Tour of Duty for Regulars in Afghanistan/ Iraq
-
DPM visits SAF Afghan troopsBy Reico WongNov 9, 2009
During the visit, Mr Teo, who is also Minister for Defence, met the 17-man SAF Weapon Locating Radar (WLR) team at their operating base in Tarin Kowt, the provincial capital of Oruzgan. -- PHOTO: MINDEFDEPUTY Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean visited Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) troops deployed in Afghanistan last week to get a first-hand feel of their operations in Oruzgan and Bamiyan province.
He was accompanied by Chief of Army Major-General Neo Kian Hong and other senior SAF officers, said a statement from the Ministry of Defence on Monday.
During the visit, Mr Teo, who is also Minister for Defence, met the 17-man SAF Weapon Locating Radar (WLR) team at their operating base in Tarin Kowt, the provincial capital of Oruzgan. He interacted with the SAF troops, who shared their operational experiences during the two months they had been there.
Speaking to the WLR team, Mr Teo stressed the important role that they were playing in Afghanistan and Singapore's overall contributions to international security operations.
'I can see the tough and challenging conditions you operate under many miles from home. The SAF's deployments to Oruzgan and Bamiyan are important for the people of Afghanistan and are a part of Singapore' s overall contribution to international security operations,' he told the SAF team. 'I have full confidence that you will continue to do Singapore and the SAF proud in carrying out your duties vigilantly and professionally.'
While in Tarin Kowt, Mr Teo also visited the field hospital, where a 20-man SAF medical team was deployed from November 2008 to May this year to provide emergency and trauma care and primary healthcare, as well as the Winter Deployment Team (WDT) in Bamiyan led by Lieutenant-Colonel Andrew Chan.
The SAF has made deployments to Afghanistan since 2007 as part of Singapore's contributions to multinational stabilisation and reconstruction efforts there.
http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_452096.html
-
Some countries have already made plans to withdraw from Afghanistan:
Preparation for Canada troops withdrawal from Afghanistan underway
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-11/07/content_12402615.htm
NATO chief accepts Netherlands' planned withdrawal from S Afghanistan
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-03/30/content_11102107.htm
By the way, why the fuck is SAF in Afghanistan, risking their lives for USA's political games and why was there no debate about this in the state media?
-
Because we benefit from contributing to HADR and peacekeeping operations in a coalition setting.
What we can learn from overseas deployments outweigh mere exercises.
Secondly, effective defence diplomacy is a concept that small nations take seriously. These take the form of many things, some, like our contribution to ISAF and CTF 151, show that we are a responsible nation that can contribute in our small way to global stability within this ambit.
Those forces that you have mentioned are engaged in offensive combat operations. The Canadians and the Dutch have gone on insurgent hunts and QRF missions unlike our forces, who have been there serving in medical and base protection capability.
IMHO, Singaporean deployments serve our national interest, not American interests.We're not there kicking down doors of the Taliban.
-
Singapore go and send troops to take part in USA's imperialist wars will just make Singapore a target for groups that are against USA.
Current ISAF contributors in dark green, potential future contributors in light green, and former contributors in blue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Security_Assistance_Force
No other country in south east asia or east asia is taking part in this imperialist war.
I find it disgusting that Singapore is contributing to this fucking USA imperialist war.
PAP govt, Lee Kuan Yew, I know you are western dog, but don't risk our troops lives serving USA's imperialist agenda, bring the troops home now.
-
....
-
If SAF dun send troops for peacekeeping, public will think that SAF is not ready for operations...
When SAF send tropps for operations, publick will think that SAF is risking lives for USA's imperialist sake.
-
What we can learn from overseas deployments outweigh mere exercises.
Risk lives in stupid USA imperialist wars?
I completely oppose. Our SAF troops are not pawns in USA's bullshit political games.
That is a disgrace.
Take part in imperialist war. NO.
The Canadians and the Dutch have gone on insurgent hunts and QRF missions unlike our forces, who have been there serving in medical and base protection capability.
I oppose SAF troops serving overseas in USA's imperialist war and being used as pawns.
IMHO, Singaporean deployments serve our national interest, not American interests.We're not there kicking down doors of the Taliban.
This is not issue about interests.
The issue is about SAF troops risking their lives serving in a USA fucking imperialist war in their political games with Russia, China and others.
-
Originally posted by Singmarine:
If SAF dun send troops for peacekeeping, public will think that SAF is not ready for operations...
This is NOT peacekeeping.
This is war.
public will think that SAF is not ready for operations...
I don't think like that.
Who the fuck thinks like that?
Anyway the troops are not in combat also, so the reason given is also useless.
-
The Geopolitics behind the phoney US war in Afghanistan
http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/Geopolitics
A War for Empire—Not a “Good War” Gone Bad
http://revcom.us/a/145/afghanistan-en.html
USA's war in Afghanistan is a dirty war, serving dirty interests.
