I am gonna be joining the army in the near future and was curious about a tattoo I am about to get. I'm curious if it will affect me from joining the army. It's gonna be similar to this with psalms 91:11 with it.
- Thread starter SouthernGunner
- Start date
Have you talked to your local Recruiter?
Hey bro im an army recruiter in Tn.
your tat looks fine the policy is nothing below the wrist bone towards fingers and nothing above the collarbone that can be seen in a white tshirt.
its going to be hard soon to get in with below wrist and knee tatts.
you look good as long as you dont have a burning cross or naked lady somewhere else on ur body
definitely gonna need some med documents on that scar though. Best of luck
Sgt E5 type
Steven
your tat looks fine the policy is nothing below the wrist bone towards fingers and nothing above the collarbone that can be seen in a white tshirt.
its going to be hard soon to get in with below wrist and knee tatts.
you look good as long as you dont have a burning cross or naked lady somewhere else on ur body
definitely gonna need some med documents on that scar though. Best of luck
Sgt E5 type
Steven
O haha thats not you is it.
my bad I guess I actually have to read the OP.
Like I said though as long as its close to the same spot ie above elbows below your neck youre good.
my bad I guess I actually have to read the OP.
Like I said though as long as its close to the same spot ie above elbows below your neck youre good.
Ok thanks. I was pretty sure it would be fine as for the location just wanted to make sure the design was fine. Thanks I appreciate it
NO naked women...seriously. I wonder whats the reasoning behind that?
It would detract from a "Professional" work environment. With all the EO and sexual harassment bs we have to do its not surprising.
I always thought the best place for a naked lady tat would be on the thigh with her head by the knee for those lonely deployment nights
The policy is in the process of being changed at DA currently. The new policy states, among other appearance related subjects, that any tattoos that are visible in a PT uniform are not authorized for new recruits or current soldiers and any existing must be removed at the cost of the soldier. It's being met with some strong resistance though.
Yep. I was a USMC Recruiter 03-06. We had guys have to go back to the tattoo shop to put some clothes on their lady friends before we could send them to MEPS.
The tattoo policies in both ground branches are getting dumber and dumber in peacetime. Their next block of training they will install is "How to give hugs following consolidation phase."
I had broken time and had re-enlisted to go to Iraq. I had to get an officer who was specially trained in gang tattoos recognition to sign off on my tattoo before they would let me go......it was an Eagle Globe and Anchor for crying out loud!
This has nothing to do with a "peacetime military looking for trivial things".
The military is moving to replace the simple labor with technology. We're cutting down and trimming the fat, the future of the US military is fewer intellectuals with complex machines doing a better job than hundreds of Joes getting processed through Basic every week.
Tattoos are correctly stereotyped with the lower caliber individuals the military doesn't need post-'06 surge.
Yes, that's going to piss off folks who are being told "Thanks but no thanks.", but that happens when you apply for a job and the guy hiring doesn't like what he sees.
The military is moving to replace the simple labor with technology. We're cutting down and trimming the fat, the future of the US military is fewer intellectuals with complex machines doing a better job than hundreds of Joes getting processed through Basic every week.
Tattoos are correctly stereotyped with the lower caliber individuals the military doesn't need post-'06 surge.
Yes, that's going to piss off folks who are being told "Thanks but no thanks.", but that happens when you apply for a job and the guy hiring doesn't like what he sees.
Why put yourself in a position of not being able to get a job because of a tat. This is a personal choice so why do it. Remember there are actions and consequences. You can control this now. Just saying
gmsharps
gmsharps
When I enlisted in 1964 any tat at all was a no go, if you wanted to travel an be allowed think on your own. If you were just looking to be a pack mule or magnet in the herd, most were fine. Strange how things change, depending leadership,... or lack thereof.
Last edited:
Good advise
Might confuse the gender confused.
Were always finding new ways to piss off us recruiters. 17 months and I get to go back to big Army 
I dont have tattoos but I dont dislike them. Now if you have some thats good just no reason they need to be on your face or hands. Trust me you arent a gangster lol.
CSA odierno says we must be an army that matches the demographics of the populace and tattoes are commonplace in todays 20 something year olds.
I dont have tattoos but I dont dislike them. Now if you have some thats good just no reason they need to be on your face or hands. Trust me you arent a gangster lol.
CSA odierno says we must be an army that matches the demographics of the populace and tattoes are commonplace in todays 20 something year olds.
Army tattoo policy
I was not permitted any tats: None. But it depends what you want to do. Are you going officer, or enlisted? SF or equivalent, or do you just want to get a foot in the door? Because there's a difference.
