Surely anybody attempting to join the US military since the war started is either a) nuts or b) some kind of freakish adreneilin junky.
Shouldn’t they be excluded from entry just because they want to join?
I don’t have a single tattoo because I am a flaming wuss. Those with many tattoos are clearly not wusses. Good army fodder it seems.
A question. Has joining the miltary become a less popular thing to do since the war started?
One would hope so.
Oh I forgot to add why I posted in the first place. My uncle was in the NZ army (yes we do have one 
) for 28 years. He served in Veitnam (yep we were there). When on leave in Singapore he was very pissed and got a tattoo he fancied at the time and was “illegal”. He tells that story often and I’m not sure if it was just illegal in Singapore or whether the NZ army would frown on it (though I suspect the latter is what he meant). He had to bribe the tattoist because it was the insignia of some Singapore “secret police” outfit. He was young, dumb and drunk when he got it. He hates it now but managed to stay in the army for many years after with it (and quite a few others).
I don’t know if New Zealand has specific rules reguarding tattoos in the military but after working in the naval childcare centre I don’t remember many who didn’t have one or three.
I do know a naval officer who threatened to divorce his wife after she had winnie the pooh tattoed on her shoulder though…see, nuts!
IIRC, recruitment has been down for the past decade or so. This is why National Guard units are so active now and our leaders are talking about reinstating the draft.
Surely that would really create major rebellion?
Or feel it imperetive that the army gains a greater proportion of patriotic, brave, assiduous and fair people, compared to that of evil or misled torturers, and volenteer to do their bit? I wouldn’t, I’m a wuss, but I’d respect someone who did.
So where is the influx of doctors, lawyers etc?
I’d say that’s why they’re only talking about reinstatement so far.
I certainly met my share of both, while I was in.
They join the military under different programs, though. It’s usually an arrangement where medical or law school is paid for by the government, after which time a commission in the reserves is granted and a service obligation incurred.
Military doctors and JAG officers typically have far fewer tattoos, and what ones they have are typically more discrete.
Been discussed already at length elsewhere on these boards. The Army itself is not sanguine about a return to the draft – at least with the volunteer force (including Guards and Reservists) they can always point out that when you signed the contract it DOES say you willingly agree to be subject to being retained at contract’s end, to have your deployments extended, to be used as infantry no matter your specialty, and to be recalled to service, all at Uncle Sam’s sole discretion.
What they are seriously bringing up is re-increasing the size of the Regular force, which was considerably downsized right after Iraq War I as a way of collecting the “peace dividend” of the end of the Cold War(*) (and before anyone jumps on Clinton and Bush II: a lot of those cuts were set in motion by the administration of Bush the Elder. Entire freakin’ divisions were demobilized within months of returning to homebase from Desert Storm). The debate then becomes, if that expansion is needed, then how do you do it. Now, we already had an experience of a major expansion of the volunteer military – under Reagan; though at the time there was no ongoing “shooting war” it was not all peace and love in the world either.
(*)I believe New Zealand is recently familiar with that phenomenon
Thanks for the info, JRD. I wasn’t aware of the particulars.
But whether the regulations are vague or extremely specific, it’s the system for dealing with them that should be consistent. The point i’ve continually made in this thread is not that the military shouldn’t be able to keep out guys with tattoos, or that the military shouldn’t be able to set its own regulations, or that the military should have a particular policy about tattoos. My point has been that, whatever the policy, it should be adminstered and enforced in such a way that a potential recruit finds out that he’s ineligible before making a slew of life changes on the say-so of military representatives who assure him that his tattoos are not a problem.
What the fuck is that about? You call this guy a slacker because he has a few tattoos? Or do you know something else about him that the rest of us aren’t privy to?
From the article:
So, what is it about him that draws your ire? The fact that he had to go back to college to get his GED? The fact that he wasn’t up to military standards of fitness before? Or is it simply the fact that he had tattoos in the first place?
And he doesn’t want “someone else to deal with his own poor decisions.” He knew that the tattoos disqualified hiim for at least some branches of the military, and that’s why he made a point of showing them to the recruiters and asking if they would be a problem. He’s just bummed that he made so many decisions based on their assurance that the tattoos would not be a problem.
Fuck. Disagree with me about this issue, by all means. But have the integrity not to take personal jabs at a guy who, by all the information we have, did nothing except try to serve in his country’s armed forces during a time of conflict.
Nitpick: he already had a GED when he singed up for college credits. Carry on.
Well for all intents and purposes we just got rid of our air force (force being what they called it rather then what it was) I have no idea what phenomneon the NZ miltary has survived. I do know we always did a very big part for a very small country though.
Well, the kiwi is a flightless bird.
I have now heard that the regs concerning tattoos were revised just a couple of years ago. Had Felix Grumman tried to enlist when he was 22, there would have been no problem!
BTW: when I enlisted in '86, jailtime wasn’t an automatic disqualification. I recommended a friend to my recruiter, not knowing he had been in trouble for GTA. The Navy had some qualms about him but accepted him anyway. Things may have changed since then, though.
The page of regulations said previously acceptable tatoos would not be grandfathered in, so he might have had problems further down the line.
True. I was listening to a respectable talk radio program (yes, there is such a thing) which covered Felix and his tattoo troubles today. A similarly tattooed Navy noncom called in, saying that he’s been getting suggestions that he do something about his body art if he wants a better chance of being promoted.
Hmmm, I wonder what could be done short of amputation. Anything big enough to be a problem realistically is too big to remove, so what other course of action is available?
Sort of a catch 22, anything small is not a prob, anything too big can’t be removed.
I did some checking and it looks like it mostly depends on how long ago the tat was applied. Laser removal seems to be the easiest and most popluar.
I wonder if it would be acceptable if the tats weren’t completely removed but reduced in size instead.
Oh yes, they can be removed, I was meaning that anything huge like a sleeve would be almost impractical to remove. IIRC, even for say, a small thing 2 inches by 2 inches, one needs several visits (with time needed in between), and the cost is $1000 or so. A 2 by 2 tat costs about $75 and takes about an hour, btw.
Now considering my arm took 3 months and cost a few grand, I couldn’t even fathom the cost of removal, but let’s say I would join the army, serve my time, and be done before they were finished removing the thing. I’d also probably be in some serious debt. So, anyone that has a tat big enough to be a problem, removing it would be even bigger one.
Looks like he’ll have to find a new line of work.