I oppose SAF troops risking their lives in Afghanistan for USA's dirty agendas.
PAP Govt -
Bring our SAF troops home NOW.
-
if the troops deployed are voluntary, and they don't want to spend a whole career doing drills, why not?
-
Originally posted by sir_peanuts:
if the troops deployed are voluntary, and they don't want to spend a whole career doing drills, why not?
Because it is wrong to take part in a dirty war serving dirty interests.
Are our troops there volunteers?
-
Yes, they are volunteers.
If you wish to debate the political aspects of our foreign policy, do so in Speakers' Corner forum.
Thanks.
-
Originally posted by LazerLordz:
Yes, they are volunteers.
The entire SAF mission was wrong in the first place.
If you wish to debate the political aspects of our foreign policy, do so in Speakers' Corner forum.
Thanks.
Actually I started this thread in speakers' corner and it was moved here.
-
A chance for our regulars to get some real military actions and justify their rising salaries.
-
Originally posted by ahtansh:
A chance for our regulars to get some real military actions and justify their rising salaries.
Would you take part in a bank robbery as the van driver in order to hone your driving skills?
-
justify their rising salaries.
At the risk of their lives?
They are not mercenary troops like Gurkhas.
-
why are you so against the US war?
i'm not a US citizen yet but I support the American war in Afghan and Iraq. Do you know what kind of lives the Iraqis lived before the US went there?? They were living under the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, denied basic amenities like food, drinkable water, basic medical care and human rights. Many were tortured and killed by him during interrogations of suspected insurgencies. His favourite methods are many, including plucking out the fingernails of the people with pliers and implementing electric shocks onto his victims' genitals. He also had a penchant for raping women civilians. Pls go read up about the world before you croak so much like a self righteous toad.
The goals of the US war include overturning the Hussein's regime and setting up a democratic government for Iraq, in which members are wholly elected by the people of Iraq. Same goes for Afghan.
Hussein was eventually arrested by US troops in the invasion and charged, trialed and executed by the Iraqi Special Tribunal, and not the US government.
SAF has always sent its soldiers on overseas missions, but they only send the regulars so that the precious NSF boys won't risk their lives in dangerous places so don't worry. BG Tan Chuan Jin went to Aceh and COA Neo Kian Hong was deployed to East Timor.
Our top soldiers are also sent to US army training in the various Forts (their army bases are called Fort something) in the US during the start of their career (pre LTC). their first one occur as soon as during university vacation attachment and after they graduate from university, they go for a longer one that is a full officer's course. Its first to Harvard, then to Fort Benning.
Their CSC (command and staff college) is done in actually professional military institutes like Sandhurst, rather than half-bake SAFTI where the farmers go so please don't go crapping again that our scholar-officers are soft, only good bureacrats or paper generals. They just happen to be everything you lot are not.
-
Originally posted by insidestory:
why are you so against the US war?
i'm not a US citizen yet but I support the American war in Afghan and Iraq. Do you know what kind of lives the Iraqis lived before the US went there?? They were living under the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, denied basic amenities like food, drinkable water, basic medical care and human rights. Many were tortured and killed by him during interrogations of suspected insurgencies. His favourite methods are many, including plucking out the fingernails of the people with pliers and implementing electric shocks onto his victims' genitals. He also had a penchant for raping women civilians. Pls go read up about the world before you croak so much like a self righteous toad.
The goals of the US war include overturning the Hussein's regime and setting up a democratic government for Iraq, in which members are wholly elected by the people of Iraq. Same goes for Afghan.
Hussein was eventually arrested by US troops in the invasion and charged, trialed and executed by the Iraqi Special Tribunal, and not the US government.
SAF has always sent its soldiers on overseas missions, but they only send the regulars so that the precious NSF boys won't risk their lives in dangerous places so don't worry. BG Tan Chuan Jin went to Aceh and COA Neo Kian Hong was deployed to East Timor.
Our top soldiers are also sent to US army training in the various Forts (their army bases are called Fort something) in the US during the start of their career (pre LTC). their first one occur as soon as during university vacation attachment and after they graduate from university, they go for a longer one that is a full officer's course. Its first to Harvard, then to Fort Benning.
Their CSC (command and staff college) is done in actually professional military institutes like Sandhurst, rather than half-bake SAFTI where the farmers go so please don't go crapping again that our scholar-officers are soft, only good bureacrats or paper generals. They just happen to be everything you lot are not.
Looks like you don't know much about foreign politics.
-
No matter what motives you believe the Americans have, I assure you that the Iraqis who arent killed in the war are happier now than before the war. That's cos for those who survived, they actually can look forward to having democracy now.
-
Originally posted by insidestory:
No matter what motives you believe the Americans have, I assure you that the Iraqis who arent killed in the war are happier now than before the war.
Then why Iraqi journalist threw shoe at Bush?
-
Originally posted by angel3070:
Then why Iraqi journalist threw shoe at Bush?