I was not permitted any tats: None. But it depends what you want to do. Are you going officer, or enlisted? SF or equivalent, or do you just want to get a foot in the door? Because there's a difference.
Does that include wearing the tackle box?
All the face piercing and stuff?
Its a fine line I guess between spewing bs and taking benefits and actually caring about soldiers appearance I guess.
we have to for some reason look like businessmen and also be the meanest baddest motherfucker to walk the earth. Ralph Lauren meet Ghangis Khan
Its a fine line I guess between spewing bs and taking benefits and actually caring about soldiers appearance I guess.
we have to for some reason look like businessmen and also be the meanest baddest motherfucker to walk the earth. Ralph Lauren meet Ghangis Khan
Yes?
I thought that was the Marines...
Lol if that what lets you sleep at night.
I meant American soldiers in general tho. Except the chair force of course
I meant American soldiers in general tho. Except the chair force of course
Because MRAPs, JSF, LCS and Apaches are so conducive to COIN, right? The air war in the First Gulf War won the day and there was no need for a ground element? Shock and Awe was the end-all be-all? The massive shelling of Peleliu by five battleships and several other smaller ships, running out of targets to fire on, left nothing left for the invasion force to fight?
Let me guess, you're not combat arms, are you...
My "lower caliber" self voluntarily left in 2006 exactly because shit like this was happening, and I've made a fuck-ton of money ever since while not getting my ass chewed for what Joe Fuck-Nuts the Private did over the weekend when I wasn't there, I just fire them instead. The vast amount of off-battlefield corruption I witnessed was more than enough cause for me to leave, but I saw nothing but honor and heroism on the battlefield by "the fat" you claim is being cut.
It's the 90s all over again, and the branches will get the NCOs they're asking for. I'm very happy I'm not still fighting 1stSgts over why the men have their hands in their pockets during cold weather training.
I'll end with a picture of another "lower caliber" tattoo'd Marine...
Good guess. No, I scored more than a 3 on the ASVAB. It’s a good point you bring up though, it’s comforting to know that the grunts are held to the standard of having to be smarter than the bottom few percent of the American population.
First off, in what narrow minded view is “ground forces” synonymous with “tattoos”? Second, where did you get the impression that I am suggesting the ground game is going to disappear?
Yah you’re damn right technology wins the war and saves our lives. The Gulf Air Campaign/Shock & Awe/ naval bombardment took out a lot of targets that dumb Joes on the ground didn’t have to bleed out for. If it wasn’t for MRAPs/Apaches/JDAMs/all that other fancy shit then we would have to have a lot more boots on the ground, we’d have to scrap the bottom of the barrel even more vigorously, and then more of them would die.
Since you want to go historical rather than look forward, most military technology ever developed has decreased the size of armed forces. We no longer charge tens of thousands of men in battle lines against each other with spears and swords in a half acre; we cover miles of expanses with a single machine. Crossbows, gunpowder, airplanes, rockets, automated gun turrets, drones; it all makes the military more effective, which means we need less people to do the same job. This trend will continue, replacing more of the manual labor of junior enlistees. Less people means more selective enlistment standards.
The problem is Joe Fuck-Nuts the Private is being written up for how damn stupid he is 99% of the time, so the 1% of honor isn’t worth it. We don’t want battlefield berserkers to charge into the heat of the barrels with their tomahawks, the soldiers don’t live in the warzone. They have homes and families in our world that don’t want half a million “Mr. Fuck-Nuts” getting out of the military.
Congrats on slugging it out in combat arms, being there for the heroism and then leaving for your “fuck-ton” of money. Some of us who stopped coloring on ourselves in kindergarten actually want to do something lasting in the military, and this is part of the plan forward. I’d give my next paycheck if you can demonstrate that the dishonorable discharges last year do not have 10 times the percentage of tattoos that any graduating class from a service War College has ever had.
Whoopty shit, that’s cute, you can cherry pick one. Unfortunately our military isn't comprised of half a million 1945 John Basilone's. I’ll also end on a picture of a tattoo’d Marine, one your Corps considered worthy to keep his uniform and deserving of a general discharge with honorable conditions; Private Wuterich:
Wow... When in doubt, call the grunts stupid. Classy bro, really classy. You're the epitome of the type of leadership I was speaking of; good luck leading men while looking down your nose at them.Good guess. No, I scored more than a 3 on the ASVAB. It’s a good point you bring up though, it’s comforting to know that the grunts are held to the standard of having to be smarter than the bottom few percent of the American population.
First off, in what narrow minded view is “ground forces” synonymous with “tattoos”? Second, where did you get the impression that I am suggesting the ground game is going to disappear?
