What's more amusing is that while our government sees the rising voice on the internet as a force to be reckoned with, and is taking steps to adress it, DeerHunter is apparently contradicting them by saying that those on the internet are just a minority that no one really needs to pay heed to.

Note that our 2006 elections were also called an "internet election", when the internet played a very large role in it.

How DeerHunter can miss all this out is very strange for someone who claims to see "far", even our "farsighted" government disagrees with him on this one.

Originally posted by january:

To me.. internet is a safe haven for those uncritical people to manifest their thoughts together and band together with likeminded people who brainwashed each other on daily basis.

 

Of course, the question is now.. who are these uncritical people. you or me?

So to you what is a safe haven in Singapore for critical thinking?

Our poorly rated internationally mainstream media?

You're hilarious.

Uncritical thinking exists everywhere, it is the responsibility of the individual to sort it all out.

A good example of UNCRITICAL thinking would be an individual blaming one kind of unregulated media for uncritical thought.

Since you potray yourself to be the paradigm of critical and rational thought, how come I look through your post history and also see basically pseudointellecutal posts and arguments?

Nicholas Rescher, in The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, defines pseudo-philosophy as "deliberations that masquerade as philosophical but are inept, incompetent, deficient in intellectual seriousness, and reflective of an insufficient commitment to the pursuit of truth."

Originally posted by DeerHunter:

\What you see here are only the minority, who will never be satisfied no matter what is possibly done within the limitations of our society, deluding themselves that they are bigger than the whole, if not our society itself.

You consider a mandate of 66.6 percent, a result worse then the elections before it, as well as the near defeat of a GRC an indication that this "minority" is just a few?

I think you're the one who isn't seeing very far unfortunately.

Actually Eagle, there's no need to be so hard on DeerHunter, after all nobody needs to work very hard to expose him, given he exposes himself pretty well.

Originally posted by DeerHunter:

To Fantagf
No thanks. I need not your support nor do i seek to be a public hero. There are plenty enough of them in the ruling party as well as in WP and SDA.

Don't spew your parania of 'shadow of fear' without substantiating it. You are the typical heckler attempting to sow fear and resentment when here when there is no need to. Or have you lost your own balls thus your fear and paronia? If you have no balls, you don't need to make others lose theirs to keep you company!

The last I heard just because you say it ain't so, does not mean it ain't so.

Is there a shadow of fear or not?

The answer is quite obvious.

The question is not if there is, but to what level. You do not need to kill or always imprision people to create fear, there are plenty of other ways that it can be done.

Originally posted by £ Ĭ €ڰ:

Any leader in this world is more capable than BUSH. Do you agree?

Even Menghitsu?

Originally posted by £ Ĭ €ڰ:

Human development is not something which you cant change overnight. it has got alot to do with education and cultural change. Singapore is only 45 years old, hence how can you expect Singapore to be among the top 10 when the first generation of Singaporeans, who are uneducated farmers, fishermen, coolie, hokkien peng, mat-rockers, growing up shitting in holes dug in the ground, are still alive?

 

Would you like to highlight this to everyone in Singapore?

I am sure you'll get a nice response.

Also are you saying that our current bunch of leaders which belong to this generation have outlived their usefulness?

Originally posted by noisylion:

lionnoisy claimed he had not used clones.

But sgforums pple said he did. lionnoisy then made this as a big issue.

ST produced the evidence to prove lionnoisy on that day ,

after posting as makepeace out in front

of sgforumes,putted it back into lionnoisy account and answer himself!!

What a smart plot!!

http://politics.sgforums.com/forums/10/topics/315326

After the exposed,lionnoisy say he hacked to post as makepeace

into his topic.

but why he never notice and talk to himself

Has he been really distracted?Too Tired?Too smart?

u can see the forum very empty. No one seemed disturbing  him.

No body was talking to him when he answered to makepeace

into his topic.We can understand he hacked to post as makepeace

without knowing it if he asked questions why he post as makepeace

and not answer to makepeace like another person!

 

 

Has he really checked his post after sgforum pple told him

that he used clones

How was he really hacked?

Any one can pretend a smart guy to cheat others.

But not the lionnoisy, he dunt can even do basic pretend!!

If you need to self-propel your gun at 12kph then you are in some serious trouble.

Australia leads the way in Submarine development, not STK!

The Future of Submarines Is Down Under

The Collins class submarine replacement is getting a lot of attention. In case you are curious why the topic has suddenly came up in the media, it has little to do with any new movement and everything to do with politicians talking about it. These are the only details that matter on the subject to date.

New Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon has ordered planning to begin on the next generation of submarines to replace the Royal Australian Navy's Collins-class fleet with the aim of gaining "first pass" approval for the design phase from cabinet's National Security Committee in 2011.

The 17-year project will be the largest, longest and most expensive defence acquisition since Federation, potentially costing up to $25 billion.

Everything else is speculation, mostly regarding what the new platform will be, hell we've done a bit of our own. In reality though, if you are looking towards an existing design as a contender for the Collins replacement, you are probably looking in the wrong place.

The Collins class had a tough start, was given a bad reputation, and to this day is one of the least understood weapons of war taxpayers in Australia probably do recognize by name. Perception drives the reality of the media, and in general the media misses the mark today when it talks about the Collins class submarines.

The truth is, the Collins class submarine is one of the best submarines in the world, anywhere. Only Japan and the United States are realistically contenders in a match game debate, it really is that good. Any American submariner who has served on a Seawolf or Virginia class submarine would feel comfortable in a Collins, the same tech exists. In fact, the same strike packages exist, the same mission profiles exist, and in many ways they handle the same roles for their respective services. The only real difference is the propulsion system and the size.

The Collins class may not be nuclear, but it is a fleet submarine. We have recently learned thanks to released documents that if they were allowed, Australian submariners could tell more than a few stories of cold war operations deep into Russian waters in the Pacific, and it is a good bet if they did it with older submarine platforms, they will conduct the same mission profiles with the Collin class, and the Collins class replacement.

There is a lot of speculation regarding what the requirements of the Collins class replacement will be. From my discussions with people who do know, this is all we actually know..., it will not be like anything on the market today outside the US, and when 2011 comes, we will only hear the generic details. We can only count on three specific requirements leading the design focus: Fuel cell technology, high energy requirements, and it will operate as an underwater mothership for both manned and unmanned deployable systems. There is currently nothing in the market that meets those requirements outside of the US, and sense it is unlikely Australia will go nuclear with its submarines, it means there is nothing in the market designed today likely to be the Collins submarine replacement.

Australia will introduce something new, likely to only be influenced by Japanese and American concepts and technologies. Of all the underwater programs under development today, if you are looking for the next 'game changer' in underwater warfare, the Collins class submarine replacement program is the program to keep your eye on.

The Australian navy has six Collins Class submarines, designed by the Swedish company Kockums, and built by the Australian Submarine Corporation at Adelaide between 1989 and 2003. The construction of the Collins class submarines was Australia's largest and most controversial military purchase. The submarine project was subjected to an unprecedented level of media scrutiny and criticism, became highly politicised and on several occasions faced the prospect of being abandoned.

The general public perception of the submarine project is that it was a hugely expensive failure and that the submarines are noisy 'dud subs'. While I am far from being an apologist for the navy, it is amazing how wrong this perception is. The submarines were indeed expensive - all modern weapons are expensive - but the submarine project was one of Australia's few modern military purchases in which the initial budget was still relevant at the end of the project. The submarines were a financial success.

The Collins submarines had technical problems - all new and complex machinery has teething problems - but the general belief that they are 'noisy as a rock concert' is wrong. The reality is that they are probably the second-quietest submarines in the world, with the only quieter ones being the Swedish Gotland class, Kockums' next design after the Collins class. The minor noise problems of the early submarines, as with the other mechanical issues, have long since been solved.

However, the submarines suffered from one major defect which the media and the public never really picked up on. The combat system - that is the computer systems in the submarine used to find enemies and fire torpedoes or missiles at them - has been by far the largest problem for the Collins class submarines. The earlier Oberon class submarines had a largely Australian-built combat system which was one of the best in the world. When our submariners began planning the combat system for the new submarines, they naturally wanted an even better one. However, what they asked for proved to be too hard to build and the combat system never worked properly - in fact it was never finished - and it was abandoned in 2000.

The navy then ran a competition to select the best available combat system already in operation in foreign submarines - a competition won easily by a European electronics company. However, the result was overturned by the coalition government, which insisted that our submarines had to have an American combat system. As the Americans did not have a combat system suitable for non-nuclear submarines, the consequence was that it was not until 2007 that our submarines began to be fitted with a combat system of the standard hoped for when the submarines were designed back in the 1980s.

The media and the public (and even to a surprising extent, the navy) never understood the sheer scale, complexity and risk of the submarine project. Building submarines is hard and getting harder - far harder than building aeroplanes, the closest analogy is perhaps with space ships. To build a hull to withstand extreme water pressures has always been demanding but the increasing complexities of electronics and computer systems make modern submarines among the greatest of engineering challenges. Even countries with long histories of submarine construction often have problems, while countries attempting to build submarines for the first time regularly experience disasters. Dilapidated or abandoned shipyards from Buenos Aires to Bombay, littered with the relics of failed submarine projects testify to the magnitude of the challenges.