You may or may not appreciate the irony of it, but he had the freedom of action to actually throw a shoe, and not be executed instantly.
The methods of bringing about societal change may be debatable, but it's really untenable to deny that Iraqi society has enjoyed greater freedom and personal autonomy compared to the Saddam era.
In any case, you are off topic.The unhappiness with American-led occupation is not a monolithic issue, you must understand the complex sectarian background of Iraqi society to really be able to comment on the degree of happiness and unhappiness existing side by side.
-
Originally posted by angel3070:
Looks like you don't know much about foreign politics.
And you are a SME on Middle Eastern politics?
-
Originally posted by LazerLordz:
In any case, you are off topic.The unhappiness with American-led occupation is not a monolithic issue, you must understand the complex sectarian background of Iraqi society to really be able to comment on the degree of happiness and unhappiness existing side by side.
Whatever it is, the point remains the same.
All these wars, Afghanstan, Iraq are imperialist wars, fought for the U.S agenda of securing global hegemony.
They are dirty wars fought for dirty interests and agendas.
SAF shouldn't be a part of it.
Wolfowitz: Iraq war was about oil
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/aboutoil.htm
Buried in the debate leading to the US bombing and occupation of Iraq in March 2003 was a lawsuit under the US Freedom of Information Act brought by Sierra Club and Judicial Watch, initially to find data on Cheney`s role in the California energy crisis. The suit demanded that Vice President Cheney make public all documents and records of meetings related to his 2001 Energy Task Force project.
The US Commerce Department in summer 2003 ultimately released part of the documents, over ferocious Cheney and White House opposition. Amid the files of the domestic US energy review was, curiously enough, a detailed map of Iraqi oilfields, pipelines, refineries and terminals, as well as two charts detailing Iraqi oil and gas projects, and ‘Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts.’ The ‘foreign suitors’ included Russia, China and France, three UN Security Council members who openly opposed granting the US UN approval for invading Iraq.
http://engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/Geopolitics___Eurasia/Russian_Giant/russian_giant.html
January 30, 2001: First National Security Council Meeting Focuses on Iraq and Israel, Not Terrorism
sEL('1626004942-57427','57427')Regime Change Intended from the Outset - US Secretary of the Treasury Paul O’Neill, later recalls: “From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go.… From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime. Day one, these things were laid and sealed.” O’Neill will say officials never questioned the logic behind this policy. No one ever asked, “Why Saddam?” and “Why now?” Instead, the issue that needed to be resolved was how this could be accomplished. “It was all about finding a way to do it,” O’Neill will explain. “That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this.’”
-
"Seven countries in five years"
Wesley Clark's new memoir casts more light on the Bush administration's secret strategies for regime change in Iran and elsewhere.
In "A Time to Lead: For Duty, Honor and Country," published by Palgrave Macmillan last month, the former four-star general recalls two visits to the Pentagon following the terrorist attacks of September 2001. On the first visit, less than two weeks after Sept. 11, he writes, a "senior general" told him, "We're going to attack Iraq. The decision has basically been made."
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/27683
I don't want to get into too much details, otherwise the post will be too long.
But these wars are dirty wars instigated by USA to serve their goal of securing global dominance.
That is completely clear.
The evidence is conclusive.
PRESIDENT OF RUSSIA DMITRY MEDVEDEV:
I think that the origins of the current situation can be found in the events that took place seven years ago. It was then that the world missed its historic chance, the chance to de-ideologize international politics and create a genuinely democratic world order. It let slip this chance because of the United States’ desire to consolidate its global rule...
http://eng.kremlin.ru/text/speeches/2008/10
For the faction that controls the Pentagon, the military industry and the oil industry, the Cold War never ended. It went on 'below the radar' creating a global network of bases and conflicts to advance their long-term goal of Full Spectrum Dominance, the total control of the planet: land, sea, air, space, outer space and cyberspace.Their methods included control of propaganda, use of NGOs for regime change, Color Revolutions to advance NATO east, and a vast array of psychological and economic warfare techniques, a Revolution in Military Affairs as they termed it.The events of September 11, 2001 would allow an American President to declare a war on an enemy who was everywhere and nowhere, who justified a Patriot Act that destroyed that very freedom in the name of the new worldwide War on Terror. This book gives a disturbing look at that strategy of Full Spectrum Dominance. -
Official US Air Force Document Reveals the True Intentions Behind the US-Colombia Military Agreement
An official document from the Department of the US Air Force reveals that the military base in Palanquero, Colombia will provide the Pentagon with “…an opportunity for conducting full spectrum operations throughout South America…”
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/4917
U.S. Strategy Plan Calls for Insuring No Rivals Develop
Pentagon’s Document Outlines Ways to Thwart Challenges to Primacy of Americahttp://work.colum.edu/~amiller/wolfowitz1992.htm
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nukevault/ebb245/index.htm
http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2003-02
Dick Cheney's song of America: Drafting a plan for global dominance