quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

quote:

Originally posted by Sigolicious:


Do you want to hang out in a combat zone with the guy/gal who demands to wear a beard based on religion and has been "properly" trained in the use and care of NBC equipment?

But you're not in the service. My question is why does everyone here take it so personally and get so worked up into a dudgeon?

Because it isn't only people on the left who feel the need to go outrage shopping.

quote:

What the fuck ever happened to the concept of "uniform"?

Exactly my first thought. When I was in the army (back B4 dirt) a well trimmed mustache was allowed, but it was monitored by NCOs and ossifers.

One company commander made the bold statement that until he had a mustache, nobody in the unit would have one.

Seemed to work pretty well. Now we have the with full facial hair.

This PC shit has been out of control for some time, and only gets worse as time goes by.

quote:

Originally posted by PHPaul:
What … happened to the concept of "uniform"?

I still remember a conversation with a military intelligence branch direct-commissioned second lieutenant who was bitching about uniform regulations, and specifically the requirement to wear a hat outdoors. Although I was a PFC, I was also a well-indoctrinated former Army brat and mentioned the “uniform” concept. His response was to point to the fact that Army “uniforms” were anything but: In those days there were various forms of khaki and TW (“tropical worsted”) outfits in the summer, various forms of winter uniforms (with varying dates they were supposed to switch wearing from one to the other), and at least three or four types of “dress” for formal occasions. And that didn’t touch on differences in shoes (or boots for airborne types) and hats, but especially the myriad patches, badges, branch insignia and colors, “ropes” (as one Marine called aiguillettes), armbands, and medals or ribbons that festooned Army wear. Plus none of that got into field uniforms of various types and the different options worn with them.

That was the last time I mentioned “uniform appearance” to anyone complaining about what the Army required of them.

I am not, BTW, in favor of policy exceptions for any religion-related reason. But I learned very long ago that was a …, ahem, minority position.
I contend, however, that if exceptions are made for any religious reason, similar exceptions should be made for all religions, including for the “unpopular, little” ones.

quote:

Originally posted by MikeNH:
Because it isn't only people on the left who feel the need to go outrage shopping.

Yup.

Such outrage. LMFAO.

Who cares? Not this guy.

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:
Such outrage. LMFAO.

Who cares? Not this guy.

I know, this is not a big deal. As someone posted earlier, people not in the military get their panties all wadded up about stuff like this for some reason.

Not shaving for a day, or two, in the field also helps cammie paint stay on your face.
Not that this guy is going to be cammied up.

And guess what? If he was deployed to a combat theater with active NBC threat (Nuke / Chem / Bio), he'd shave that shit.

Or if not, he would die when getting slimed by something and be with his Norse gods.

Why stop at the beard? Thor and Odin are shown with long hair and horned helmets.

quote:

Originally posted by Sigolicious:

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
Why does everyone get so cranked up over servicemen wearing beards? This seems to generate more outrage than it is worth.

Here is your answer.......

Do you want to hang out in a combat zone with the guy/gal who demands to wear a beard based on religion and has been "properly" trained in the use and care of NBC equipment?

Directly from the manual for the currently issued Joint Service General Purpose Mask M50 manufactured by Avon for the United States military. Page 4.

http://www.agttactical.com/med...%20User%20Manual.pdf

quote:

FAILURE TO OBSERVE THESE WARNINGS MAY RESULT IN INJURY OR DEATH!

.......
The operator must read and fully understand these operator instructions
prior to use.

......

The operator must have received training in the use of the mask including,
but not limited to: pre-use check, donning, doffing (removal), operational
use and maintenance.

.....

Keep a cleanly shaven face to enhance a good seal. Operators shall remove all hairpins, combs, hair knots, buns, or braids that will interfere with the seal of the mask.

When I was in, I was told that short hair was to prevent lice and to ensure a good mask seal around the forehead. However, all women are exempt from the requirement. Are they immune to lice?

Many of the standards have more to do with tradition than with reality.

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:
Why stop at the beard? Thor and Odin are shown with long hair and horned helmets.

You've overlooked the previously mentioned missing eyeball though......perhaps a patch might be more acceptable than an actual outplucking, which is a lot more than a temporary solution to a current dress problem.