Yah you’re damn right technology wins the war and saves our lives. The Gulf Air Campaign/Shock & Awe/ naval bombardment took out a lot of targets that dumb Joes on the ground didn’t have to bleed out for. If it wasn’t for MRAPs/Apaches/JDAMs/all that other fancy shit then we would have to have a lot more boots on the ground, we’d have to scrap the bottom of the barrel even more vigorously, and then more of them would die.
Since you want to go historical rather than look forward, most military technology ever developed has decreased the size of armed forces. We no longer charge tens of thousands of men in battle lines against each other with spears and swords in a half acre; we cover miles of expanses with a single machine. Crossbows, gunpowder, airplanes, rockets, automated gun turrets, drones; it all makes the military more effective, which means we need less people to do the same job. This trend will continue, replacing more of the manual labor of junior enlistees. Less people means more selective enlistment standards.
The problem is Joe Fuck-Nuts the Private is being written up for how damn stupid he is 99% of the time, so the 1% of honor isn’t worth it. We don’t want battlefield berserkers to charge into the heat of the barrels with their tomahawks, the soldiers don’t live in the warzone. They have homes and families in our world that don’t want half a million “Mr. Fuck-Nuts” getting out of the military.
Congrats on slugging it out in combat arms, being there for the heroism and then leaving for your “fuck-ton” of money. Some of us who stopped coloring on ourselves in kindergarten actually want to do something lasting in the military, and this is part of the plan forward. I’d give my next paycheck if you can demonstrate that the dishonorable discharges last year do not have 10 times the percentage of tattoos that any graduating class from a service War College has ever had.
Whoopty shit, that’s cute, you can cherry pick one. Unfortunately our military isn't comprised of half a million 1945 John Basilone's. I’ll also end on a picture of a tattoo’d Marine, one your Corps considered worthy to keep his uniform and deserving of a general discharge with honorable conditions; Private Wuterich:
I myself cut a AFQT/GT of 96/133. It was an off day for me, was up all night cutting and laying tile at my buddies house before going to take the test, but pretty close to the same level as my 1320 SAT score from my high school days. I enlisted at 17 years old for a six year guaranteed Infantry contract instead of worrying if I was going to get into the "good college"; I knew exactly where my heart was. As a recruiter for three years during the height of the Iraq War, I didn't have a single male AFQT >90 that didn't go infantry, and I'm talking about eight I personally enlisted. It was always the mediocre guys that wanted the most high tech job they could. Yeah, we take them at a 31/80 for the grunts, but there's one requirement you probably don't realize on what it takes to be an Infantryman, probably because you're clueless on that part, and that's balls.
It's obvious you think you understand COIN from the PowerPoint perspective, and I understand it from actually putting it to work. This is the battlefield of today, not tanks, not MRAPS, not whatever other high tech doo-dad LM or NG came up with lately to sell off on a ten-figure contract. Staying "safe" inside armor with up-guns claiming you patrolled and secured an AO while crushing their irrigation ditches, throwing dust into their homes and knocking down their walls that stood for decades is not COIN. It's coming into a village dismounted, dropping your kit in a show of good faith, having a hasty shira with the tribal elders while drinking their chai from well drawn water (knowing damn good and well you're going to shit and puke your brains out for the next week), all to find out where the real bad guys are and what you can REALLY do to provide security to that area. It's continuing to work with your ANSF counterparts right after you had to lay two of your own to rest from a ANP 1LT that just shot them up in a "Green-on-Blue" attack. It's knowing in your heart the ANP General located on your training center knew damn good and well about the VBIED coming in that day at lunch by the way he rushed out just prior to the hit, yet you have to put on the happy face and continue to work with him because "he isn't all that bad" according to the higher-ups. That's COIN.
I'm glad you mentioned the situation of dishonorable discharges, comparing the enlisted ranks with the officer ranks, because that is where a huge disparity in offense versus punishment exists within the service. Can you tell me why is it Generals get a free pass with a verbal counseling for having an affair, yet one of my fellow snipers that slept with the legally separated wife of some bitch ass USAF CPT did three months in the brig on adultery charges? How about the misuse of government funds and assets for personal flamboyance, and all that happens is a loss of one of four stars upon retirement? Or a four-star head of a service branch wrongfully interjecting himself into a virgin investigation while claiming he wants the alleged offenders "crushed" before an investigation panel has even been convened?
Seems they are teaching the wrong curriculum at the illustrious War Colleges, because they left out the POI of "how to not get your dumb ass in the press". I don't see any outcry over tattoos on a Service Member's arms hitting Dateline or 60-Minutes, but I certainly see the rest. If the officers in the Pentagon want to improve the image of their respective branches, they need to start with the ones staring back at them in the mirror.
