8640 réponses à ce sujet

[EmperorSahlertz]

leaguer of one wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

No that is not what combat deployment means. Pilots of jets and helicopters are also put in the field to fight (depending on the kind of helicopter), but they are not combat deployed for instance, unless of course the enemy can deploy fighters and attack helicopters of their own.
A sniper or sniper team is NOT deployed in the field to fight for that matter. They are deployed to eliminate targets and AVOID a fight.
The reserves barely ever see combat, and are NOT combat deployed. However the reserves might still be attacked. The reserves for example often guard the supply train, or the base camp, which can come under attack from the enemy. In these cases the reserves would see combat, without being combat deployed.

Basically combat deployment means you are at the frontlines and in the thick of the combat.

That is what it means. It means you used as a instrument of combat. It matter not if you on the front lines. Fighter pilots are placed under the title of combat deployment when they fly out to the feild as well  as helicopter pilots.  Avoiding direct combat has nothing to do with it.

Reserve means somethng complatly different then what you are using it as. http://en.wikipedia....y_reserve_force

Dude.... You are linking to an article regarding the Military Reserve FORCE....... Try look up the Military RESERVE, then come back here......

[EmperorSahlertz]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Sahlertz, I'll just give you a heads up that that is not how the American military works. Nor is it how they perceive the Iraq and Afghan wars.

I am not denying that there may be a language barrier at work here. But even in the US there is a significant difference between a combat deployment and a 'regular deployment' if you will.

[leaguer of one]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

No that is not what combat deployment means. Pilots of jets and helicopters are also put in the field to fight (depending on the kind of helicopter), but they are not combat deployed for instance, unless of course the enemy can deploy fighters and attack helicopters of their own.
A sniper or sniper team is NOT deployed in the field to fight for that matter. They are deployed to eliminate targets and AVOID a fight.
The reserves barely ever see combat, and are NOT combat deployed. However the reserves might still be attacked. The reserves for example often guard the supply train, or the base camp, which can come under attack from the enemy. In these cases the reserves would see combat, without being combat deployed.

Basically combat deployment means you are at the frontlines and in the thick of the combat.

That is what it means. It means you used as a instrument of combat. It matter not if you on the front lines. Fighter pilots are placed under the title of combat deployment when they fly out to the feild as well  as helicopter pilots.  Avoiding direct combat has nothing to do with it.

Reserve means somethng complatly different then what you are using it as. http://en.wikipedia....y_reserve_force

Dude.... You are linking to an article regarding the Military Reserve FORCE....... Try look up the Military RESERVE, then come back here......

Snipers are still not that exculsive...As well as Machine gunners, pilots and tank drivers which russian woman can be during ww2.

Tha's refering to a more free moving platoon. It's not just snipers alone nor are snipers stuck at that. Combat deployment is not just being put in the front lines.

[leaguer of one]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Sahlertz, I'll just give you a heads up that that is not how the American military works. Nor is it how they perceive the Iraq and Afghan wars.

I am not denying that there may be a language barrier at work here. But even in the US there is a significant difference between a combat deployment and a 'regular deployment' if you will.

That's the difference between active use and non active use. Not front line and support.

[Lotion Soronarr]

The Baconer wrote...
And Tevinter held strong for 1000. Do you think that catastrophe was spontaneous in each case? They had the data, they knew the situation at the Kirkwall Circle was particularly deficient.

Did they?

You, as the player know.
But the people in Thedas? Not really.

People have had this conversation with you before. Just because you
don't see people doesn't mean thy do not exist. For example Denerim does
not only have a population of a couple hundred, half being soldiers.
Same as a Circle does not house only a few dozen mages. There's hundreds
in each, yet since most are simply living their lives, there is no
reason to show them. Now abominations on the other hand are always
attached to quests, thus you running into them so often. Again, Gameplay
and Story Segregation.

Well, given mages are VERY rare, the Circles can't house that many either.

[Dean_the_Young]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Sahlertz, I'll just give you a heads up that that is not how the American military works. Nor is it how they perceive the Iraq and Afghan wars.

I am not denying that there may be a language barrier at work here. But even in the US there is a significant difference between a combat deployment and a 'regular deployment' if you will.

