Possible emergence of Singaporean warrior culture?
-
Platitudes, platitudes.
The fact is that the war in Nepal lasted only two years. Beyond that, the warrior culture was built upon the Gurkhas' service in the British Army, rather than need or prolonged conflict as you claimed. -
why do you think the british army needs to employ gurkhas to begin with?? because they look good?Originally posted by Gedanken:Platitudes, platitudes.
The fact is that the war in Nepal lasted only two years. Beyond that, the warrior culture was built upon the Gurkhas' service in the British Army, rather than need or prolonged conflict as you claimed.
-
of cuz!! Dune's my first FPS game. and it still rules... and yea... fremen roxOriginally posted by SingaporeMacross:hmm. there seem to be quite a few Dune junkies here. -
i have to admit i'm not very well versed with warrior castes throughout history. from what i do know, i can tell that they are actually glorified soldiers that share ONLY the characteristics of a warrior; the discipline, the committment, the loyalty yadayadayada.
however, the agenda for the warrior caste varied from civiliasation to civilisation.
in singapore's context, there is no need for an emergence of a warrior caste. the closest to a warrior caste i feel, are actually the scores of wannabe gangsters parading our streets with outlandish clothes, sporting gleaming weapons fighting over really trivial matters.
i mean u can't really expect the SAF to pave the way for the emergence of a warrior caste don't you? with all due respect to the defenders of our nation, the SAF just does not have what it takes to take that bold stance and produce Samurais, Gurkhas, Knights, etc etc etc. it bows too easily to public opinion and has too much bureacracy within its organisation to effectively emerge as a warrior caste. look at the amount of ppl queuing up at cmpb daily for their medical boards so that they can downgrade and avoid a combat vocation.
after having pointed out the inability of singapore of producing a warrior culture, i would like to pose some questions to all of u guys.
Is there a need for a warrior culture?
Who would be the ones that sets the benchmarks for this emergence?
would that lead to an emergence of a more defined caste system in our society? -
That's supposed to be an answer? Okay, tripwire, if you were trying to convince me that you're a moron, you win.Originally posted by tripwire:why do you think the british army needs to employ gurkhas to begin with?? because they look good?
The gurkhas are warriors, and as such the British Army took them on as mercenaries. What were they before this point? Farmers. How long did they fight before they were seen as more than just farmers, i.e. as warriors? 1 year.
You utter fool. -
I got Gurkha friends from SPF. Want me to ask them?
Btw, anyone who thinks Gurkhas are crude uneducated warriors are also wrong. I find they do display gentlemanly behaviour towards others, putting us Singaporeans to shame too.
And they are educated too. Gurkhas in SPF are not only taking their O levels in Singapore schools, but also well versed in the knowledge of their kind. Talked to one fella who showed me his encyclopaedia, in Nepali. Well ,doesnt also mean have to be educated in English or in Singapore to be considerdd educated. -
Agreed, laurence, but what we are doing here is taking a historical perspective. At the point at which the warrior tradition started, the Gurkhas were a farming community - that was in direct response to tripwire's point.
Obviously, one of the advantages of Gurkhas joining the British Army is that they are given educational and monetary opportunities that would not otherwise be available in Nepal.
There certainly is no doubt that Gurkhas are cultured and intelligent - I have ties with the Nepalese community in Melbourne and they are in fact an impressive people (well, most of them anyway - I've come across some real losers). -
ok... if you can be a farmer for centuries and then suddenly turn around and become a WARRIOR...
i think warrior must be easy to produce in your opinion.
nepalese are also human being... they are not superman...
if nepalese can become warriors from farmers as easily as you put it... then any tom dick and harry in singapore can also become a warrior..
though i seriously doubt the quality of such warriors.... -
Dune is strategy isnt it? Not shooting game? You should read the books.Originally posted by Moonstriker:of cuz!! Dune's my first FPS game. and it still rules... and yea... fremen rox -
Now what are you babbling about? Who said anything about superhuman? Have you taken your medication today?Originally posted by tripwire:ok... if you can be a farmer for centuries and then suddenly turn around and become a WARRIOR...
i think warrior must be easy to produce in your opinion.
nepalese are also human being... they are not superman...
if nepalese can become warriors from farmers as easily as you put it... then any tom dick and harry in singapore can also become a warrior..
though i seriously doubt the quality of such warriors....
