![]() |
|
||||||
|
|||||||
|
| |||||||
|
|||||||
| rec.arts.bodyart USENET newgroup for general Body Art discussion. (Disclaimer) |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 (permalink) |
|
Posts: n/a
|
The Dallas Morning News offered the following:
"Military tattoos have a long history, as the faded anchors on the arms of many elderly retired sailors attest. British Army officers have been tattooing martial insignia on their bodies since the 1800s, and patriotic tattoos became popular among American troops during World War II. Service members are credited with pushing tattoos from outlaw status to the mainstream youth fad that they are today. But many military leaders frown on the practice, thinking tattoos look unprofessional. The Army had banned tattoos visible on soldiers in uniform in 2002. But in February, the rule was changed to permit some hand and neck tattoos that aren't racist or offensive. Each branch of the service has different rules limiting tattoos. For instance, the Navy continues to ban visible tattoos for recruits and active duty sailors on the face and neck, though it recently expanded the percentage of the body that tattoos could cover." From: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...3e3086b.htm l I wonder how the draft proposal by Congressman Charles Rangel will impact on the military and each branch's tattoo policy. From The New York Post: Powerhouse Rep. Charles Rangel (D-Harlem) says he wants to bring back the military draft to counter widening threats and keep politicians from starting wars. "I don't see how anyone can support the war and not support the draft," he said. "I think to do so is hypocritical." Asked on CBS's "Face the Nation" whether he was serious about his proposal, Rangel replied bluntly, "You bet your life. Underscore 'serious.' " "If we're going to challenge Iran and challenge North Korea and then, as some people have asked, send more troops to Iraq, we can't do that without a draft," he said. Rangel said if there had been a draft in 2003, the U.S. never would have gone to war because politicians wouldn't want to put their own sons and daughters in harm's way. See: http://www.nypost.com/seven/11202006...ff_earl e.htm Of course the idea of a draft preventing wars is idiotic, imo. Rangel must be out of his mind if he believes that any politician's sons and daughters would be "in harm's way." More likely they'd be serving their military draft time at Pearl Harbor, Guam, or some other "safe" duty station. -- Curt http://curtjames.com/ |