There’s a difference between calling someone stupid while looking down at them and knowing what quality of tool you’re working with and realizing what it is or isn’t capable of. I’m glad you and your 8 recruits were all impressive top 10% guys, and I wish that’s the kind of stock our military was selecting from. Unfortunately the rest of the country is nowhere near that level, and your infantry goggles are giving you a pretty strong bias. That’s not typical, that’s not average and it’s definitely not representative. The reason why the minimum (31 for yall, ours is low-20s at times) is there is because some number cruncher calculated that’s just how low we have to go to fill the required quota. You may see a bunch of heroic men with heart and balls, but a lot of us see high school drop outs, felons, unemployed, and previously homeless. It’s not called balls when you roll the dice on IBA vs IED because it’s the only way you know how to put food in your stomach.
And since we’re comparing numbers; my AFQT was 99, composites were all 140-150s, SAT was 1410. I chose college first.
Yah, reality check, how’s that “happy face” working for us? I’ve been on both sides of the HESCO, I’ve smiled politely at the meet and greets and I’ve popped the extra doxys hoping it would at least help solidify the runs. Those two American heroes that were laid to rest, did their mission convince the Afghans of your purpose? The entire world’s news doesn’t think so, and I’m afraid they might be right.
Something you don’t get while you’re running around wearing out the boots is the full view. Yah, infantry is the face and you get the firsthand experience. But it’s that “PowerPoint perspective”, seeing all the reports & watching all the pieces move, which really knows what’s going on. Joe with balls the size of melons doesn’t have any greater purpose than doing what he’s told, when he’s told exactly how he’s told.
Well, it’s obvious, but yes I can tell you why. It’s not something that an enlisted guy likes to hear, and it’s definitely not something an enlisted guy who’s buddies have been hammered by it likes to hear.
It’s because that General is worth a whole hell of a lot more than the junior enlisted guy. That senior commander has a huge amount of time and effort put into his job, and despite the rumor mill at the MWR, he got the job because he’s good at it. It’s not just officers, but it’s more apparent with them. 1SG gets away with a lot of things that infantry PVT’s balls would shrink back to normal size just thinking about doing. And brand new butterbar LTs get put in their place quickly by senior enlisted men if they’re bad enough to warrant it.
Those higher ups got their positions because they worked for it and the job needs them there. The military can easily afford to shuffle around some E4s to cover admin changes, not as easy or inconsequential to the war effort at the flag officer level. Big Shot So and So needs to do his job because the government and all the thousands of people working for him are counting on it, whether or not he gets his dick wet. Junior enlisted need to be kept in line to maintain discipline throughout a large group of less like-minded individuals.
No, I for one am glad that they aren’t teaching PAO 101, worrying about their image. Unlike people who color on themselves to try and attract attention or feel valuable, senior military command usually isn’t worried about their image.
I’m glad that they’re putting in the time to continuously educate themselves in the effort to prevent your infantry-sized balls from being ripped away from your infantry-sized ego in the next explosion.
The leader is supposed to be of higher character, both morally and ethically, than all of their command and held to it as well. If you can't see the hypocrisy of a General Officer getting a verbal counseling and a Corporal becoming a convicted felon, with the Corporal committing a far less crime, then it really isn't worth arguing the rest of the points.
Frankly, the arrogance and entitlement being demonstrated here has me thinking that this HAS to be the work of a troll...but I'll bite.
If this is actually serious...I'm stunned by the ideas conveyed in this thread. As a former officer of Marines, I'm ashamed that another officer would feel this way much less publicly voice it.
John A Lejeune is rolling over in his grave.
For what it's worth, I've always been taught and believed that positions of responsibility demand more character. The higher the position, the greater the standard which must be upheld. When our leaders fail to lead by example, discipline and standards always quickly go to the wayside.
I think this reflects part of the decline in our culture...we no longer seem to expect that our leaders (military, business, civic, political...) will hold themselves to a minimum of the same standards they hold us common men to.
If I ever heard someone in my son or daughters' chain of command refer to them as a "tool" not fit for anything but be used as a chess piece or that they were worth more than them, I'd punch them in the nose.
And in terms of senior officers not being concerned with image...are you joking? Here's an enlightening read for you. The problem is they aren't fired readily enough.
The Generals: American Military Command from World War II to Today: Thomas E. Ricks: 9780143124092: Amazon.com: Books
If this is actually serious...I'm stunned by the ideas conveyed in this thread. As a former officer of Marines, I'm ashamed that another officer would feel this way much less publicly voice it.
John A Lejeune is rolling over in his grave.
