• #3
    I as a US citizen do not care one iota about a squeaky clean image for soldiers. I personally want a dedicated, highly trained, meat eater type, who is capable of fighting like a circle saw.
  • #225
    Do you care about national security. Markings give away a lot. There are rules. Appearance is not arbitrary. You can not say a certain appearance is ok , because it is permanent. This guy choose to uglify his body and now he has to live the consequences. Tattoo folk want it both ways. They want to express their so called individuality and yet do not want to adhere to policy.
  • #230
    @Myopinion69 • I don't think anyone gives a damn if you think their tats are ugly. 'Adhere to policy' are the favorite words of a bureaucrat. You ask about national security, yet Benghazi doesn't matter, Fast and furious 'didn't happen', and we have the weakest president in the last 100 years. Take it elsewhere.
  • #232
    @Linebacker66 I pay my net bill. I expect someone on the right to want me to be quiet. W was the president that started wars unprovoked and gave up on bin Ladin. Surely you can not be that stupid that votes for a political party that is against the American worker in every way as the elitists develop a bigger gap from the rest of us.. No , not you. You are smarter than that.
  • #233
    @Myopinion69 • I am not a fan of W. And I am not a fan of Obama. I am not a Republican, Democrat or other standard party. I can Identify with some things in all principal political parties. I think that progressive democrats are just an inch from complete socialism and Republicans have lost their ability to solve problems. I know that the only way for this country to continue on is to follow the constitution. No one is entitled to be equal but no one is entitled to be elite because of birth. The entire mess could be 90% corrected by drawing up a new tax code. Make it simple and bullet-proof. Tax corporations by % on the dollar by yearly net revenue brackets and create a strong off shore tax for subsidiary and branch divisions of corporations so they have incentive to stay in the country. Enforce SEC rules for a change to discourage the cheating and stop cronyism and vulture capitalists. Such as rules that put money in the board members pockets/interests by taxing the bonuses they give themselves until they're actually better off reinvesting back into original corporation rather than into other market ventures. That alone would increase wages and 'tax the rich' at the same time. Income tax on the people should be % on the dollar in income brackets just the same but at a much smaller amount due to actual tax revenue from industry. This is all the way that the original tax plan started out but it has morphed into a monster that no one truly understands because of too many loopholes, breaks, exemptions and credits. BUT neither party is willing to do this because of the obvious - Fully 50% of congress are millionaires controlled by "Wall Street", and the other 50 are trying to get there.
    Many people are turning their back on God and religion, which is the basis for morals. Man alone doesn't have morals without the belief of a Good and evil. People cannot for their life see that this alone provides the glue for any civilized society. Penalty of law and love of money by fear of consequences alone doesn't instill morals and civility. Religion instills fear of consequences but more so by giving hope of reward through love of your fellow man and the golden rule. Society has become immature in thought, folks do as they want and anything that feels good, just like a child does and not as an adult, who knows to control their urges and save their enjoyment of life at appropriate times.

    I apologize if I bored you to death with my rant but I just felt like saying it. I'd like to hear your take on my ideas.(I don't get mad if it's something I don't agree with, I just like the discussion. Pardon my bluntness but I respect a straight reply, as I lack tact at times).
  • R Load more replies

  • #26
    Considering the mandate started just a few years back under this administration you have to wonder if there is a darker purpose behind it. An effort to promote more robotic soldiers as oppose to free thinkers maybe. They may be more likely to follow unscrupulous orders without question, particularly against their own citizens.
  • #34
    @AlexMIA .....That's an interesting thought. This much I know the military wants people to obey orders without question, That's a fact.
  • #35
    No, you don't have to wonder all that much. Paranoid thinking isn't quite necessary. You could simply click and find out something. The army has a campaign to raise its standards. During the Bush administration when soldiers needed to be recruited, the standards were lowered. A lot of atrocities happened (they happen in all wars), and the army wanted to put a stop to the unnecessary killings and the rapes and all. So, they came up with this admittedly misguided attempt to raise standards. The army did it. I think the administration just may not have been at the table with them suggesting this move. They did it. Chances are they may retract it, but no need to make this another reason to knock the administration.
  • #39
    @Raybo Everyone at the top reports to the comander and chief no matter how much you'd like to insulate him. Generals, Joint Chiefs, DOI, DOJ, IRS, HHS and all the others. Take your pick!
  • R Load more replies