The submarine project was taken up with great enthusiasm by the Hawke government in the 1980s as a major nation building endevour to revitalise Australian manufacturing. Consequently the submarines were built in Australia rather than overseas and over 70% of the money spent on the submarines was spent in Australia - a far higher proportion than with most military purchases. The end result of the project is a squadron of submarines that are among the best conventional submarines in any navy in the world and rank with the F111s as Australia's most potent weapons. The Collins Class submarines were an extraordinary engineering achievement and it is testimony to the power of politics and the popular press (lionnoisy) that they are regarded as a disaster.

Since you like media articles:

AdelaideNow: Collins Class a Triumph

DEREK WOOLNER

May 12, 2008 12:15am

PEOPLE in the street and some sections of the media dismiss the navy's Adelaide-built Collins Class submarines as monumental duds.

In stark contrast, most insiders we interviewed, as the authors of the history of the project, consider them a naval engineering triumph and a monument of Australian nation-building.

From its inception in 1978 the project was seldom far from controversy and it was mercilessly attacked by the media and the Howard government for a myriad of technical failings – real, exaggerated and imagined.

It is widely believed to have been a financial disaster, yet it is one of the few military purchases where the original budget was still relevant at the end of the project.

Further, Australian industry responded successfully to the challenge of building submarines in this country, an achievement widely believed to be beyond Australian capabilities and one in which many other countries have failed disastrously.

During the 1970s the Australian Navy operated British-built Oberon diesel-electric submarines on some of the most secret intelligence-gathering missions of the ColdWar.

Nuclear submarines lacked the stealth for these covert operations, and the U.S. Navy encouraged Australian military planners and politicians to maintain the long-range intelligence-gathering capability in the Oberons' successor vessels.

At the same time the Australian submariners developed convincing arguments that submarines were the most effective vessels for use in long-range offensive operations in enemy waters.

Thus was born the desire to build the most modern long-range conventional submarine in the world.

Modernity would be attained through a then-revolutionary idea: Instead of taking whatever options for a combat system came with the design, the navy would specify the combat system which best met its needs and this would be developed separately from the submarine.

Further, following intense debate, it was decided to build the submarines in Adelaide as a focus for industrial regeneration and to provide better long-term maintenance and support than was usually received from overseas shipyards.

These factors determined the nature of the Collins project. To U.S. submariner Admiral Phil Davis, the project was a huge undertaking, a "monumental feat".

"There is really nothing in the history of submarine construction that has been done like that," he said of the transformation of a small Swedish submarine into a "radical new design", built 18,000km from the designer's office "in a new yard with a new workforce".

Amazingly, the project's objectives were largely delivered. Today, the Australian Navy operates sophisticated long-range submarines.

Peter Sinclair, the first skipper of HMAS Collins, who has wide experience with other conventional submarines, believes the Collins is more capable than any conventional submarine at sea, with a turning circle second to none and "super quiet at slow speed, quieter than anything else in the world".

Few thought that Australia's recession-ravaged industries of the early 1980s could build a submarine. Yet, with the introduction of modern techniques that accompanied the project, over 70 per cent of its value was produced in Australia by hundreds of subcontractors who embraced the exacting defence quality standards. The welding standards remain some of the best achieved in the world.

THE project suffered its share of problems but the only surprise, given the ambition of the project, was that they were not better anticipated.

With problems overcome through some remarkable defence science and assistance from the U.S., the submarines were delivered close to budget and an average of 26 months behind schedule.

This is one of the shortest delays with any military purchase and remarkable for the largest systems integration project in Australian history.

The persisting failure has been the combat system, a testament to both the inadequacies of some of the world's major arms corporations and the unchecked ambition of Australian submariners.

Even this disaster was salvaged by the expertise and ingenuity of Australia's project engineers and defence scientists, cobbling together a system to provide an acceptable performance.

Derek Woolner is an expert on defence procurement projects, and is Visiting Fellow at the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre at the Australian National University. He is co-author, with Peter Yule, of The Collins Class Submarine Story – Steel, Spies and Spin.

I am not surprised if you do not dare to answer and only post again after you find another media article.

Say, how come you are not touching the 40mm thread?

But if u insist include Patrol Boat etc,i have no objection.

Just like if u say a Comfort Taxi can race with a F1.I also say ok.

