Precisely that phenomenon: deciding that the strategic situation has evolved such that X level of forces is no longer needed, and the money can be better spent elsewhere (or saved altogether).
No, he has a tattoo.
That or they got a waiver when they enlisted.
How big a part you reckon that is? I can’t seem to recall the last time it occurred to me that the length of A. Soldier’s sideburns would be important to the task of directly or indirectly killing other humans and blowing shit up.
Who said they were getting them? I merely said that had them. Perhaps it was unclear, following so closely on the story of Fuck You Hand (who, BTW, is a shitbag and was kicked out), but Anarchy Ears had his before he joined and I don’t know when Knuckles got his.
As I said before, the color of their skin doesn’t impact the quality of the work they do. It might be more important if they worked as a media liason rather than in engineering (As in engines, not materials science), but I find it absurd that you’d recommend them for Dishonorable Discharge on the basis of nothing beyond the fact that they have tattoos.
It might be shocking, but there are some goofy looking folks in the military whose biological misfortune contributes more to presenting an unprofessional appearance in uniform than a visible tattoo ever will. I’m one of them. 
Y’think? :smack:
Your tax dollars at work? Let’s see… A. Soldier can have a very expensive and completely cosmetic laser surgery against his wishes on threat of being fired… or that money can be spent towards something that might actually improve equipment or morale… I dunno, this is a toughie.
They probably have waivers on record, so that would be administratively sticky… not to mention a kind of shitty thing to do over something that is, in the larger picture, negligible. You don’t make friends by making trouble.
Um, not quite a good example. The length of sideburns, or configuration of facial hair in general, can make an important difference to how well your gas mask seals to your face.
Or, on a ship, how well an oxygen breathing apparatus or other breathing device for fighting fires seals to the face.
The Navy took being clean shaven very seriously, for very good reason.
Sorry I misunderstood. I thought they were doing the same thing as FUCK YOU HAND.
BUT, an anarchy tattoo is promoting anarchy. You say “No, he has a tattoo.” It’s not quite that innocent. It’s a statement. Displaying a tattoo that means “anarchy” is like walking around with a sign promoting it.
Since the Army owns tattoo removal equipment, and the procedure is performed by Army doctors, I dont see all this tax money you’re talking about. The machine will just sit there anyway if unused. And the doctors are making salary according to their rank/grade. It doesn’t cost the Army more money to remove a tattoo.
Since they received pre-enlistment waivers, that changes the situation. This was not what I was commenting on.
I was commenting on a soldier who goes out and intentionally aquires a tattoo on his ear in violation of Army regulations. Not to mention one that actually promotes anarchy. Such a soldier should be punished under Article 15. And if he further refused to have that tattoo removed - defying his superior officers and Army regulations - then he should be dishonorably discharged.
So we should all just be able to wear out uniforms, our hair, and our boots however we want??? Uniformity and conformity are the building blocks of a well disciplined military.
Nothing to add except: what a dumbassed-looking tattoo. Looks like he has chicken wire on his arm.
I still don’t know how a tattoo prevents someone serving in the military?
One may have had a rebel period in life and got tattoed up the wazoo. A bit of ink doesn’t seem to prevent sensible thought after the tattooing moment.
One may have been in the military before getting the tatt and that seems most common.
What tattoo makes someone less worthy to be cannon fodder then another (or suicide bomber fodder)?
If anyone proclaims the desire to be in the military surely that desire says that they should be there.
My doofus brother visited Camodia and had “Beer, breakfast of champions” tattoed around his bicep, in Cambodian script. For all he knows it says “I am a flaming dork”. While he did the tattoo moment when pissed and thus showing he is a doofus, I would hate to think that made him unpatriotic.
Should the shit hit the fan and NZ needed to be defended my long haired tattoed brother would be right there.
To not allow him because of a daft tattoo would be very stupid.
Would you be of the same opinion if the phrase was in English and written across his forehead? Soldiers are more than “canon fodder”. While home, it’s a job like any other. They live and shop and run errands on lunch breaks - just like civilians. But while they are in uniform, they represent the US Army (or whatever branch) and the US Government. If you were at the mall and you saw a soldier in uniform who was ungroomed, sloppy and had the phrase “PUSSY, THE OTHER PINK MEAT” tattooed on his face. What kind of image would he be presenting? The Army doesn’t need any help lowering the public’s opinion of them.
I think we’re talking past each other…
If I went to the mall and saw a soldier who was ungroomed and sloppy, he’d present a bad image whether he had a tattoo or not. Merely having a tattoo doesn’t make you a shitbag. If a particular command has problems with forearm tattoos (or with a particular individual’s forearm tattoo) they can issue a letter of instruction regarding wearing uniforms that show the forearms (ergo, the tattoos).
What calm kiwi is saying, I think, is that merely having a tattoo of a specific thing (whether it be “beer, breakfast of champions” or and Anarchy symbol) is not the same as carrying around a picket sign. It might be something you got in a moment of stupidity, or during a temporary phase… with unfortunately durable results.
Just having a tattoo doesn’t prevent you from being a good soldier or presenting a military appearance… unless it’s really out there and outrageous… What kind of image is presented by a soldier in uniform, creases like razorblades, boots like glass, and “PUSSY, THE OTHER PINK MEAT!” tattooed on his forehead? What if it’s a soldier with Maori ancestry with a Ta Moko, facial tattoo? What if it’s a soldier with 80% of his body covered- but none of it visible in uniform?
Some uniform regs are just about consistent appearance: ribbons on this side, medals over here, etc… but you can be out of uniform if you’re not wearing the right underwear. Some uniform regs have a reasonable basis… but it’s one thing to limit facial hair so it doesn’t interfere with breathing protection, and another thing to detail the length of sideburns to within a half inch range. I’d say if it doesn’t jump out at you, grab you by the earlobes, and scream “UNPROFESSIONAL” at your nose, it’s probably okay…