In the recent insurgency conflicts, the fact that there has been no front line and rear zone has largely broken your previous distinction. Women have been in regular combat for almost a decade now, and snipers are very much considered part of the fight in battles of the wars.

A regular deployment in Afghanistan is a combat deployment, as far as the military is concerned. You may not get a combat action badge or go out of the wire (so-called Fobbits), but the action can very easily come to you. Especially with IDF.

Even the Combat Support branches, those not intended to take part in front-line combat (military police, artillery, engineers) have been frequent combatants in the recent wars.

[EmperorSahlertz]

I don't care what roles Soviet women could fulfill in the Second World War. I was talking about what CURRENT Russian women can. Furthermore after WW2 was done, Soviet Women still couldn't fulfill the same roles anymore, and faced the exact same old stigmas and obstacles that they did before the war.

And unless you have ever actually yourself been deployed, I wouldn't expect you to understand the difference between combat deployment and deployment.
All I can say is that I have both more times than I care to count, and if you were to ask a pilot or a petty officer aboard a navy vessel, you would be DAMN sure that they would confirm the differnece between their deployments and the deployments of the grunts in the trenches.

[leaguer of one]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

I don't care what roles Soviet women could fulfill in the Second World War. I was talking about what CURRENT Russian women can. Furthermore after WW2 was done, Soviet Women still couldn't fulfill the same roles anymore, and faced the exact same old stigmas and obstacles that they did before the war.

And unless you have ever actually yourself been deployed, I wouldn't expect you to understand the difference between combat deployment and deployment.
All I can say is that I have both more times than I care to count, and if you were to ask a pilot or a petty officer aboard a navy vessel, you would be DAMN sure that they would confirm the differnece between their deployments and the deployments of the grunts in the trenches.

There's a clear difference between combat deployment and regular deplayment...
http://spousebuzz.co...deployment.html

^From they very people who deal with it.

It does not mean frontline and support. It means use in the fight feild and no being on the fighting feild at all.
It's the difference from having to shoot someone day to day to a desk job.

And even with modern women that is changing anyway.

Modifié par leaguer of one, 16 février 2014 - 05:20 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Sahlertz, I'll just give you a heads up that that is not how the American military works. Nor is it how they perceive the Iraq and Afghan wars.

I am not denying that there may be a language barrier at work here. But even in the US there is a significant difference between a combat deployment and a 'regular deployment' if you will.

In the recent insurgency conflicts, the fact that there has been no front line and rear zone has largely broken your previous distinction. Women have been in regular combat for almost a decade now, and snipers are very much considered part of the fight in battles of the wars.

A regular deployment in Afghanistan is a combat deployment, as far as the military is concerned. You may not get a combat action badge or go out of the wire (so-called Fobbits), but the action can very easily come to you. Especially with IDF.

Even the Combat Support branches, those not intended to take part in front-line combat (military police, artillery, engineers) have been frequent combatants in the recent wars.

Do you think I don't know that? All deployments carry an inherent risk of not making it back.

But consdiering that there was (or probably still is) a BAN in the US that prohibits the combat deployment of women, the reason that women have seen icnreasing amount of combat, is because the insurgencies has attacked the reserve units, shot down their choppers, or any other such scenario. Women have not yet been actively combat deployed by the US because it has been straight up BANNED (for whatever stupid reason). That hasn't prevented the US from deploying female pilots, snipers, drivers, and whathaveyou. You know why? Because those aren't considered combat deployments, and as such does not violate the ban.

[EmperorSahlertz]

leaguer of one wrote...

There's a clear difference between combat deployment and regular deplayment...
http://spousebuzz.co...deployment.html

^From they very people who deal with it.

It does not mean frontline and support. It means use in the fight feild and no being on the fighting feild at all.
It's the difference from having to shoot someone day to day to a desk job.

And even with modern women that is changing anyway.

First of all: I am the one who ACTUALLY has to deal with it, since I am the one at the frontlines getting shot at. What spouses and other loved ones deal with is a whole other hell, that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

Second of all: That article you linked even supprots what I have been trying to explain to you. Boots on the ground frontline work is the combat deployment. Becase you are EXPECTED to see combat and take enemy fire.
Ideally your pilots, drivers, support, artillery, snipers, MPs, all that good stuff, would not have to take enemy fire.