For what it's worth, I've always been taught and believed that positions of responsibility demand more character. The higher the position, the greater the standard which must be upheld. When our leaders fail to lead by example, discipline and standards always quickly go to the wayside.
I think this reflects part of the decline in our culture...we no longer seem to expect that our leaders (military, business, civic, political...) will hold themselves to a minimum of the same standards they hold us common men to.
If I ever heard someone in my son or daughters' chain of command refer to them as a "tool" not fit for anything but be used as a chess piece or that they were worth more than them, I'd punch them in the nose.
And in terms of senior officers not being concerned with image...are you joking? Here's an enlightening read for you. The problem is they aren't fired readily enough.
The Generals: American Military Command from World War II to Today: Thomas E. Ricks: 9780143124092: Amazon.com: Books
In terms of tattoos...one should not make the mistake that tattoo's mean that someone is less educated, not as bright, or not as morally strong. This is especially true today. Tattoos are now mainstream.
I would much rather have a platoon of Marines that were painted head to toe with ink that could physically do the job in the field, than a platoon of squeaky clean cut poster children that couldn't hike worth a damn or shrink from a fight.
If it's not an indecent or crude tat, who cares. It's irrelevant to if they can or can't do the job. But, that's just me.
I would much rather have a platoon of Marines that were painted head to toe with ink that could physically do the job in the field, than a platoon of squeaky clean cut poster children that couldn't hike worth a damn or shrink from a fight.
If it's not an indecent or crude tat, who cares. It's irrelevant to if they can or can't do the job. But, that's just me.
Last edited:
Good guess. No, I scored more than a 3 on the ASVAB. It’s a good point you bring up though, it’s comforting to know that the grunts are held to the standard of having to be smarter than the bottom few percent of the American population.
First off, in what narrow minded view is “ground forces” synonymous with “tattoos”? Second, where did you get the impression that I am suggesting the ground game is going to disappear?
Yah you’re damn right technology wins the war and saves our lives. The Gulf Air Campaign/Shock & Awe/ naval bombardment took out a lot of targets that dumb Joes on the ground didn’t have to bleed out for. If it wasn’t for MRAPs/Apaches/JDAMs/all that other fancy shit then we would have to have a lot more boots on the ground, we’d have to scrap the bottom of the barrel even more vigorously, and then more of them would die.
Since you want to go historical rather than look forward, most military technology ever developed has decreased the size of armed forces. We no longer charge tens of thousands of men in battle lines against each other with spears and swords in a half acre; we cover miles of expanses with a single machine. Crossbows, gunpowder, airplanes, rockets, automated gun turrets, drones; it all makes the military more effective, which means we need less people to do the same job. This trend will continue, replacing more of the manual labor of junior enlistees. Less people means more selective enlistment standards.
The problem is Joe Fuck-Nuts the Private is being written up for how damn stupid he is 99% of the time, so the 1% of honor isn’t worth it. We don’t want battlefield berserkers to charge into the heat of the barrels with their tomahawks, the soldiers don’t live in the warzone. They have homes and families in our world that don’t want half a million “Mr. Fuck-Nuts” getting out of the military.
Congrats on slugging it out in combat arms, being there for the heroism and then leaving for your “fuck-ton” of money. Some of us who stopped coloring on ourselves in kindergarten actually want to do something lasting in the military, and this is part of the plan forward. I’d give my next paycheck if you can demonstrate that the dishonorable discharges last year do not have 10 times the percentage of tattoos that any graduating class from a service War College has ever had.
Whoopty shit, that’s cute, you can cherry pick one. Unfortunately our military isn't comprised of half a million 1945 John Basilone's. I’ll also end on a picture of a tattoo’d Marine, one your Corps considered worthy to keep his uniform and deserving of a general discharge with honorable conditions; Private Wuterich:
There is always some weak-ass bitch pretending guys like us are unnecessary in the "future" wars. Claiming that we are scraping the bottom of the barrel on intelligence. I've known doctors, lawyers, chemists, biologists, guys in their mid 20's with masters degrees... All in Infantry or Special Forces. Actually, from my experience (I spent three years as a POG)... The LRS unit I spent most of my career in had more depth of knowledge, commonsense and general intelligence than just about any non-combat arms unit I ever dealt with... Some units excelling in one area and falling far short in others (intel generally seem to lack depth of knowledge and commonsense for example).
Guys like us- our personality types, no matter what the intelligence level will gravitate to jobs like Infantry, Cav, Special Operations and things of the sort... It isn't about lack of intelligence; it's about the fact that we are the type "A's" who enjoy leading, winning, dominating, overcoming challenges and generally being the hardest motherfuckers on the battlefield. What you're missing is we draw from the same pool of individuals who become CEO's, sports stars, business owners... Yes, we do get some that come from the bottom of the gene pool... because frankly, it doesn't take someone of particularly high intelligence to lay suppressive fire as directed, with a 240. But these individuals USUALLY get weeded out as rank progresses. This is even more so the case in more elite units that run selection programs and often have higher minimum scores required for entry.
