It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

1st: Raise the age to 40; 2nd: Lower Education Requirements; Now: The Army's New Standard!

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 07:54 AM
link   
Tattoos!



Army Rethinks Tattoo Policy
Army News Service | J.D. Leipold | March 15, 2006
Washington D.C. - The Army has revised its policy on tattoos in an effort to bolster recruitment of highly-qualified individuals who might otherwise have been excluded from joining.

Tattoos are now permitted on the hands and back of the neck if they are not “extremist, indecent, sexist or racist.” Army Regulation 670-1, which was modified via a message released Jan. 25, also now specifies: “Any tattoo or brand anywhere on the head or face is prohibited except for permanent make-up.”

For women, allowable make-up would be permanent eye-liner, eyebrows and makeup applied to fill in lips, officials said. They said permanent make-up should be conservative and complement the uniform and complexion in both style and color and will not be trendy.

Military.com


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Although the Army, who has the most most troops deployed in Iraq, says that it's recruitment goals are being met, one could argue that they are being met, because they are lowering the standards to join.

In what is, my opinion, is a desperate ploy to get new recruits for an ignoble situation, the Army is yet again changing it's admission policy.

Are these symptoms of a generation who does not see the Army as a means to fight for liberty, justice, and all the the USA stands for, but rather a disdain for the wars of corporate America?

Will the Army ever be so desperate to allow it's eyeopening gay citizens to join?





[edit on 22-3-2006 by curme]




posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 02:28 AM
link   
The forces have plenty of poorly thought out requirements that ought to be loosened, and the tatoo ban is one of them.

The armed forces have good use for rough people, and they need to stop nitpicking things that won't stop you from doing your job. So you've got a tat, or you broke some moron's jaw... personally I'm not sure I want to depend on somebody who's never been in a fist fight to watch my back in the streets of Baghdad.

If a guy has had too many broken bones as a kid, he's not even allowed to enlist as a pogue. What kind of rule is that?

I don't deny that recruiting is getting tough and that it may be a result of the war, I'm just not sure that relaxing the tattoo restriction was a bad thing.

I knew one highly motivated individual in the poolee program before boot, named Enrique. He wanted to be a Marine- they didn't have to promise him the world, he just wanted to be a Marine Infantryman. He met with me to study so he could pass the ASVAB, he made time to PT with me and another poolee almost daily- he was determined to make it. They denied him a tat waiver though and screwed themselves out of a real ball of fire.

Luckily the Army gave him the waiver- I haven't heard from him in a while but he enlisted for the Ranger program and I'm confident that he made it.



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by curme
....because they are lowering the standards to join.

In what is, my opinion, is a desperate ploy to get new recruits for an ignoble situation, the Army is yet again changing it's admission policy.

Pretty obvious to me that you inherently have unresolved issues with the Army and military, in general, curme. Am I mistaken? If I am, certainly your tone within this commentary, and within other military type topics in the past, warrents such an observation.

The Army is lowering its standards?
Really?
How so?
Are they now lowering them to the standards of the Navy or Coast Guard, who have long allowed sailors to obtain and have tattoos?

Was the Navy's allowing of tattoos a sign of their desperation or a ploy to draw men and women into the Navy or Coast Guard?

The Army is simply changing with the times.
As such, there may come a day where closet and open homosexuals will be accepted into the varied military branches. Would that upset you or be considered a further ploy at new recruits, curme? Would it outrage you as apparently the Army now allowing tattoos seemingly does?

God forbid if gay marriages ever makes it way into the military branches, eh?





seekerof

[edit on 27-3-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 11:34 PM
link   
I just wanted to say that the youngest soldier wounded in the Civil War for the Union was 8 years old.

Not only do I think this means he is not a high school graduate by today's standards: but I believe this qualifies as being younger than 16 too.

So I don't see how the "standards" have been lowered.

Obviously you can't lower your standards if your standards were ever lower than they currently are.



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 12:11 AM
link   
I hate saying this but the military is for people who dont have anything else to do.