[leaguer of one]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Sahlertz, I'll just give you a heads up that that is not how the American military works. Nor is it how they perceive the Iraq and Afghan wars.

I am not denying that there may be a language barrier at work here. But even in the US there is a significant difference between a combat deployment and a 'regular deployment' if you will.

In the recent insurgency conflicts, the fact that there has been no front line and rear zone has largely broken your previous distinction. Women have been in regular combat for almost a decade now, and snipers are very much considered part of the fight in battles of the wars.

A regular deployment in Afghanistan is a combat deployment, as far as the military is concerned. You may not get a combat action badge or go out of the wire (so-called Fobbits), but the action can very easily come to you. Especially with IDF.

Even the Combat Support branches, those not intended to take part in front-line combat (military police, artillery, engineers) have been frequent combatants in the recent wars.

Do you think I don't know that? All deployments carry an inherent risk of not making it back.

But consdiering that there was (or probably still is) a BAN in the US that prohibits the combat deployment of women, the reason that women have seen icnreasing amount of combat, is because the insurgencies has attacked the reserve units, shot down their choppers, or any other such scenario. Women have not yet been actively combat deployed by the US because it has been straight up BANNED (for whatever stupid reason). That hasn't prevented the US from deploying female pilots, snipers, drivers, and whathaveyou. You know why? Because those aren't considered combat deployments, and as such does not violate the ban.

1."Do you think I don't know that? All deployments carry an inherent risk of not making it back."

For different reasons. In a regular deployment most deathare from accidents or self inflicted. In combat deployments it due to enemy interactions.
2. That is curently changing. There plans for women to be part of the us ranger by 2016 and more opertuities are open to them by 2015.
http://en.wikipedia....t_opportunities

[leaguer of one]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

There's a clear difference between combat deployment and regular deplayment...
http://spousebuzz.co...deployment.html

^From they very people who deal with it.

It does not mean frontline and support. It means use in the fight feild and no being on the fighting feild at all.
It's the difference from having to shoot someone day to day to a desk job.

And even with modern women that is changing anyway.

First of all: I am the one who ACTUALLY has to deal with it, since I am the one at the frontlines getting shot at. What spouses and other loved ones deal with is a whole other hell, that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

Second of all: That article you linked even supprots what I have been trying to explain to you. Boots on the ground frontline work is the combat deployment. Becase you are EXPECTED to see combat and take enemy fire.
Ideally your pilots, drivers, support, artillery, snipers, MPs, all that good stuff, would not have to take enemy fire.

1. That artical is not just spouses......
2. Boots on the ground does not mean front line. How is a sniper in the feild not boots on the ground? And that was just army. The navy and air force has combat deployment as well with fighter pilots and naval officers.

[EmperorSahlertz]

leaguer of one wrote...
1. That artical is not just spouses......
2. Boots on the ground does not mean front line. How is a sniper in the feild not boots on the ground? And that was just army. The navy and air force has combat deployment as well with fighter pilots and naval officers.

1: Yes... That article is about how two different military wives handle the different deployments...
2: Boots on the ground is not a literal term... Boots on the ground refer to the forces in a war that is actually fighting. And yes, the navy and air forces also has combat deployments. However, the navy and air forces aren't combat deployed when they are in a support role, however they are combat deployed when they for example face opposing navies or air forces.

Modifié par EmperorSahlertz, 16 février 2014 - 05:46 .

[Dean_the_Young]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Sahlertz, I'll just give you a heads up that that is not how the American military works. Nor is it how they perceive the Iraq and Afghan wars.

I am not denying that there may be a language barrier at work here. But even in the US there is a significant difference between a combat deployment and a 'regular deployment' if you will.

In the recent insurgency conflicts, the fact that there has been no front line and rear zone has largely broken your previous distinction. Women have been in regular combat for almost a decade now, and snipers are very much considered part of the fight in battles of the wars.

A regular deployment in Afghanistan is a combat deployment, as far as the military is concerned. You may not get a combat action badge or go out of the wire (so-called Fobbits), but the action can very easily come to you. Especially with IDF.