Then why are you insisting our 600 ton Corvettes are a match for their multi-thousand tons surfarface combatants?

Also I noted when you counted the RSN's force, you included the puny and outdated MGBs in your calculation.

All the major surface combatants of the RAN are heavyweight fighting ships, not to mentioned they have planned a future surface combatant programme.

You are the one who saying a Comfort Taxi can race with an F1.

Also you haven't addressed the issue of which force in the region can possibly challange the RAN, can you name one force? 

So what are you talking about except coming up with imaginary senariaos that Australia will suddenly be attacked and cannot defend itself?

Also how come you never include JORN in your arguments? How can any surface force sneak up on the RAN given JORN is capable of detecting even our Formidibles?

The only thing you seem to be generous is in posting new posts without replying to anything that was raised to rebutt your previous points.

You are contradicting yourself, another example of you not doing your homework beyond quoting media articles if you quote this:

The navy's anti-submarine warfare capability was in poor shape, which, when faced with the proliferation of submarines in the region, could "seriously affect the freedom of action of the RAN's surface fleet".

What submarine force in the region can match the RAN submarine fleet? So far only the RSN can do so, and even we are far away.

Also all things considered, even if the Collins was in poor shape, it still OUTCLASSES any submarine force in the area.

More importantly, other submarines, even ours, in the region have problems operating in deep ocean water which is where the Australians can.

So even if there's a proliferation of submarines, they can't reach the Australian coastline, the real threat is if the Australians want to move their navy OUT to reach others in offence, not defence.

crashing UAVs into things.... ehh... is not new.

i believe the isrealis UAV called harpy does exactly that.

I believe crashing a limited endurance, slow, and low payload UAV like the FANTAIL is a very new and original idea by lionnoisy.

This is quite different from the loitering munition UAV idea like BLADE, basically what lionnoisy is suggesting that we use a pistol to do a rifle's job.

How come now in addition to posting posts that are unclear you post pictures that are blurry?

As long as the SAF do not use lionnoisy's ideas such as launching our F-15s off our LSTs, crashing our UAVs into things, running with the SAR-21 with one hand, doing FIBUA in inline skates, fighting a war with multiple online cloned accounts and what have you not, we just might have a credible military.

No need to import water in few years,if we choose

to do so.Dunt close the tap without SG consent.

Otherwise,in diplomatic

term,there will be SERIOUS CONSQUENCE.

In plain English--war.

In your opinion do you think the SAF should use your ideas as stated in military nuts to fight their war?

Also given your logic, we are better off being developed by the British like Hong Kong instead of arguing for independence...

Hmm...

The point is, the length of history is not the only thing to consider, nor is it a very good excuse given a certain someone predicted "swiss" standards of living some time back.

Is this due to "lack of history" or simply being outclassed?

More importantly, is our current dismal 25th ranking an indication of an "everything that has been done has been done", optimal situtation or could much more be done to improve the ranking?

More telling is our dismal rating for quality of life, now I seriously doubt that is the result of lack of history.

AFAIK, for our country that has been trying to claim No.1s in many things like airline and the like, being only the 25th in development after years of claiming "stunning" growth is nothing to be taken lightly.

Originally posted by £ Ĭ €ڰ:

Australia and Hong Kong have a longer history than us and there is really no shortcut to human development, hence why should it be not acceptable? Beside that, Singapore is also ahead of Australia and Hong Kong is some other area what. e.g life expectancy, crime rate etc.

Is is about history or the way things are run?

What about the other countries with more history then us but lower on the ranking?

A longer, or shorter history is not a valid excuse.

Originally posted by Fantagf:

Another pathetic soul here.  

James, I will welcome him back for the next election.   

This is the lionnoisy clone thread in question:

http://politics.sgforums.com/forums/10/topics/315326

It's pretty good comedy.

Originally posted by whiskers:

www.jamesgomeznews.com

 

Lion arh, ur posts always dun have a point on leh... like chap chai teng liddat... very confusing... cannot know whats ur point...

Maybe you shld put ur points properly, so readers can understand what you are trying to say.

He has been doing it for 3 years, what makes you think he's going to change?

The only really innovative thing I last saw from him was him creating a clone to talk to himself, appearing to give "support" to his post. He was easily exposed because his alter ego also produced the same kind of rojak posts, you should see his reaction when he was exposed, it was pretty funny.

Till this day, he still refuses to talk about it.

Try, ask him about the clone incident and notice that our usually noisy lion will become very quiet.

I think clone or no clone of Gazelle is it all pretty much a moot point, because so far they have all proven to be pretty much ineffective in here.