  • #8
    The Marine Corps has gotten crazy as well with tattoo regs over the past few years and it makes no sense to me. I've been seeing incredible Marines who can't even try out for certain positions within the Corps because of their tattoos. We need to go back to the old standard of only banning neck/face tattoos or anything gang related. Yes, we're professionals, but we're still killers.
  • #9
    That's crazy. To be a MARINE, you have to have a little crazy in you. A tattoo doesn't make you a bad person. I have tats on my firearms that I got while I was in the Corps. They never said a thing. I feel for you brother. I couldn't serve in today's Maine Corps and serve that commander in chief.
  • #12
    @ahsum99ss yea Marines and tattoos go hand in hand. And you're right, I miss the earlier days of my enlistment under Bush. You could tell he had a much deeper sense of respect and admiration for us. Not like today's military where it seems like the heroism of our fallen goes unnoticed by the Commander in Chief while he chooses instead to praise basketball players as "heroes" for coming out and seems more involved and interested in taking selfies with Hollywood stars.
  • #44
    @Btmoody Bush had a deeper sense of "oh lord, I started two major invasions with a volunteer army, go out and enlist anybody you can". It was about letting almost anyone in, including gang members. LOTS of gang members.

    Sorry id the POTUS isn't blowing enough smoke up your skirt; whatever happened to serving without the need for recognition or praise?
  • #67
    @ahsum99ss You took your firearms with you when you got out? And can a rifle or pistol be tattooed?
  • #79
    @cpeter133 I take it you've never served? There's a little bit of a difference in yearning for attention, recognition and praise and expecting the Commander in Chief to support the men and woman under his command. If you read my comment I didn't ask praise for myself I asked it for the men and women who have died, and F*** you they deserve every bit of it... Especially from the man leading them.
  • R Load more replies

  • #10
    All this is is a way for the military to downsize. It happens every time there is a war drawdown. When a war kicks off, the military will overlook many things such as tats, size etc just to get their numbers up to support the war effort. I did 22 years and never got a tat. I did sit in a tat parlor drunk as a skunk then sobered up once I seen the needle start on my buddy.

    There are better ways to show your rememberance for a fallen comrade and tats weren't one of them for me. I knew I had a career that I wanted to keep and that the military has always had issues with tats below the elbow and it is now in writting.
  • #22
    About the only thing that makes sense. Using tattooing to help control size of military personnel. Beyond that don't and never liked tattoos. They represent a personality needs problem. Military is no place for these maladjusted people, and this is one that is readily visible.
  • #36
    If they won't take the honorable when they come willingly but want them only when they are needed then they should be told to shove it.
  • #75
    In the military to have a tattoo is kinda like a right of passage practised by a number O's and grunts, especially when one completes Basic Tng or flight training, etc. Usually, it was confined to one or two in my day -- depicting the service branch, unit or slogan. I thought about it when I completed advanced training, but decided against it. The reason was, that many tattoos that I observed on older men were faded and the colors started to run over the years and were hardly distinguishable. That was my personal choice. However, if an individual wants a tattoo, have at it. But I would restrict tattoo's that are always visible like around the face, neck or hands....IMO, of course.
  • #97
    @WMCOL I wouldn't go as far as saying they are maladjusted people or a personality needs problem either. Sure there are some strange people in the military as there are in all walks of life but even today, I wonder what happened and how some of those guys are doing that we may have thought were a little strange at the time. No matter what problems we may have had back in the day, they are still my brothers.

    You have to remember that most of these guys are first time out of their home away from mommy and daddy and they have freedoms that they never had before. Then they are sent to a war zone which is in no way anywhere near playing XBOX/PS3/Sega Genesis/Atari 2600 etc.
  • R Load more replies

  • #18
    When I was in the Marines tattoos were allowed as long as your uniform would cover them. Any visible tattoos during an inspection would likely get you an Article 15 hearing. Many of us got tattoos...I have one high on my upper arm and I seldom even think about it any more. But, I cannot imagine having them all over my arms so that I have to look at them all the time. And, women with tattoos are not attractive to me. God made them beautiful without all that stuff.
  • #154
    The standards even taking high school drop outs were changed for Iraq/Afghanistan . Now the USA as ALWAYS stabs its soldiers in the back .