Even the Combat Support branches, those not intended to take part in front-line combat (military police, artillery, engineers) have been frequent combatants in the recent wars.

Do you think I don't know that? All deployments carry an inherent risk of not making it back.

But consdiering that there was (or probably still is) a BAN in the US that prohibits the combat deployment of women, the reason that women have seen icnreasing amount of combat, is because the insurgencies has attacked the reserve units, shot down their choppers, or any other such scenario. Women have not yet been actively combat deployed by the US because it has been straight up BANNED (for whatever stupid reason). That hasn't prevented the US from deploying female pilots, snipers, drivers, and whathaveyou. You know why? Because those aren't considered combat deployments, and as such does not violate the ban.

You are pursuing a distinction without a difference. Women are being deployed and frequently facing the same levels of combat that line troops are. No one is distinguishing them as a 'regular deployment' as opposed to a 'combat deployment.'  

[EmperorSahlertz]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
You are pursuing a distinction without a difference. Women are being deployed and frequently facing the same levels of combat that line troops are. No one is distinguishing them as a 'regular deployment' as opposed to a 'combat deployment.'  

You can bet your ass that someone is makign the distinction. Because actively deploying women into combat situations is still considered illegal, so NOT making this distinction would actually be an illegal act. I agree that the two terms especially in a war as horrible as the one in Afghanistan, is meaningless. But in a war like for instance Somalia or Kosovo, the distinction is very important. The matter of fact is that there IS a distinction, and that is all I am saying.

[The Baconer]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Did they?

You, as the player know.
But the people in Thedas? Not really.

I wouldn't even bring it up as a point if they didn't.

"The mages of Kirkwall have a more troubled history than those in other Circles. A greater percentage of them do not survive the Harrowing, and a greater percentage turn to blood magic—almost double that of Starkhaven or Ostwick."

"It is well known that the Veil is thin in Kirkwall, small wonder given the suffering in the city. But we've discovered the magisters were deliberately thinning it even further. Beneath the city, demons can contact even normal men"

Modifié par The Baconer, 16 février 2014 - 07:01 .

[Dean_the_Young]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...
You are pursuing a distinction without a difference. Women are being deployed and frequently facing the same levels of combat that line troops are. No one is distinguishing them as a 'regular deployment' as opposed to a 'combat deployment.'  

You can bet your ass that someone is makign the distinction. Because actively deploying women into combat situations is still considered illegal, so NOT making this distinction would actually be an illegal act. I agree that the two terms especially in a war as horrible as the one in Afghanistan, is meaningless. But in a war like for instance Somalia or Kosovo, the distinction is very important. The matter of fact is that there IS a distinction, and that is all I am saying.

Emperor, your ignorance of the American military is showing. It is not illegal for them to deploy women into combat situations.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...
You are pursuing a distinction without a difference. Women are being deployed and frequently facing the same levels of combat that line troops are. No one is distinguishing them as a 'regular deployment' as opposed to a 'combat deployment.'  

You can bet your ass that someone is makign the distinction. Because actively deploying women into combat situations is still considered illegal, so NOT making this distinction would actually be an illegal act. I agree that the two terms especially in a war as horrible as the one in Afghanistan, is meaningless. But in a war like for instance Somalia or Kosovo, the distinction is very important. The matter of fact is that there IS a distinction, and that is all I am saying.

Emperor, your ignorance of the American military is showing. It is not illegal for them to deploy women into combat situations.

Illegal was a poor choice of word perhpas, but wether you like it or not, the ban on combat deployment of women is still in effect. Women is being bared from joining the infantry, they cannot apply for special forces, basically any and all combat role has been effectively bared for women for many years.
I know that women still see combat, despite not being deployed into combat directly. The medical officer which has to aid a woudned soldier may one day find herself under attack aswell. The helicopter pilot may be shot down, and have to defend the wreck while waiting for rescue. That does not change the fact, women in the US military are NOT deployed in frontline units.

Modifié par EmperorSahlertz, 16 février 2014 - 08:55 .

[LobselVith8]

TheKomandorShepard wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

It's the only argument Meredith continually makes for why the Right was invoked, and it's even used when she tries to persuade Hawke to side with her. The Circle is being condemned to death for the actions of a single man.