You obviously don't know anything. Despite having been a farming culture before the war with the British, the Gurkhas impressed the hell out of the British. They were physically tough, and the hardship of war was not such a big leap from their existing lifestyle - they were primed to become soldiers. They're not the only example. Why don't you go check up accounts of US soldiers in WW2? Some of the best soldiers were woodsmen and hunters who came in directly from civilian life. -
What is a Warrior ?
1. One who is engaged in or experienced in battle.
2. One who is engaged aggressively or energetically in an activity, cause, or conflict: neighborhood warriors fighting against developers.
That being the case, can City Folks endure physical hardship as well as the farmers – or if not better than the farmers ?
I would think that it depends on the training and preparation, which explains the heavy emphasis on IPPT, and more IPPT, and more IPPT – through out one’s entire Life involvement with National Service.
The Nepalese is a hardy race, living in an arid mountainous terrain (which is reputed to be amongst the highest in the World), where the air is thin, and temperatures bone chilling cold during winter, and stifling hot and arid during summer.
Their tradition is developed from a long history of rural hardship, and battling foreign invaders and conquerors.
Theirs is a living history of more then 2000 years, dating back to a period as old as Ancient China and India.
Compared to Singapore, our history began when a Java Prince – from the Majapahit Period - established Temasek; and long before Stamford Raffles ‘discovered’ Singapore in 1819.
With an accurately recorded history that began with our Internal Self-Government in 1952, does this short history prevent us from developing a Warrior Culture ?
We can start by inculcating in each NSF Man
- the Loyalty towards Each Other,
- to have the Courage and Confidence of OneÂ’s Own Training and Equipment
- to have the Confidence in Yourself and in Your Comrade
- to Think and Survive like an Animal, so as to Live for Another DayÂ’s Battle
- to believe in the cause of justice and righteousness – even if one is to be apolitical
The Warrior of the Future Battle will have to be sharp in the Mind, while constantly on the Feet, and must have the Endurance for Long-Term Continuous and Fast Warfare.
This will require the SAF to fight with itself and prevent itself from putting too much flab, and deceiving itself with its own superiority.
The Gurkha
http://www.nato.int/sfor/indexinf/124/p04a/t0104a.htm
Mercenaries of Imperialism
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/leninist-international/1999-June/004045.html -
Read all the posts, gotta agree with gedanken.Originally posted by Gedanken:That's supposed to be an answer? Okay, tripwire, if you were trying to convince me that you're a moron, you win.
The gurkhas are warriors, and as such the British Army took them on as mercenaries. What were they before this point? Farmers. How long did they fight before they were seen as more than just farmers, i.e. as warriors? 1 year.
You utter fool.
Lets assume we talk about warriors in the traditional military sense, that is all things related to taking up arms, tough character and so on.
Gurkhas need not to be ever in wars to become warriors before they were employed in the British Army. The fact they are a farming community makes them even fit for training in the British Army.
Look at farming communities, what are the behaviours and job scopes of farmers in the padi fields? They woke up before dawn and retire late at night. They worked on various tasks even before they reach the padi fields, getting ready, breakfast, sharpen tools, feed the animals, clean them etc etc, then they proceed to the fields or animal farms or pastures. They plant seedlings, feed and check the animals for sickness, shepherding them from pastures to pastures, collecting manure, all kinds of jobs we Singaporeans find disgusting today. Under all kinds of conditions, hot weather, rainy seasons, snow, under all kinds of terrain, mountainous, rocky, flats..etc etc
Actually because of the really tough demands and conitions of the jobs, plus handling various farming tools, makes them tougher and more dexterous. So this tough character becomes innate, and they become physically and mentally strong.