    REGARDLESS of Dem or Rep this is typical USA government behavior.
  • #11
    Like any organization in America, the Military can set the groundrules or change them without explanation. Anyone who has ever worked a day at a job or served in the military knows that Life ain't "fair", and that the Boss or the Brass gets to run things as they wish.
  • #37
    In the case of appropriate attire I agree, but you can change a shirt. Tattoos are permanent. And the popularity of them has been on the rise for years. They are just shooting themselves in the foot with this.

    Plus its a violation of free speech.
  • #54

    You don't have free speech in the army, they own you and your body and they don't want it defaced.

    I don't know if it is true now, but time past a soldier could get an article 15 for getting a sunburn that interferes with duties.
  • #60
    As a Christian the Bible teaches that you are not to have markings on the flesh. But considering that most people are not Christians I agree with the military. If a person wants to wear a tattoo they have a right, but they should not wear a vulgar or profane message exposed so that the public views it.
  • R Load more replies

  • #72
    It's just another example of why excessive tattoos are not a good idea for those who want to be successful in life. it's that simple.
  • #4
    If it wasn't an issue when he made the choice to join than he should be given a grandfather clause. Since, that wasn't a problem/regulation when he exercised his freedom of choice when joining the military.

    However all new recruits should have to toe the line. If you want to join the armed forces you have a accept the consequences of that choice.
  • #14
    I intensely dislike tattooos, especially when women get those HUGE ones. G_d and Nature already made the human body a magnificent creation that doesn't need adornment, particularly by defacing its skin- HOWEVER, it is still a relatively free country; the need for recruits continues, even with downsizing. No one should be excluded from serving even if they have these awful things etched unto their skins. The only concern I could see would be if a potential recruit turns out to have acquired some infection like Hepatitis C, etc., as a result of such tattooing. In that case, I could see the military rejecting someone out of a desire to avoid MEDICAL COSTS in the future, as the veteran ages.
  • #120
    @Cincinnatus Ah, so it's CERTAIN tattoos indicting affiliation with hate groups. Yeah, I can see why the military would want to avoid THOSE types in their ranks. No one would want one such sicko, while doing a sting in the US Armed Forces, to commit (a) hate crime(s) due to their own twisted ideology and then give anyone the opportunity to point the finger at the USA/US Armed Forces as encouraging that type of conduct. I was almost killed by equally psychopathic psychos in the US Army on July 5, 1971, in Vogelweh, Germany, who mistook me for an apparent descendant of their oppressors due to my 'White' skin. You never really appreciate that hate comes in all colors until you're at the business end of blunt AND sharp instruments while being regaled to all sorts of Louis Farrakhan inspired epithets. Thank G_d for the 503rd MPs who happened to be rolling by and broke up the attack. Otherwise I wouldn't be here to tell the story.
    Many bigots don't bother with tattoos. Those are the ones you have to watch even more closely because they don't have any 'identifying marks, scars or tattoos'. While I'm at it, someone should tell the Omega Psi Phi people, and other Black Fraternities, that they are really DESPICABLE for branding their members with 'Omega' brands, as if they were cattle, unto their arms, chests and or buttocks. There's NO CALL to make any pledge go through that crap!!!
  • #155

    You have way more Hispanic type gang tattoos (esp Chicano) than White Power .

    Rare is the White power USA soldier . NOT rare is the Mexican RAZA power Chicano soldier.

    Little fact that MSNBC won't tell you.
  • #76
    If they are gang affiliation tats they should not be able to join the military unless they are removed. With tats being so popular, even with a draft, people could get out of serving just by having tats. Frankly, it is a better way to get out than in Vietnam where all the wealthy got educational deferments, etc. for being the cowards they were.
  • #156
    Well some like Ted Nugent defecated on themselves , interestingly enough conservatives love him.

    Which reflects well on the hypocrites they are.

    Rush Limbaugh was denied deferment due to his little butt cyst by the military doctor but his well to do family doctor got him the deferment he wanted .

    These are heroes to Tea Party conservatives . Speaks volumes on these hypocrites.