The circle would be burned without anders only if elthina wasn't stupid bi*** maybe meredith used that as reason but circle was corrupted so RoA was in place despite meredith reason so we have hero who slain dangerous insane orcs for pancakes but still slain dangerous orcs and thats matter not pancakes... 

I'm not certain how you can condemn the entire Circle when the Champion only encounters the criminal element outside the Gallows, and never meets with the hundreds of men, women, and children who comprise the Circle of Kirkwall. It's like condemning all the dwarves of Kirkwall because of the plethora of carta members you fight against.

[Grieving Natashina]

Emperor, some of your information about women in combat is outdated as of last year.  This is in the United States.

http://en.wikipedia....Women_in_combat

In 1994 the Department of Defense officially banned women from serving in combat but on January 24, 2013, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta removed the military's ban on women serving in combat, which was instituted in 1994.[15] Implementation of these rules is ongoing. There is some speculation that this could lead to women having to register with the Selective Service System.[16]

May I ask what the hell this has to do this the topic? It's getting pretty far off track and I've been reading the thread.

Modifié par Starsyn, 16 février 2014 - 09:17 .

[Dean_the_Young]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...
You are pursuing a distinction without a difference. Women are being deployed and frequently facing the same levels of combat that line troops are. No one is distinguishing them as a 'regular deployment' as opposed to a 'combat deployment.'  

You can bet your ass that someone is makign the distinction. Because actively deploying women into combat situations is still considered illegal, so NOT making this distinction would actually be an illegal act. I agree that the two terms especially in a war as horrible as the one in Afghanistan, is meaningless. But in a war like for instance Somalia or Kosovo, the distinction is very important. The matter of fact is that there IS a distinction, and that is all I am saying.

Emperor, your ignorance of the American military is showing. It is not illegal for them to deploy women into combat situations.

Illegal was a poor choice of word perhpas, but wether you like it or not, the ban on combat deployment of women is still in effect. Women is being bared from joining the infantry, they cannot apply for special forces, basically any and all combat role has been effectively bared for women for many years.

This is incorrect. Women are able to get into various combat roles, and have for many years. The ban is not as widespread as you misunderstand.

I know that women still see combat, despite not being deployed into combat directly. The medical officer which has to aid a woudned soldier may one day find herself under attack aswell. The helicopter pilot may be shot down, and have to defend the wreck while waiting for rescue. That does not change the fact, women in the US military are NOT deployed in frontline units.

In Iraq and Afghanistan, they have been, because 'frontline unit' is a false distinction when there is no frontline.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Starsyn wrote...
May I ask what the hell this has to do this the topic? It's getting pretty far off track and I've been reading the thread.

I was wondering the same. I think people were talking about marriage in the Circle and Templars and it segwayed into this.

Modifié par LDS Darth Revan, 17 février 2014 - 12:55 .

[Grieving Natashina]

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

Starsyn wrote...
May I ask what the hell this has to do this the topic? It's getting pretty far off track and I've been reading the thread.

I was wondering the same. I think people were talking about marriage in the Circle and Templars and it segwayed into this.

So it wasn't just me then.  

[snackrat]

I would like to see more interaction with mages and common people, separate from templars. They've covered the 'protect the world from mages' a few times with the blood mages and ritualists but not protecting the the mages from the world.

Showing some of the things that happen (especially if they're entirely separate from chantry teachings), such as people frightened by things they don't understand panicking and attacking; thinking those with glowing hands are blighting their farms because they need a scapegoat and the weird mysterious person will do; the beating and bullying (such like Wynne had when she was young); the parental disownment and abandonment...

[leaguer of one]

Starsyn wrote...

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

Starsyn wrote...
May I ask what the hell this has to do this the topic? It's getting pretty far off track and I've been reading the thread.

I was wondering the same. I think people were talking about marriage in the Circle and Templars and it segwayed into this.

So it wasn't just me then.  

Sorry, my point was that marrage in the circle wouuld not be a hinderance to it. Dean stated marrage was a privalge and stated even in the milatry it's restricted. I pointed out the people in the same company can be married. Then this mess started.

Modifié par leaguer of one, 17 février 2014 - 01:03 .