Archangel M
Senior Master
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2007
- Messages
- 4,555
- Reaction score
- 154
You're in the Army now!
- Thread starter Archangel M
- Start date
Very good to see that :tup:. Also good to see a triumph of pragmatism over regulations too 
.
.
I am waiting to see the first transvestite soldiers mincing around in dresses.
Running, jumping, climbing trees ... more a sort of Action Transvestite :lol:! Eddie Izzard's take on such things is most amusing.
Seriously tho', I don't think it is particularly clear what you are trying to say there, Bill i.e. how does one thing relate to the other?
Seriously tho', I don't think it is particularly clear what you are trying to say there, Bill i.e. how does one thing relate to the other?
I liked the Eddie Izzard bit too...he's hilarious.
However, I'm against these 'rare deviations' for uniforms and appearance. I would have loved to have had a beard when I was in the Corps, but you know what? It wasn't allowed. Oh, but it's allowed if you say "my religion says I have to." Well, then you have a choice to make. The military does not change to suit you, you change to suit the military.
If the guy has a special skill that the military needs, they can hire him as a civilian contractor and he can dress as he pleases. The military maintains standards, or it should.
OP
Archangel M
Senior Master
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2007
- Messages
- 4,555
- Reaction score
- 154
- Thread Starter
- #7
Ahhh. The military can relax it's grooming standards when IT deems it necessary. look at all the SpecOps guys sporting beards to blend in over in Afgh. As long as they are making waivers for very specific needs I see no problem with it.
The thing is that the Spec Ops guys can shave and trim their hair to meet normal grooming standards and uniformity. In fact, they can do so as a quick change in their appearance... For the Sikh -- to do so would be in contrast with his religious beliefs and practices.
I'm not suggesting that he can't serve. Or that he should. But the comparison is inaccurate.
I'm not suggesting that he can't serve. Or that he should. But the comparison is inaccurate.
I can't speak for the American military of course but as I said we've had Sikhs in the British army since the 19th century. They fought in the First and Second World War, which mostly likely was alongside American troops.
First World War
2nd World War Dec 1941 Operation Crusader
2009
The Sikhs dressing as such is preserving our military standards, it's what you're used to I guess. They are willing btw in times of operatinal need to change their appreance, Sikhs above anyone understand military exigencies as they consider themselves warriors,
one of the reasons the British were so keen to recruit them way back in the 1840s.
The military does have to move with the times, the American army is too young to get itself embroiled in what's traditional and what's not. My advice would be grab as many American Sikhs as you and recruit them asap, you will never regret it.
First World War
2nd World War Dec 1941 Operation Crusader
2009
The Sikhs dressing as such is preserving our military standards, it's what you're used to I guess. They are willing btw in times of operatinal need to change their appreance, Sikhs above anyone understand military exigencies as they consider themselves warriors,
one of the reasons the British were so keen to recruit them way back in the 1840s.
The military does have to move with the times, the American army is too young to get itself embroiled in what's traditional and what's not. My advice would be grab as many American Sikhs as you and recruit them asap, you will never regret it.
CoryKS
Senior Master
Hey Tez, how do the Sikh troops handle gas training? Do they remove their headgear? The main objection that I've heard about facial hair is that it makes it impossible to maintain a seal when wearing a gas mask. I would imagine that there would be a similar concern with the headgear. That, plus they're not going to get the same protection as they would with a brain bucket.
OP
Archangel M
Senior Master
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2007
- Messages
- 4,555
- Reaction score
- 154
- Thread Starter
- #11
My only point there was that the Army can adjust it's appearance standards as it sees fit. That example as well as shaving waivers for medical reasons only goes to show that the Army will adjust for special circumstances. If they decided that this guys skills were "special circumstances" I have no issue with it.
They do it in the field, yes. And I worked with guys in NIS who grew long hair, beards, and played the 'deserter drug-dealer' role out in town but were still enlisted Marines. I have no problem with that, but that is operational. Those people do not stand formation, do not wear the dress uniform, and if they leave their special assignment, they go back to conforming to standards.
Steve
Mostly Harmless
You mean like Clinger?
Shaving profiles waiver in the Marine Corps were for a period of time to allow people with skin conditions to recover from ingrown hairs on their faces. Then they had to shave again. If they failed to do so, or required numerous waivers for a persistent condition, they were given honorable discharges.
I *do* have a problem with granting permanent exemptions to uniform or grooming standards on a permanent basis, especially on the basis of religion. It's inherently unfair. Hasidim don't wear their aprons sticking out from their uniform shirts; Muslim females don't wear chadors as their uniform. It's ridiculous.
The very term 'uniform' means 'all alike'. It's not all alike if we have exemptions for articles of religious attire that are visible or require uniform alterations, such as turbans, etc.
As to the UK having a history of allowing different uniforms for different religions, hey, that's the UK. Not the US military.
And brave as lions according to my granddad who fought alongside Indian units at Monte Casino.