    NOT a ONE FAUX bunch ever served but how they drool for war.
  • #73
    If you joined and they say no tattoos, it means no tattoos. You signed a contract saying you would do what your told. And, being told no tattoos is not an unlawful order. Suck it up Buttercup!!
    I believe the military members should be held at a higher standard. If you want a tattoo fine, but make sure a t-shirt can cover it up.
  • #158

    I agree but the military lowered the standards during the start of Iraq/Afghanistan well to the end of Iraq .

    Than it now does a 180 and says "Bye bye" to these loyal soldiers .

  • #107
    Here we go again. I started to make a post but decided to read a few other posts first and I wasn't surprised at what I read..... "It's all Obama's fault".

    Yes he's the Commander In Chief,,, not the Commander AND Chief like one person stated. Yes pretty much everyone answers to him, however, all the little generals/admirals running around are the administrators who help carry the load. They also make rules and I would wager a dollar to a box of donuts Obama didn't make these tattoo rules,,, the administrators did.

    Trying to say "it's all Obama's fault" is nothing more than grasping at straws to justify and unjustifiable hatred.

    I'm covered with tats myself. Both arms wrists to shoulders, chest, both legs from ankles to knee's and plan on even more. I'm also a Viet Nam vet with 5 years of service.

    Pretty much everyone I know call their tats memories no differently than those who use photo's as memories and I myself am no different.

    No facial.neck tat's or gang tat's I could agree with. Beyond that I'm like Linebacker66. I want a dedicated, highly trained meat eater type who becomes a circular saw when fighting, tat's and all.
  • #55
    What a moron. The military is not a democracy and never was.
    You do what you are told to do and go where you are told to go.
    If you don't like the setup, don't re-up.
  • #212
    Basically what I was going to say. And if people are thinking about it for a career, it isn't any different from any other job. The higher-ups want someone who looks professional looking not a gansta wannabe. Commemoration to fellow lost friends can be tattooed on the upper arm.
  • #141
    I can understand why for a special ops unit why they wouldn't want people with tattoos. Not like it's a moral issue or anything, more to do with identifying the individual. Think of it this way, a terrorist may be able to identify a specific solider then ID his family, now the opposing group/terrorist whatever has leverage against that spec ops solider.
  • #148
    Nothing PolitixMary said convinced me of her position. I've had people I care about die. Letting some man doodle and scribble on me does not make my love for them anymore genuine.
  • #95
    I agree that rejecting someone for a tattoo and not their ability to fight or lead can be silly. But He is wrong for a few reasons. We are transitioning to a peacetime force and all the standards that were relaxed or removed to maintain a force are coming back since frankly the military can be more choosy over who it wants. On top of this you are not an individual in the military, quite the opposite. The Army is a volunteer force and when you choose to enlist you choose to abide by the standards given you. Often times even low ranking soldiers are ambassadors for our nation to other cultures, it behooves us to look clean and professional.

    TL:DR You choose to join, then you choose to follow the regs and give up a certain amount of freedom. If something as trivial as a tattoo ruins it for you then what will you do when the big discomforts hit.
  • #69
    I suspect the reason for the no tattoo rule is that they could relay personal information to the enemy, if the soldier should become captured. They are not allowed to carry photographs, etc. of family or friends when online. That is so there is nothing there the enemy can use to identify the soldier. Remember, its name, rank, and serial number, and NOTHING else can be revealed. Having been there, done that, what I didnt do was get a tattoo, because, often the person with all that ink rues it in the future, and its really really hard to get rid of.
  • #207
    Then why control only up to the elbow? That doesn't wash. Yes it is hard but you can buy products over the counter to remove them.
  • #215
    The thing is, if one cannot see the tattoo, then it is more likely the soldier wont get one, and it is also part of the word UNIFORM. A uniform look of non tattoos, that can be seen with the uniform being worn.
  • #231
    I think it violates the people's civil rights. P.C. has hit the military. Next thing they will banned "THE BIBLE" OH WAITTRESS THEY DID.
  • #221
    My father came home from his first tour of duty during WWII with a topless pinup girl tattoo on his left forearm. The Army had no problem with it when he reenlisted and returned to Europe. His mom wasn't crazy about the tattoo, though...
  • R Load more comments...