Mod Note: One Line Post – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 3/27/2006 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 06:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

Pretty obvious to me that you inherently have unresolved issues with the Army and military, in general, curme. Am I mistaken? If I am, certainly your tone within this commentary, and within other military type topics in the past, warrents such an observation.


I have no major problems with the Army, I was in for six years, and re-enlisted once during that time, so obviously I didn't have any issue that made me not want to re-up. The issue I have is with the government who disrespects it's soldiers so much as to send them, and continue to send them, so ineptly to Iraq.




The Army is lowering its standards?
Really?
How so?
Are they now lowering them to the standards of the Navy or Coast Guard, who have long allowed sailors to obtain and have tattoos?

Was the Navy's allowing of tattoos a sign of their desperation or a ploy to draw men and women into the Navy or Coast Guard?


The Army is the only branch that now allows tattoos on the back of one's head, and now reversed it's decision to allow tattoos that are viable in the Class A uniform, i.e. hands and arms.




The Army is simply changing with the times.
As such, there may come a day where closet and open homosexuals will be accepted into the varied military branches. Would that upset you or be considered a further ploy at new recruits, curme? Would it outrage you as apparently the Army now allowing tattoos seemingly does?

God forbid if gay marriages ever makes it way into the military branches, eh?





seekerof

[edit on 27-3-2006 by Seekerof]


It may be the case of the Army 'changing with the times', but in it's history it never was an organization to 'change with the times' so quick.

I support gays in the military. My point was that I think it would be terrible to deny them honorable service now, but later on change their minds, only after they are so desperate for recruits that the Army changes it's policy not because they see gays has people who can honorably serve their country, but warm bodies to fill a vacant slot where no one else wants to go.

Then again, blacks where allowed to serve along with whites during 'desperate times' and that helped pave the way to acceptance, so maybe that would be a good thing.



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 06:59 AM
link   
If the Army is lowering it's enlistment standards based on education
then that is a reaction to what the schools are failing to teach.

Test scores, at least around here in Philly, keep sinking lower and lower.
Reading, Math, Science, History and English are being put aside to teach
Sex Education and other things. Less time in the basics mean that
people coming out of school know how to put on a condum but can't
do algebra.

Frankly, if the schools were teaching better than the Army probably
wouldn't have had to lower education standards.



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 07:19 AM
link   
I know I will probably make some enemies for saying this, but the military is mainly for people who enjoy the limited authority they think it gives them, it is also for people who aren't intelligent enough to make it through life without being ordered around...

I'm not saying that there are no intelligent people in the forces, this is clearly not the case, but if someone ever yelled at me "boy, get down and give me 20!" I would tell them exactly where to go......

Besides, what is a soldier except a terrorist who gets paid....

A good friend of mine was a criminal psychologist with the Australian police as well as several military cases for over 20 years, his job entailed not only studying the criminal mind, but also the people who worked for these organisations, his opinion on both is that they are full of emotional cripples who enjoy excersizing power over other, weaker people, this is a Psychopathic tendancy.

So yeah, unless you want to be a psychotic braindead moron who gets told not only what to do, but how to think, GO YOUR OWN WAY, and GET A REAL JOB.



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by 4th disciple
I hate saying this but the military is for people who dont have anything else to do.




Spot on... Its for war mongering idiots who love skull and cross boans talk crap like there big and bad because they have the guts to shoot children and woman for money....

Its good that the US is now becoming so desperate for mercs its now accepting gang members and white supremacists...




[edit on 27/3/06 by JAK]



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 07:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrBones666
it is also for people who aren't intelligent enough to
make it through life without being ordered around...

I was in the Army. My IQ was tested at 145 and I was a psychology major.
My brother is in the Air Force. His IQ tested at 140 and he's a
computer expert. My father-in-law was in the Army. He speaks
4 languages fluently and skipped 2 grades in school before going
on to college and graduating with honors. My husband was in the
Air Force. He speaks 3 languages fairly well, has two masters degrees,
(getting ready to go for his doctorate) and is an aerospace engineer.

Your 'theory' doesn't hold squat.


what is a soldier except a terrorist who gets paid....