The vast majority of my civilian friends are all engineers, some with masters degrees; all very successful... They had this impression of what military and infantry guys were like as well... until they got to know a lot of my military friends.
Don't forget that type A's with high intelligence often do not gravitate to professions that emphasize intellect because most of those professions do not fit with their personality, leaving them under-engaged. Yes, their intelligence may be used to a higher degree, but that isn't what drives them so they tend to perform mediocre. It has nothing to do with intellect and everything to do with personality.
A good example of this is my friend Ken who has his PE cert and an MBA... and is type A personality. At 30 he became the second in charge, under the owner of his engineering company, a company that does work for large scale international industries. This alone does not satisfy his personality... so he competes in triathlons and the ironman. And he's told me that he wishes he'd have joined the military... you guessed it... as infantry or SF.
It shows an incredible lack of thought and experience to repeat the uneducated assumption of "combat arms are the low intelligence guys that just do as they are told and are expendable".
The irony of all this... most flag officers come from combat arms. And yes, infantry junior officers are every bit as "expendable" as enlisted... otherwise, LT's and captains would not be out leading their men in combat, they'd be back a safe distance on a radio, allowing the equally capable senior NCOs control the troops on the field. Any company commander who thinks his 1SGT couldn't do his job has an overly-high self worth and is positively delirious. Well, unless it's one of those E-8's who slipped through the cracks...
Last edited:
These guys are being far too kind handling you with kid gloves.
You talk ego? Seriously? You sound like the officer someone wouldn't risk their hide to save... With that attitude, I know I wouldn't. Being you're so much better and so condescending, you should be able to get your own ass out of the sling.
And save the bullshit about flag officers and their job qualifications- those are political appointments. Sure, there are undoubtedly many that make it with great capabilities, but they didn't even come close to making it based on merit alone. You might be able to pull the wool over the eyes of a private or perhaps an NCO who has been isolated. Non-starter with guys who have watched the progression of officers first hand. Of course, with your age and experience level, you may actually believe this line you're feeding everyone. There is a reason the military is so slow to change and make progress- that certainly isn't because doctrine is so well refined. It's because the officers with revolutionary ideas and principles don't make it very far as they don't fit in line with everyone else's norm and no one wants to be shown up. Conventional forces do not reward marked and significant ingenuity.
How old are you anyway? Oh wait... you're 24... Sounding like another shitbag LT from ROTC. And you honestly believe your cherry ass opinion carries any weight around here? You have what, one POG deployment? I checked that block when you were somewhere around the age of 12. You know you damned near missed the war right? And you're here to school us on how the next war will be fought? What, with your vast portfolio of experience? Just what is your branch anyway?
I'm surprised you're acting so damned stupid to come on here and bash grunts and enlisted. You might as well have walked into the NCO club and started trash talking everyone in the joint. You might score well, but in practical use, you're obviously failing... or you're a troll. You do know that a former enlisted grunt OWNS this site right? You're running around here like an idiot, kicking the fire-ant hill and thinking you're not going to get bitten. You even have other officers essentially calling you an idiot and saying you're a discredit to the commissioned officer corps. You should really stop while you're behind.
Last edited:
GunKnowledge- Bias? I'd say that's the pot calling the kettle black.
No matter how you slice it, it is the scruffy, tattoo'ed man who fights the battles regardless of the technology at play. All that tech helped the offensive, but frankly didn't help us take, then re-take Fallujah or hold on the city center's of Iraq without the people to do it. That is the brutal truth your completely overlooking, you can't hold ground in a conflict of that nature with tech alone. The Sunni Awakening wasn't due to a bunch of Power Point Rangers looking at charts, it was made possible by the efforts of one Army Captain who started his career as an enlisted man in SOF Communications and saw action in Anaconda (CPT. Patriquin, who sadly was killed before he could see the fruits of his labor, I suggest you read his autobiography) and a small band of Marines and Soldier O's and Senior NCO's who helped him kick it off. Bringing the Sunni tribes back to the drawing board and in to the circle was coupled with an extensive ground campaign by you guessed it.... ground troops. It took a man with extensive knowledge of the Arab world and by extension Iraq to see the connections and see the opportunity provided by the brutal tactic against the Iraqi civilians by AQI. Unfortunately we lost this initiative after 2009-10. Someone who like both you and DP, was one the ground doing the work. So please tell me which is the more valuable?
