Reply With Quote
It always amazes me how many people are so behind this war yet are not willing to join the military.
Come on, you young conservatives/red-staters/evangelicals, dubya needs to waste your minds and bodies in Iraq. Sign up today. If you're bottom of the barrel dregs, no problem!
Tatoos now welcome!
============================
US Army redraws its tattoo policy
The US Army has relaxed its policy on tattoos in a bid to boost the number of new recruits to its ranks. Soldiers can now have tattoos on their hands and back of the neck as long as they are not "extremist, indecent, sexist or racist," army officials say.
Women recruits can also wear permanent eye-liner, eyebrows and lip makeup, although it must "not be trendy".
An army official said it made no sense any more to bar highly-qualified people on the basis of their body art.
Tattoos and permanent make-up have become increasingly popular among young men and women in the US in recent years.
'Unfit for duty'
"The army is America. We are America's sons and daughters. American's sons and daughters are getting tattoos," Lt Col Bryan Hilferty at the Pentagon said.
"The army is continuing to update our personnel policies. We have people who are otherwise qualified who want to serve and who have answered the call to duty."
Tattoos on the head, face or throat area will continue to be banned, and any sexist, racist or gang tattoo makes potential recruits "unfit for duty", Lt Hilferty stressed.
Permanent make-up "should be conservative and complement the uniform and complexion in both style and colour and will not be trendy," the regulations read.
The US army was 7,000 short of its target of recruiting 80,000 new soldiers last year.
Army officials admitted the shortfall has been caused partly by a wariness among young people of having to serve in Iraq.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/h...as/4859478.stm
Published: 2006/03/30 02:20:08 GMT
© BBC MMVI
It always amazes me how many people are so behind this war yet are not willing to join the military.
^^^ It doesn't amaze me.
Are you referring to Yoni, Gtown, vashner, AHF, etc?
^^^ you forgot Xray
I didn't. He is simple too old.
I'm always a little amazed at how people who supposedly want a swift victory and exit in Iraq still find amusement (or offense) in any attempt to strengthen the Military, and seem to celebrate the fact that recruitment is low.
We have an actual war like WWII or Vietnam where there is a draft and I will go.
Running out of window for my age though.
"people who supposedly want a swift victory and exit in Iraq"
nice bull . it should have read:
"people who definitiely NEVER wanted the Repug Iraq war"
I have absolutley nothing against the military. They didn't start the bogus war. They're just doing their jobs and following Repug orders.
This war and its dissenters AREN'T about the military, who are pawns of the Repugs. It's about dubya/ hhead/rove/rummy/rice/powell/wolfowitz/Repugs/conservatives who lied about the reasons for the war.
If the military can be strengthened to hasten the end of the Repug war and reduce the war's casulties and damage, I'm all for it. But the Repugs have a structural problem (not enough troops EVER in Iraq, and now insufficient recruiting) deriving from their incompetence in planning/executing/managing the war that is causing the war to be more severe and longer than was necessary.
This war and its dissenters AREN'T about the militaryThen why the continued mockery of efforts to do just that?If the military can be strengthened to hasten the end of the Repug war and reduce the war's casulties and damage, I'm all for it.
"mockery"
because it's mockable. The military is in an impossible, pitiful situation, through no fault of their own.
The article illustrates how the military is reduced to scraping the bottom of the barrel because the dubya-suckers, red-staters who (barely) voted dubya in don't want anything to do with his bull war, and don't want to pay for it (taxes), either. But they all "support the troops" as long as the troops are other people. ing hypocrits.
So you're saying people with tatoos and eye liner are "the bottom of the barrel".The article illustrates how the military is reduced to scraping the bottom of the barrel
Indeed.ing hypocrits.
no, tatoo or not is a military standard in motion, not mine.
the military is having to lower its standards to get anybody, since the red-staters support the war with their words and votes, but not with their money and bodies. Hypocrits.
I agree with Boutons. Until we find a way to get some of the Senator's sons and daughters and maybe even Jenna or Barbara (the daughter not the witch) to Iraq, the politicians won't care. It will be remarkable how fast they start caring once their young are over there.
My brother just got an offer to join the army. Apparently his advanced degree so in demand they're willing to overlook the fact that he's over enlistment age, a type 1 diabetic and deceased.
That's the consequence of an all-volunteer Military. People are less likely to join the Military voluntarily during wartime regardless of how they feel about the war. To suggest that pro-war voters have some moral obligation to serve is similar to suggesting that liberals should be obligated to donate to the Arts and Public Media.
I would say the Military is "relaxing" some of their standards, not "lowering" them. And that's a GOOD thing, regardless of whether we're at war or not.
I wouldn't mind seeing some sons and daughers of hawkish politicians joining the military
I wouldn't either. It couldn't be a bad thing... and I do think some of them might think a little harder about the decisions they make. But the only way to ensure that will happen is to reinstate the Draft. And who's willing to touch that issue?
This thread is messing something. What could it be? Oh yeah, I remember now! This thread needs a crazy rant from Vashner.
cool! so I can join!
NOT!
The power is in the hands of the people, as it should be. If enough Military families are fed up with how the war has been handled, or have come to disagree with the war altogether, the Republicans will feel it in the next elections. They can't stay in power unless they still have the support of a significant number of Military families.
So regardless of whether our Representatives have children at war or not, the number of voters who do is enough to decide whether they serve another term or not.
boutons_, sometimes I agree with you, its just too damn hard when in one sentence you make an excellent point, and the next you make yourself look like an ass.
Not hating on you, just saying...
O, btw, I agree with boutons_ minus the incredulousness.
Military families are not a large enough voting bloc to swing the results of an election--there are many more people who support the war, but will never have to pay the price of losing a child or spouse in it. And many military families are opposed to the war, and another portion of them probably don't vote at all.
The power is in the hands of the people, as it should be. If enough Military families are fed up with how the war has been handled, or have come to disagree with the war altogether, the Republicans will feel it in the next elections. They can't stay in power unless they still have the support of a significant number of Military families.
So regardless of whether our Representatives have children at war or not, the number of voters who do is enough to decide whether they serve another term or not.
We as a society shouldn't go to war unless all parts of society have to make a sacrifice for it--whether that's through the draft, higher taxes to pay for it, or paying more for gas so we don't have to depend on Middle Eastern oil. Otherwise, where's the incentive to end it?
This war has stretched our army so thin and put us so deep in debt (with no end in sight), that future generations will look back on this era, and see it as the beginning of the end of America's reign as a superpower, much like what happened with Britain and France in the years following WWI.
I disagree.Military families are not a large enough voting bloc to swing the results of an election
There are currently 1.5 million active troops. If you account for those votes along with the votes of their parents, grandparents, siblings... perhaps even aunts, uncles, etc.... that's enough to make a very strong impact. Especially in regional elections, but even National (I think an 80% or so anti-war stance for military families in Ohio and Florida would have made a pretty significant difference)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