A soldier is a selfless person who gives of him/her self to secure and
continue the freedoms you enjoy, including the freedom to express
yourself (however ignorantly) on this website.


A good friend of mine ...

Is a quack. His 'observations' are pathetic and contaminated.


unless you want to be a psychotic braindead moron

So veterans are all psychotic braindead morons? That's your professional
observation? Do you even understand basic psychology? Obviously not.


GET A REAL JOB.
Get an education.


[edit on 3/27/2006 by FlyersFan]



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by HiddenReality
Its for war mongering idiots who love skull and cross boans talk crap like there big and bad ....


The army is full of idiots? When I was in the army everyone knew
how to spell 'bones' correctly (not boans). Also everyone knew how
to correctly use the contraction 'they're' (not there). Also 'its' should
be it's.




[edit on 3/27/2006 by FlyersFan]



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 08:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by HiddenReality
Its for war mongering idiots who love skull and cross boans talk crap like there big and bad ....


The army is full of idiots? When I was in the army everyone knew
how to spell 'bones' correctly (not boans). Also everyone knew how
to correctly use the contraction 'they're' (not there).


[edit on 3/27/2006 by FlyersFan]


So because i rushed a text and mispelled a few words your point is what?

Im not against anyone with tattoos, but its painfully obvious that a substantial percentage of people with tattoos on their heads hands necks etc are not the best people to give automatic guns to wouldnt you agree?

I do believe there are some people in the US army who if i met would have great respect for, but in general you army is a bunch of cowards who have no objection to killing any children and innocence who gets in their way.

[edit on 27-3-2006 by HiddenReality]



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 08:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by 4th disciple
I hate saying this but the military is for people who dont have anything else to do.

[edit on 3/27/2006 by 12m8keall2c]


I am in the army and I am going to have to say this. Anyone who has added on to this point of view or agrees with this point of veiw dose not know that they are taking about. Soldiers in the army (and I would have to say throughout the military) are such a big group of people that there is no way you could group them into one catagory.

I used to think along these lines about soldiers. Then I joined the army and I know that this is not true. I could go around and ask every soldier in my unit what they are fighting for and I can tell you now that the answer would be different from almost every soldier. I am sorry but I am going to have to ask everyone who has this opinion to rethink what they are saying, and then step up to the mentality it would take for them to defend their country and the people they love. I mean, if you live in the US your tax dollars pay for everything I do, so in a way you support me in what I am doing by chosing living in the US. Crazy huh?



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by HiddenReality
your point is what?

You called hundreds of thousands of people a bunch of idiots,
but you can't even keep 5th grade english straight. You did
not just type too fast and misspell something. Their, there,
and they're are very different words. Bones and boans aren't
even close. If you are going to have the audacity to label
a bunch of people who are smarter than you 'idiots' then
you should at least try to fake being smart and spell the words
correctly.


people with tattoos on their heads hands necks
etc are not the best people to give automatic guns to wouldnt
you agree?


No. Most people in the army don't have tatoos and just because
someone wants some skin art doesn't make them incapable of
shooting a weapon when the need arises.


you army is a bunch of cowards who have no objection to killing any children and innocence who gets in their way.


You have obviously confused the brave men and women of the
US Army with the insurgents. BTW - it's spelled 'innocents' not
innocence. Two different words and meanings. Also is should be
'your army' not 'you army'. Again, if you can't even pass fifth grade
english, then you have no leg to stand on to ridicule the education
levels of hundreds of thousands of people who are much smarter
than you are.


[edit on 3/27/2006 by FlyersFan]



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by HiddenReality

Spot on... Its for war mongering idiots who love skull and cross boans talk crap like there big and bad because they have the guts to shoot children and woman for money....

Its good that the US is now becoming so desperate for mercs its now accepting gang members and white supremacists...


[edit on 27/3/06 by JAK]


Whoa you saying that all the men and women in uniform joined the military because they heard that they have the chance to kill women and children for money? Wow I wonder what active and former military men and women on the ATS has to say about this. And you say that its mostly contained gang members and white supremacists? Seems to me you don't know how diversified the military is right now.