Lets not forget to compare them with the British, Indians and Chinese at that time. The British were riding on waves of the Industrial Revolution, Indians and Chinese had already progress to empires and states with much more advanced technology than the Gurkhas, (however weak they are compared to the British). In a sense, all three civilisations progress to focus,in various degrees, more on industrialisations (meaning more mechanisations, and lessen work on mind and physical strength) and trading ( diverting large part of produce towards sales, and also manpower to handle the trading). The British actually have no army to begin with, largely depending on mercernaries, local and foreign. Why so? Actually can write an essay on this. The British Parliament in the 1700s did pass a law, which implicitly allow the army and navy to kidnap their own subjects for 'service for His Majesty'. I will post this in another thread. not forgetting the Britsh Army is the youngest service arm in the British armed Forces. How come?
Not only the tough demands of the job, the community as whole. Those kinds of environment would have make the Gurkhas more tight knit. More than ever they depend on each other. Warding off other creature which would make raids on their farms, community festivals, sounding the alarms when there are intruders...
Why not the British also recruit Chinese or Indian soldiers? Obviously they saw in Gurkhas what they cannot see in themselves or the Chinese and Indians. Its the tough physical character and mental strength they see in them. If what gedanken said on the history of the Gurkhas is correct, then obviously the tenacity of the Gurkhas were due to what they did on the farms. I could gather any Tom Dick or Harry and train him with skills, but whats the point if their attitude is bad? Think the British is so good with motivating, leadership and all the crap we learn today? They demand instant success, not some ra ra brainwashing. The British army at that time merely just have to train them in the arts of warfare, and voila, you get one of the most respected race in the world.
The Chinese and Indians have centuries of warfare, yet today they are not a warring culture. Why? India fought with the Greeks since Alexander the Great, and we Chinese have fought from Shang to Qing period. Does this few centuries of warfare prove anything? Worse, we have civil wars since time immemorable. Merely having handled weapons and sticking tabs on maps before doesnt makes one a warrior. More than ever, the Chinese and Indians were also great farming communities, but at the same time, focusing on expanding empires, wrought new knowledge, trade (the Silk Road).
Its very hard to equate attitude, mentality with experience and skills nowadays. Merely having fought in wars before does not prove ones to be a warrior. -
I think I'd better define a "warrior" culture in the Singapore context.I was not that well-informed before now and I feel I made a mistake as I tend to idolise the warrior types I see such as the israelis,gurkhas and sikhs.
I feel that an israeli model is more applicable in our context.They are a relatively young nation,still older than us but younger than most.For them,to serve in the armed forces,to do their national service is a point of pride,they take it well.They have formed a near-warrior culture in my opinion,but thats because their existence has been under threat for so long.They respect the military profession.
That is the type of feeling I want to inculcate in my Singaporean brethren,to feel pride in serving and to inculcate values of discipline,loyalty,ethics and toughness.I want us to be self-sufficient and to be respected as soldiers on the international stage.I want ppl to take pride in our SAF,to forge a nation of fighters and survivalists,not some whiny complaining overdependent asswipe losers.
of course,those are ideals that are improbable of achievement by a single person.It would take a phase shift in our society to produce a martial culture.either that or a slow evolution.Honestyly,I sometimes feel that Singapore needs a war to shake it out of its stupor.We need a challenge we can rise up to as a nation and unite.I don't want us to be mere soldiers.Being a soldier may be good,but soldiers only follow orders.I want us to be fighters who survive. -
Exactly.Originally posted by Sardaukar:I think I'd better define a "warrior" culture in the Singapore context.I was not that well-informed before now and I feel I made a mistake as I tend to idolise the warrior types I see such as the israelis,gurkhas and sikhs.
I feel that an israeli model is more applicable in our context.They are a relatively young nation,still older than us but younger than most.For them,to serve in the armed forces,to do their national service is a point of pride,they take it well.They have formed a near-warrior culture in my opinion,but thats because their existence has been under threat for so long.They respect the military profession.