I've seen plenty of men who are tattooed, who are among some of those proficient, intelligent, and flexible Soldier's and Marines; esp in the SOF community. Tattoo's do not immediatly define someone as a member of the lower end of society, nor do they determine the potential or ability of someone. Seen plenty of guys who zero tattoo's who are idgits, plenty of men who have them who aren't. The notion that appearance determines the total sum of the man's ability is ludicrous. This is nothing more then an attempt at image projection by Army Leadership.
Frankly, that general may be worth more in terms of raw investment of money, but you are also forgetting the basics of trust. Leading by example, and telling your subordinates to act a certain way must be reciprocated by personal action. Its a basic principal of leadership, regardless of rank. Again, nothing more then Army Brass and Senior NCO's protecting themselves and by extension protecting the image of the Army. That same CSM or Field Grade Officer who crushed Joe's nuts for what is in effect a misdemeanor (DUI) gets his swept under the rug. Usually that indicates other problems with that CSM, been there, seen that.
Your also forgetting that the Army was the one who allowed men and women with the tattoo's below the hand in the first place, but now its deemed unprofessional by the careerist's in charge. Hypocrisy much?
No matter how you slice it, it is the scruffy, tattoo'ed man who fights the battles regardless of the technology at play. All that tech helped the offensive, but frankly didn't help us take, then re-take Fallujah or hold on the city center's of Iraq without the people to do it. That is the brutal truth your completely overlooking, you can't hold ground in a conflict of that nature with tech alone. The Sunni Awakening wasn't due to a bunch of Power Point Rangers looking at charts, it was made possible by the efforts of one Army Captain who started his career as an enlisted man in SOF Communications and saw action in Anaconda (CPT. Patriquin, who sadly was killed before he could see the fruits of his labor, I suggest you read his autobiography) and a small band of Marines and Soldier O's and Senior NCO's who helped him kick it off. Bringing the Sunni tribes back to the drawing board and in to the circle was coupled with an extensive ground campaign by you guessed it.... ground troops. It took a man with extensive knowledge of the Arab world and by extension Iraq to see the connections and see the opportunity provided by the brutal tactic against the Iraqi civilians by AQI. Unfortunately we lost this initiative after 2009-10. Someone who like both you and DP, was one the ground doing the work. So please tell me which is the more valuable?
I've seen plenty of men who are tattooed, who are among some of those proficient, intelligent, and flexible Soldier's and Marines; esp in the SOF community. Tattoo's do not immediatly define someone as a member of the lower end of society, nor do they determine the potential or ability of someone. Seen plenty of guys who zero tattoo's who are idgits, plenty of men who have them who aren't. The notion that appearance determines the total sum of the man's ability is ludicrous. This is nothing more then an attempt at image projection by Army Leadership.
Frankly, that general may be worth more in terms of raw investment of money, but you are also forgetting the basics of trust. Leading by example, and telling your subordinates to act a certain way must be reciprocated by personal action. Its a basic principal of leadership, regardless of rank. Again, nothing more then Army Brass and Senior NCO's protecting themselves and by extension protecting the image of the Army. That same CSM or Field Grade Officer who crushed Joe's nuts for what is in effect a misdemeanor (DUI) gets his swept under the rug. Usually that indicates other problems with that CSM, been there, seen that.
Your also forgetting that the Army was the one who allowed men and women with the tattoo's below the hand in the first place, but now its deemed unprofessional by the careerist's in charge. Hypocrisy much?
Last edited:
Alright, I got about half through a huge Word document responding to each of your posts, and have completely lost interest in arguing. I feel like I might as well be trying to explain why killing your child is wrong to a high school drop out on her third abortion.
Basic gist is I recognize the hypocrisy, but I understand why it's there. I never said the world was fair, surprise, no participation trophy for everyone. As for the tattoos, the stereotype exists because it's true, it's indicative of personal issues when you color on yourself.
But the only part that really needs to be said is I'm not sure where you geniuses decided I was an officer. I figured the ASVAB and the part where "I chose college first" gave it away, but I guess not.
Either way, I'm enlisted.
Basic gist is I recognize the hypocrisy, but I understand why it's there. I never said the world was fair, surprise, no participation trophy for everyone. As for the tattoos, the stereotype exists because it's true, it's indicative of personal issues when you color on yourself.
But the only part that really needs to be said is I'm not sure where you geniuses decided I was an officer. I figured the ASVAB and the part where "I chose college first" gave it away, but I guess not.
Either way, I'm enlisted.
Probably from your holier than thou attitude speaking down upon enlisted and grunts... and the lip service to officers.
It's almost worst that you're speaking down upon your peers.
