifications, why did the US congress replace the draft with an all-volunteer force? -
By 1969, 88 percent of American infantry riflemen in Vietnam were conscripts (or in their parlance, draftees)! I don't count that as anything resembling a fully volunteer force. Please check your facts - we're talking about 648,500 men here, not a handful of poor sods.
Also, what's your understanding of the National Guard? First, you say "a fully volenteer force apart from the National guard", and then agree that the NG is voluntary.
In anycase, arguing about proportions of conscripts and volunteers is a red herring here. If sending conscripts into overseas conflicts does not have huge political ramifications, why did the US congress replace the draft with an all-volunteer force? -
A latest military trend, it stand for " Revolutions in Military Affairs".Originally posted by SingaporeMacross:RMA is what?
RMA involved in using the latest technology for "Command , Control Communication, Computer processing ,Intelligence, surveillance & Reconnaissance, thus the term C4ISR.
It also use "intergrated logistics support".
Thus RMA means a total network warfare where every units are in system like WAN or LAN with Intelligence from UAV, reccon planes/troops & satellites.Command & control thru the network with total awareness of the whole battle situation and with precision guided weapons or swift troop deployment quickly & effectively destroy the enemy or installation with least resources and greatest effectiveness to bring about victory.
For the generals is like playing game of Command & Conquer but with computer to help to achieve victory. -
Sure! Do you have the link to that thread. Can show me the link.Originally posted by foxtrout8:I will say that all their self-cheering and praising on their experiences are all craps. They practically use it everytime during internet debates as selling points. Do u wanna follow that trend? -
Originally posted by Gedanken:
Yes 88 percent were conscript but at that time the US already move away from the ww1-ww2 mindset of a small home defence like the national guard.They had a fully volunteer armed forces for use outside their country and a national guard.However like all countries in time of war they draft to heavily increase manpower.When needed so the US army wasnt really like Singapore.The closes you can get is Israel,Taiwan,Germany...etc etc Where by they like the US have a fully volunteer regular army but still have a national service soldier who has more much more training then the US conscripts.Anyway this whole point is moot since more often then not the NSF soldier world wide never get sent out.The US conscripts do not count they were given the bare minimum of training.Less then 1 year infact.I think it was something like 3 months or something.
By 1969, [b]88 percent of American infantry riflemen in Vietnam were conscripts (or in their parlance, draftees)! I don't count that as anything resembling a fully volunteer force. Please check your facts.
Also, what's your understanding of the National Guard? First, you say "a fully volenteer force apart from the National guard", and then agree that the NG is voluntary.[/b]
The NG now is fully volunteer force made of of laid off soldiers or some people that like soldiering.They are in fact the US reserve units.So currently they are like a volunteer NS...same training and stuff. -
The National Guard eventhough is a part time soldier outfit but they still volunteer for it. The "draft" will never be invoked unless a national security issue like a world war. It will be politically disastrous to have draftees in a war like Vietnam & Iraq again.
Oh and i think u misunderstand
They used National guard units in Iraq but not draftees.
However i will check if the National guard is different from the Resevres which i said they were.... -
Hmm...apprenetly the National Guards and Army reserves are different.And they play different roles.The army reserves provides support and logistics while the National guard is used to provide extra comabt personal in time of need without drafting or having too big a force like our NSF
But it is volunteer -
No, actually I'll correct myself here. Under normal circumstances, the National Guard is under direction of the state governments. However, in the event of an emergency, the US Federal government can in fact deploy NG units overseas.
Looking back on your previous posts, I may have misinterpreted your argument as your support for sending conscripts into overseas conflicts. I do apologise.
-
nah dun worry i do that tooOriginally posted by Gedanken:No, actually I'll correct myself here. Under normal circumstances, the National Guard is under direction of the state governments. However, in the event of an emergency, the US Federal government can in fact deploy NG units overseas.
Looking back on your previous posts, I may have misinterpreted your argument as your support for sending conscripts into overseas conflicts. I do apologise. 
glad we understand each other