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 10:24 AM
link   
FlyersFan what the hell are you on about? I typed fast and got a few words wrong.. Boohuu im going to cry? Not everyone is as obsessed with making themselves look intelligent as you redneck yanks are. Im sorry mommy didnt pay for me to go thru grammar school and wipe my ass 10 times a day for me while i was there.

"No. Most people in the army don't have tatoos and just because
someone wants some skin art doesn't make them incapable of
shooting a weapon when the need arises."

WTF are you dribbling about now? If your going to try be smart and insult others for there lack of inteligence at least learn to understand a question before you apply your twisted dumb logit to it. I didnt mention anyones ability to shoot a gun. Where did i say anyone was unable to shoot a gun?

I cant be bothered arguing with a little rich kid from the suburbs type like you because to be honest if you was here with me trying to pull this crap i would [Mod Edit - Please do not threaten fellow members.]

[edit on 27-3-2006 by HiddenReality]

[edit on 29/3/2006 by Umbrax]



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy

Originally posted by HiddenReality

Spot on... Its for war mongering idiots who love skull and cross boans talk crap like there big and bad because they have the guts to shoot children and woman for money....

Its good that the US is now becoming so desperate for mercs its now accepting gang members and white supremacists...


[edit on 27/3/06 by JAK]


Whoa you saying that all the men and women in uniform joined the military because they heard that they have the chance to kill women and children for money? Wow I wonder what active and former military men and women on the ATS has to say about this. And you say that its mostly contained gang members and white supremacists? Seems to me you don't know how diversified the military is right now.



When did i say most people join the army to kill woman and children? Care to point this out to me? Where did i say most of the army was gang members and white supremacists, want to point this out for me?

Well done, just like FlyersFan you have dodged the issue completely and decided on twisting and mocking what i said.

Big deal my spelling isnt great.... Like i can be bothered to check a post i type out in seconds... Not all of us are so insecure they have to be so bothered about spelling.



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by HiddenReality
Well done, just like FlyersFan you have dodged the issue completely and decided on twisting and mocking what i said.

Big deal my spelling isnt great.... Like i can be bothered to check a post i type out in seconds... Not all of us are so insecure they have to be so bothered about spelling.


I aint dodging the issue, somewhere along the lines, you believe the military is desperate that they are recruiting gang members as well as whites only that are racists. I don't know if the recruiters ask if you are a white person that is racist, we will automatically recruit you. Anyways having tattoos don't mean you are a gang member either. And also read the article carefully.


Tattoos are now permitted on the hands and back of the neck if they are not “extremist, indecent, sexist or racist.” Army Regulation 670-1, which was modified via a message released Jan. 25, also now specifies: “Any tattoo or brand anywhere on the head or face is prohibited except for permanent make-up.”




[edit on 27-3-2006 by deltaboy]



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy

Originally posted by HiddenReality
Well done, just like FlyersFan you have dodged the issue completely and decided on twisting and mocking what i said.

Big deal my spelling isnt great.... Like i can be bothered to check a post i type out in seconds... Not all of us are so insecure they have to be so bothered about spelling.


I aint dodging the issue, somewhere along the lines, you believe the military is desperate that they are recruiting gang members as well as whites only that are racists. I don't know if the recruiters ask if you are a white person that is racist, we will automatically recruit you. Anyways having tattoos don't mean you are a gang member either. And also read the article carefully.

[edit on 27-3-2006 by deltaboy]


Ok... I do believe the US military is getting desperate judging by the targets it keeps missing and the fact it keeps lowering restrictions to let almost anybody in.
I know having a tattoo doesnt make you a gang member or racist, but a lot more people with tattoos on the face/hand/neck are people i wouldnt trust with a gun around my family. Can you see what im trying to say here?



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by HiddenReality
I know having a tattoo doesnt make you a gang member or racist, but a lot more people with tattoos on the face/hand/neck are people i wouldnt trust with a gun around my family. Can you see what im trying to say here?



Wow so you wouldn't allow somebody like Alyssa Milano who has tattoos on arms and neck to come into your house? Even without guns?




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join