What a load of crap from a sperm wad on a soap box. I sure hope he serves with like minded know it alls. Cuz some tattooed Pvt just may frag him. I know a lot of guys I served with would have his mouth wired shut. Awful hard to keep up when sucking soup thru a straw. Someone needs a silver spoon pulled from his mouth and stuck up his ass. My opinion.
Having a tatoo is not not an indication of a low IQ, or poor character. I have multiple tatoos and over the years I kept them under cover. That a short sleeve shirt would not reveal. When I retired I had my forearm tatooed, and wear it proudly.
I know highly educated that have them, and very well off individuals that have them. Some keep them covered, but others wear them exposed. Having a tatoo does not make them any less of a person.
But I will say this, I have a very close friend that sports full sleeves on both arms, and I would trust him with any of my family members lives and safety, before I wold trust a close family member who does not have any tatoos and looks down on anyone that has them.
I know highly educated that have them, and very well off individuals that have them. Some keep them covered, but others wear them exposed. Having a tatoo does not make them any less of a person.
But I will say this, I have a very close friend that sports full sleeves on both arms, and I would trust him with any of my family members lives and safety, before I wold trust a close family member who does not have any tatoos and looks down on anyone that has them.
Damn you could replace Ken with Tom and you would have me described awfully well. Only BS of ME instead of MBA and instead of the triathlon and ironman I prefer to work with steel on my own time with my own hands. Biggest regret of my life that I cannot fix is letting my folks talk me out of swearing in when I was 18. Would have finished basic the summer before 9/11. If for any reason my wife and daughters were gone tomorrow I would be finding a recruiter to talk to. It weighs heavy on my heart almost every day but I am not in a position in life at this moment where I can go get sworn in any more.
Oh and to stay on topic. I'm a successful engineer with tattoos. All of which are covered by business attire and a watch.
I wouldn't give a 'hoot n hell' if a guy had tattoos on his tongue....as long as he would stick to my back in a hole and help me fight!!
Haha, I did a speed read on that the first time and it didn't sound good! I had to go back and reread a little slower.
Hey, it works for me.
If you want the quick thread synopsis:
1. There is a regulation. You may read it if you like. Life will be easier if you follow the reg.
2. If you get a tattoo(s), some people will stereotype and look down on it until YOU prove them otherwise. YOU can always be the exception to the rule and walk around with a bone through your head and still be God's gift to humanity. It's entirely up to YOU.
3. Even if YOU don't get a tattoo, people will judge you in how you appear, until YOU prove them otherwise, for better or worse.
4. Live well, don't worry too much about what others think unless your livelihood and life depend on it. If so, give it some thought, be wise, but remember that we're all individual snowflakes, and there are good and bad in the crowd with tattoos as well as the crowd without tattoos. Character is more than skin deep, and that sword cuts both ways.
1. There is a regulation. You may read it if you like. Life will be easier if you follow the reg.
2. If you get a tattoo(s), some people will stereotype and look down on it until YOU prove them otherwise. YOU can always be the exception to the rule and walk around with a bone through your head and still be God's gift to humanity. It's entirely up to YOU.
3. Even if YOU don't get a tattoo, people will judge you in how you appear, until YOU prove them otherwise, for better or worse.
4. Live well, don't worry too much about what others think unless your livelihood and life depend on it. If so, give it some thought, be wise, but remember that we're all individual snowflakes, and there are good and bad in the crowd with tattoos as well as the crowd without tattoos. Character is more than skin deep, and that sword cuts both ways.
A few things for you to consider Cur..
I qualified for any MOS the army offered. I chose to be a "tool".
Intelligence, wisdom, and education are all very different things, and sometimes, such as in your case, one does not buy another.
I got out on a medical from a jump injury. I went ahead to college because I promised my old man I would on his death bed. I hated college, and all of the self important gasbags, such as yourself, who were there.
I make a damn good living your're going to have to reach 4 stars with 30 in to see. I have forgotten more about commo systems than you can ever possibly hope to learn, even if you're a signal officer.
I have several tattoos, all of them are original, personal, and have a very deep meaning to me, and I couldn't give a fuck less what your opinion of them or me is.
Leaders like yourself are exactly whats wrong with the military, and it is my sincere hole that fate intervenes and in some way ends your career, soon. The military does not need men like you in positions of power or authority.
After your ETS, I do however wish you the best in pursuing whatever makes you happy, as long as it isn't leading men you aren't fit to be in the presence of.
so tattooing mary poppins lyrics on me pecker shood be spiffy then?
No, you need to tattoo a "Mr Yuk" face on the head.
Yes, the Marine recruiter said that he would personally inspect and orally authorize that tattoo.
Similar threads
