Many of you use the reason
"we're very lucky compared to other countries, hence we shouldn't
complain" ... which I felt was a red herring and doesn't address
the problem.
well... there ARE alot of
countries who are inferior to us... in a war against Malaysia... i
would say we have a 75% chance that we will
win...
What's your point here in reference to my point? Or are you
answering me at all? How did inferior countries in the original
discussion get linked to war?
a shorter NS will result
in fewer experience... experience is a great deal in a real WAR...
imagin a soldier with 5 years of experience handling a gun compared
to one who has onli 1 year...
Similarly, imagine our NSF, with less than 1 month reservice a
year, handle a weapon compared to the enemy who is fulltime. What
does you point prove here?
Where do you draw the line between a competent NS army and an
incompetent NS army?
mabe yes... but nt
full-heartedly... the soldiers of Malayan at that time... were juz
HOLDING out time... they were retreating and retreating... and most
of the operations stop cos they were
betrayed!
A large part of the blunder was made by the officers at the top.
The Yamashita bluff could be stopped.
Secondly, there WERE
singaporeans in the army... but the numbers compared to Malayan
soldiers were much smaller... again... these ppl are usually the
first one to die... cos they were fighting for their country as
well as their loved ones
Actually all soldiers are the same once they're in the battlefield.
You follow orders to fight or defend, regardless whether it's your
homeland you're defending. I've seen heroic actions by the British
troops, to follow orders and not desert the defence until they're
told to do so.
... u think it is very
easy to be trained in jungle warfare?
Actually our infantry troops now not really trained in jungle
warfare. We're just trained to manoveur across a jungle, but the
actual fighting is not in the jungle. And we train in forest .. not
jungle.
professionally somemore
within the period of less than 21/2 years? maybe it is possible...
but wat bout other aspects?
Depends on what other aspects. The length of service is debatable.
And don't commit the fallacy of equivocation here. The
'professionally' here refers to the regulars, not the NSFs.
if China attack us...
seriously i will give us a 50% chance of winning... u look down on
our military too much... our military are much better compared to
China...
Depends on the scenario. China will need carrier support to attack
us. And where do they stage the invasion from? But if you're
comparing on the basis of military (you said we're much better),
then of course China will win.
y do they attck Iraq even
though United Nations ask them nt to? cos of the
resources...
This is your view. The argument goes deeper than this, let's not
make any hasty generalization. Iraq is not exactly North
Korea.
let's faced it... if
there is a threat of war... US citizens will be out of this counrty
before u even realise it...
The interests refer not only to the lives of US citizens, but their
investments, companies etc. And we're ally with US in many other
aspects, so our relations are better than you think.
u juz said tat u wan the
training period to be shorter... more n jungle warfare... u think
there is sufficient time to train the soldiers to equip other
things? i find ur view more laughable...
All the while, I separate the regulars (aka professional military)
from the NSFs. Which one you referring to now?
y is being attacked by US
condemned? let's faced it... nt all the countries are for
US
Why is attacked by US without any tangible reason not condemned?
Unless you're saying we're suspected of sponsoring terrorism,
building nuclear weapons etc. But this is all speculation, let's
not carry it too far.
