Reply
Wed 28 Mar, 2007 03:57 pm
By THOMAS WATKINS
Associated Press Writer
Published March 28, 2007, 12:48 PM CDT
OCEANSIDE, Calif. -- Five tattooed skulls stretch from Marine Cpl. Jeremy Slaton's right elbow to his wrist, spelling out the word "Death." He planned to add a tattoo spelling "Life" on his left arm, but that's on hold because of a Marine policy taking effect Sunday.
The Marines are banning any new, extra-large tattoos below the elbow or the knee, saying such body art is harmful to the Corps' spit-and-polish image.
Slaton and other grunts are not pleased.
"I guess I'll get the other half later," grumbled the 24-year-old leatherneck from Eden Prairie, Minn. "It's kind of messed up."
For many Marines, getting a tattoo is a rite of passage. They commonly get their forearms inscribed to remember fallen comrades, combat tours or loved ones, and often ask for exotic designs that incorporate the Marine motto, Semper Fi, or "Always faithful."
Dozens of Marines from Camp Pendleton, the West Coast's biggest Marine base, made last-minute trips to tattoo parlors in nearby Oceanside before the ban kicked in.
"This is something I love to do," said Cpl. David Nadrchal, 20, of Pomona, who made an appointment to get an Iraqi flag and his deployment dates etched onto his lower leg. "The fact I can't put something on my body that I want -- it's a big thing to tell me I can't do that."
Nadrchal said he is unsure whether he will re-enlist: "There's all these little things. They are slowly chipping away at us."
Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James T. Conway announced the policy change last week.
"Some Marines have taken the liberty of tattooing themselves to a point that is contrary to our professional demeanor and the high standards America has come to expect from us," he said. "I believe tattoos of an excessive nature do not represent our traditional values."
The ban is aimed primarily at "sleeve" tattoos, the large and often elaborate designs on the biceps and forearms of many Marines. Similar designs on the lower legs will be forbidden as well. So will very large tattoos on the upper arm, if they are visible when a Marine wears his workout T-shirt. Small, individual tattoos will still be allowed on the arms and legs. (The Marines already ban them on the hands.)
Marines already tattooed are exempt from the ban but cannot add to their designs; anyone caught with fresh ink in the wrong places could be barred from re-enlistment or face disciplinary action. Getting a prohibited tattoo could constitute a violation of a lawful order, punishable by up to two years in prison and a dishonorable discharge, Marine spokesman 1st Lt. Brian Donnolly said.
Unit commanders must photograph and document sleeve tattoos to ensure Marines do not add to their ink.
The Marines and the other branches of the military already ban tattoos that could be offensive or disruptive, such as images that are sexist, vulgar, gang-related or extremist.
The Army, which has been doing most of the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan and is struggling to fill its ranks, actually relaxed its tattoo restrictions last year. Soldiers can now get ink on the back of their hands and the lower back of the neck.
The Navy last year decreed that tattoos visible while in short-sleeve uniform cannot be larger than the wearer's hand. The Air Force says tattoos should be covered up if they are bigger than one-quarter the size of the exposed body part.
Tattoo artist Jerry Layton at the Body Temple Tattoo Studio in Oceanside said he was booked up with Marines rushing to beat the deadline.
"These are guys that are dying in the war," Layton said. "They can fight, but they can't get a tattoo? It's ridiculous."
more grey flannel uptight anal retentive military bullshit.
The Air Force banned any tatoo that is visable while wearing a uniform way back on 1998 or 1999. Most piercings are out too. *shrugs* The Navy did the same in 2003.
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:more grey flannel uptight anal retentive military bullshit.
You sound wounded. Do you have a big, gharish tattoo?
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:more grey flannel uptight anal retentive military bullshit.
Yeah. The military shouldn't have so many restrictions. What's all that stuff about being "uniform" mean, anyway? Why don't they just let people be themselves?
On the other hand, isn't that part of what makes them "military"?
I have tattoos but seriously what possible f**cking difference can tattoo make?
Uniform covers 'em, they don't make a difference in their abilities to do their duty. This is just that entire make 'em into robots so they'll be efficient order taking killing machines bullshit.
I understand that a military requires discipline. The tattoo issue hasn't got anything to do with it except for the fact that tattoos offend the image of the military that the conservative voters hold, and conservative voters elect conservative representatives that vote to fund the military over every other goddam thing.
Ask some poor f**cker with a wife and three kids, one of whom he hasn't seen alive yet because he's on his third tour of Iraq if he'd like to serve a fourth tour because the guys that were trying to enlist that would be taking his place got rejected because of the size of their tattoos. Give me a break.
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:I have tattoos but seriously what possible f**cking difference can tattoo make?
Say you're a Marine patrolling a bad neighborhood in Baghdad. To root out the bad guys before they strike, you depend on the neighbors to trust you and give you tips. You have a big, fat tatoo from your ellbow to your wrist spelling DEATH. Are you sure you can't see the difference this tatoo makes to the local people's trust?