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:
Why stop at the beard? Thor and Odin are shown with long hair and horned helmets.

Vikings/Norsemen didn't wear horned helmets. That's a relatively modern embellishment, added by artists starting in the mid/late 1800s (like Wagner for his Germanic/Norse operas) because they thought they looked cool and intimidating.

Actual historical Viking helmets consisted of a simple rounded skullcap with various forms of noseguards:

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:
Actual historical Viking helmets consisted of a simple rounded skullcap with various forms of noseguards:

Thanks for pointing that out. I thought of posting a similar comment, but didn’t really know enough about the subject.

In particular I didn’t realize the horns were an artistic and even operatic invention, but popular culture’s influencing our notions of the past is extremely common. The idea of attaching large, prominent handles on one’s helmet to give an enemy something to grab onto in hand-to-hand combat always seemed strange to me once I started thinking about it. (Odin is often pictured in images with wings on his helmet. Flimsy [real] wings wouldn’t be as bad in a fight as horns, but still ….)

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
The idea of attaching large, prominent handles on one’s helmet to give an enemy something to grab onto in hand-to-hand combat always seemed strange to me once I started thinking about it.

A few of the pre-Viking Norse/Germanic tribes were described by contemporary chroniclers as using ceremonial hats/helmets adorned with wings/horns/antlers/etc., but those were only used during religious rituals, not worn into battle.

Similarly, during the late Middle Ages, there were some extremely elaborate helmet designs worn by certain knights, which would have been a liability during close quarter battle. But those were primarily relegated to parade/tournament use.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: RogueJSK,

The guy is using an interesting hobby to skirt regulations.

Sweet goat helmet.

I’m not outraged but I do think basic military discipline serves a purpose. If I want a bunch of people running in every direction they think is their due right then I would yell fire in a Starbucks.

I also abhor sea lawyers which is precisely what this asshat is. Air Force style.

Okay no horns. How about a broadsword and a car with turned up ends shaped like a serpent?

quote:

Originally posted by Otto Pilot:

quote:

Originally posted by Sigolicious:
...
Keep a cleanly shaven face to enhance a good seal. Operators shall remove all hairpins, combs, hair knots, buns, or braids that will interfere with the seal of the mask.

Sigolicious, I don't have a dog in this fight but I am well versed in parsing out manuals and government-speak. The word "enhance" seems to indicate that a good seal can be achieved with a beard, being clean shaven will just make it better.

Now, if I was in an NBC environment I'd take the first layer of skin off to get a close shave to achieve that enhanced protection, but...does that manual have the same status as a regulation?

I went to CBR school in the army, one of the first, and most important, lessons was that some of those chemical agents involve stuff and effects that you do not want to risk.

All this banning of chemical weapons, etc, only works when EVERYBODY joins in, and abides by its rules.

There are organizations on this old dirt ball that simply view this situation as an added benefit for them.

I do not trust our enemies any further than I can throw this house I am sitting it.

I strongly suspect that all those flag officers that obummer forced on us are behind this nonsense. And, in my view, it is nonsense.

Make dumb rules, expect people to work around them.

Allow exceptions for some, expect many to expect the same.

NBC concerns (much less actual threats) represent about 0.00000002% of most of their day to day.

It might be one thing in a forward deployed hot zone, but everywhere else? So what.

Uniformity to the n-th degree is vastly overrated. It matters where it matters and nowhere else.

quote:

Originally posted by sigcrazy7:

quote:

Originally posted by Sigolicious:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by jhe888:
Why does everyone get so cranked up over servicemen wearing beards? This seems to generate more outrage than it is worth.

Here is your answer.......

Do you want to hang out in a combat zone with the guy/gal who demands to wear a beard based on religion and has been "properly" trained in the use and care of NBC equipment?

I have "hung" out in combat zones with people that looked like they were extra's from Easy Rider...in those circumstances, country/mission profile etc, and I did not have an issue with it....in fact I was glad to be under their protection.

If we are talking in a conventional conflict with a near-peer more than likely you would see these same men look very different...again depending on mission profile.

Now about MR. Valhalla......he might be a practicing Norseman...who knows but it smacks of BS to me