Originally posted by kenhor:
There are many supporters of Singapore's arms procurements of
various weaponary to "defend" our city-state against our enemies.
The proponents of this doctrine always imagine a future war in
which we are needing the best equipment in order to beat an
enemy.
of course we need the best equipment to win! u expect to fight
tanks and aeroplanes with sticks and stones?
Some even see hidden reasons why Optus was purchased at the
costs of some 9 billion of taxpayers money.
nay... i think it was a clear case of SingTel not doing its
homework and overly eager to make a purchase after losing other
bids. it shows the lack of transparency in GLCs and u can say the
same about all of them... not just singtel: Bloated, inefficient,
opaque.
My stance is this. Its all going towards feeding a white elephant.
We are now fighting for our economic survival in the age of
globalization. Its my personal opinion that our military spending
has exceeded what is needed to defend this land (and also to occupy
a security border) What we have is gearing towards an all out
invasion of certain countries.
you fail to see that u cannot have a 50% commitment towards
defence! its a zero sum game. u either are prepared or u are NOT...
there is no half-half... and u fail to see that economic survival
depends partially on the Nation preserving its sovereignty and
security in such trying times.
its not a white elephant. u feed it fully expecting it to work when
u need it to... its not for nothing.
and how do u defend this land? we have no strategic depth! we need
to project. by the time our enemies land on our shores, we would
have lost the war. there is no such thing as a "defensive" posture
in this case.
Hence, to feed the military - industrial complex, we have
sacrificed too much of our treasure and resources. We diverted
funds away from development of Singaporean youth in order to
satisfy our war-mongering nature.
the youths do just fine, for your information and we spend so
much to prevent war, not because we desire to fight it.
We should use Japan as an example. We all know that Japan's no 1
enemy will be China. Yet Japan does not spend on troops and stuff
capable of invading China. They spend enough to make sure that the
taking over of Japan will be damn costly.
that is the most misleading crap i have heard! the japanese are
BANNED from having an armed forces in the immediate aftermath of
1945 and it is still banned from sending its troops overseas
(although its trying to change that) and they won't invade china
because they've tried it once and bled to death as a result. Its
too damn BIG...
the americans protect them so nobody screws with them (except US
and themselves...) and they SPEND like crazy when it comes to
defence... they just don't talk about it because its even more
sensitive there than it is here... memories of 1937 are still
fresh...
Similar for us. We already proved that taking over Singapore will
be more costly than any of our potential enemies can take. Our
adversary has also proved that if we want to take over his land, it
will be very costly. Yet we pile in more money in order to try and
achieve that very unreachable scenario. I been reading the posts.
Many believe that with more purchases of equipment, we can actually
beat their entire army and march right up to their capital with our
tanks, planes etc. That is not a "defensive strategy".
we keep telling u, its not defensive, it never was and it never
will be. forward defence capabilities are offensive in nature and
that is the deterrent we try to have... having permanent defensive
positions around the island will cost more and will not work! just
ask the French. they tried it twice and failed.
We have since lost our economic and social edge over that same
competitor. While our standard of living was the tops in the 70s,
80s and 90s, our people suffer. We lack cars. We lack local outlets
for artistic and sports recreation. We import foreigners rather
than pay the price (in time and money) to develop our local
talents.
these are problems, i agree, but they are NOT due to defence
spendings... we shouldn't try to force linkages where none
exists... "lacking cars" just shows what a facetious, shallow
person u are, measuring success according to material
benchmarks.
the arts and sports have suffered because of our economic
success... over-emphasis on making money that the arts and sports
are not seen to be worthy of undertaking.
and u can't keep the foreign talents out anyway... they were bound
to come in... globalisation does that. u'ld rather have them inside
pissing out than outside pissing in. there is no such thing as
"our" talents or "their" talents... its all for sale. its who the
talents are working for that matters.