Admittedly though, my argument would be stronger if your military put its money where its tatoos are -- for instance, if its recruiters gave fewer waivers to convicted thieves and thugs.
Thomas wrote:Bi-Polar Bear wrote:I have tattoos but seriously what possible f**cking difference can tattoo make?
Say you're a Marine patrolling a bad neighborhood in Baghdad. To root out the bad guys before they strike, you depend on the neighbors to trust you and give you tips. You have a big, fat tatoo from your ellbow to your wrist spelling DEATH. Are you sure you can't see the difference this tatoo makes to the local people's trust?
Admittedly though, my argument would be stronger if your military put its money where its tatoos are -- for instance, if its recruiters stopped giving waivers to convicted thieves and thugs.
no because their uniforms cover their tattoos....
as previously mentioned.
In the corporate world there are now a LOT of people with tattoos.
they wear clothing that covers them. When I was selling furniture last year I wore long sleeves. Perhaps the military could convene a special commitee /tribunal and make a three year million dollar study to come with a long sleeve solution. Perhaps.
The only ones I have a problem with are the tattoos that show while wearing dress uniforms. The Army has relaxed its policy on that lately.
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:no because their uniforms cover their tattoos.... as previously mentioned.
Do Marines on duty never wear short-sleeved shirts? If they do, tatoos on the forearm
will be visible.
Thomas wrote:Bi-Polar Bear wrote:no because their uniforms cover their tattoos.... as previously mentioned.
Do Marines on duty never wear short-sleeved shirts? If they do, tatoos on the forearm
will be visible.
Tell you what....pay me a million dollars and I'll do a study on that and try to come up with a solution..... oh wait, I can do right now.... "Marine, put on a shirt that covers that tattoo before you leave the barracks. That's an order."
I'll take a check as long as it's not a government check.
Bi-Polar Bear wrote: Tell you what....pay me a million dollars and I'll do a study on that and try to come up with a solution..... oh wait, I can do right now.... "Marine, put on a shirt that covers that tattoo before you leave the barracks. That's an order."
Too much common-sense. Won't fly in a military environment.
I'm getting a new tattoo tomorrow... which is really too bad because now I won't be able to serve in the Marines like my dad did.......damn
Thomas wrote:Bi-Polar Bear wrote: Tell you what....pay me a million dollars and I'll do a study on that and try to come up with a solution..... oh wait, I can do right now.... "Marine, put on a shirt that covers that tattoo before you leave the barracks. That's an order."
Too much common-sense. Won't fly in a military environment.
you got that **** right.....
they're actually going to test the ink on big tattoos and if it's determined to be fresh ink the Marine is question will be subject to being denied reenlistment (hooray) dishonorable discharge, loss of benefits and up to two years in prison.
Now because this is the military you know damn well there'll have to be some special ink testing procedure written into the military code of justice or operations or whatever stupid f**king thing they call it, then there will have to be a uniform test developed, a lab to do it in, the equipment and personnel to do the testsa.
In a world where a toilet seat is 400.00 how much time and taxpayer dollars do you suppose this idiotic waste will cost?
Educational and health care funding may need to be cut to the bone but by God we'll not let these tattooed America haters get away with that ****!!!!!!
Phoenix32890 wrote:Bi-Polar Bear wrote:I'm getting a new tattoo tomorrow... which is really too bad because now I won't be able to serve in the Marines like my dad did.......damn
Don't feel bad. The Marines haven't put the Senior Brigade into place yet, so you could not join up anyway!
they don't want a bunch of pissed off old men with nothing to lose in the service.... we'd end up fragging everybody!!!!
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:Uniform covers 'em, they don't make a difference in their abilities to do their duty. This is just that entire make 'em into robots so they'll be efficient order taking killing machines bullshit.
What makes you think the tatoos people are getting are hidden by their uniform? I had guys who had the backs of their hands, their necks and the sides of their faces tatooed. I also had guys that showed up (in uniform) with a row of piercings through their eyebrows or in their noses.
fishin wrote:Bi-Polar Bear wrote:Uniform covers 'em, they don't make a difference in their abilities to do their duty. This is just that entire make 'em into robots so they'll be efficient order taking killing machines bullshit.
What makes you think the tatoos people are getting are hidden by their uniform? I had guys who had the backs of their hands, their necks and the sides of their faces tatooed. I also had guys that showed up (in uniform) with a row of piercings through their eyebrows or in their noses.
again I ask "so what?" and refer you to my comment about this being a pander to conservative image.....
I can sort of agree with excessive piercings, but that is something different. I occasionally take out my piercings if necessary and then replace them. A tatoo is just there.
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
again I ask "so what?" and refer you to my comment about this being a pander to conservative image.....
I can sort of agree with excessive piercings, but that is something different. I occasionally take out my piercings if necessary and then replace them. A tatoo is just there.
And when the guy shows up in work on Monday morning and complains that they can't do their assigned job because their back, arm, neck, etc.. is tender from their weekend tatoo work?
If you want to play in a freak show then join the circus.