That is the type of feeling I want to inculcate in my Singaporean brethren,to feel pride in serving and to inculcate values of discipline,loyalty,ethics and toughness.I want us to be self-sufficient and to be respected as soldiers on the international stage.I want ppl to take pride in our SAF,to forge a nation of fighters and survivalists,not some whiny complaining overdependent asswipe losers.
of course,those are ideals that are improbable of achievement by a single person.It would take a phase shift in our society to produce a martial culture.either that or a slow evolution.Honestyly,I sometimes feel that Singapore needs a war to shake it out of its stupor.We need a challenge we can rise up to as a nation and unite.I don't want us to be mere soldiers.Being a soldier may be good,but soldiers only follow orders.I want us to be fighters who survive. -
i think gedakan has gone bonkers...
-
Nay, we are all apolitical.
-
Oh! Ow! Ya got me, ya rat!Originally posted by tripwire:i think gedakan has gone bonkers...
Little man, you are not qualified to make such a judgement. Fortunately, we do have someone qualified to render professional opinions on one's mental state - me!
If I were to be asked for my professional opinion of you, I would say that based upon your displayed lack of ability to understand simple lines of argument and to learn basic concepts, and also upon your tendency to charge ahead and disreagrd the direction you're pointed in, you've got the intellectual capacity of a bad cross between a fly and a bull. You have all the depth of a puddle, and somewhere, you are depriving a perfectly deserving village of its idiot. -
whatever... thus far all i see is garbage from u...
-
ok ok..stop this guys..
Gedenken pls gentle the tone..dun wish to see you get kick out of this forum..
same to u too tripwire..
we wear green at least once in our life..
so lets just agree to disagree..ok guys? -
Fine, Nathan - I'll stick to the topic if our friend here will. As you can see, I've already addressed the issue at hand here and engaged posters such as laurence who will do a proper job of it. Incidentally, note that tripwire has not backed up his initial argument about the button-pushers being the real warriors of the future, which is, of course, utter bilge. The very presence of troops in Iraq, as a readily available example, is evidence that tripwire's head is in a place where the sun don't shine.
-
i understand..Originally posted by Gedanken:Fine, Nathan - I'll stick to the topic if our friend here will. As you can see, I've already addressed the issue at hand here and engaged posters such as laurence who will do a proper job of it. Incidentally, note that tripwire has not backed up his initial argument about the button-pushers being the real warriors of the future, which is, of course, utter bilge.
just let it be my fren..
its up to him if he wana answer..if not..he will know whether he is right or wrong in his own heart..
righteousness in our heart -
Ehh, you're right, I suppose. No point wasting my time on someone who asks if Gurkhas are going to be farmers if they're not warriors!
-
agreed...
no point argueing with someone who thinks like a farmer...
US troops might be in iraq... but are they warriors like the samurais or knights of the past or merely armed peasants of present day?
its the weapons and technologies that is developed by engineers, biologist as well as computer experts who won the war with fighter planes, tanks, missiles, satellites, biological agents, radio, radar, EW, bombs, CVN, CG, DDG, SSN, SSBN and tons of others stuff that won the war...
iraq didnt lost because they had less soldiers... but technologically they were beaten.
soon... UAVs, UCAV, RAVs and other remote weapons controlled by AI would eventually dominate the battlefield... as human body limits are reached.
you could either look forward and accept the facts or go back to your mountain and dreamed of warriors of the past... -
Ah good, you're finally back on point. True, when you've got advanced technology, the battle can be won more easily with lower cost in friendly casualties. However, you forgot one thing that hasn't changed since men started throwing rocks - at the end of the day, victory comes when you take the enemy's land physically, and no UAV, cruise missile or computer is going to do that. Despite the technological superiority of the US in Gulf Wars Mark 1 and 2, victory wasn't declared until Allied troops actually set foot on Kuwaiti and Iraqi soil respectively. After all is said and done, all your high-tech is just a "gizmo-ised" version of the venerable arty gun and mortar.
You can either start showing some basic understanding of military principles, or you can go back to reading Flash Gordon. -
BTW, there's no "e" in "arguing". Then again, comparing you to a dummy like Dan Quayle would be an insult to him!