Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Starboard

Former Navy guy says, “I served with WWII vets who were their own art museums. 80% of skin covered with colorful tatoos, but unseen when fully dressed.
When in uniform, their upper left chests were virtually covered with little colorful pieces of ribbon. Some were striped with little clusters, some were PURPLE!!, and one was light blue with a field of stars.
I think the tattoos didn’t interfere with the doing of their duty, some “Above and beyond the call of duty.”


12 posted on 04/03/2014 10:02:16 AM PDT by CaptainAmiigaf (NY TIMES: We print the news as it fits our views.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]


To: CaptainAmiigaf
You are confusing those warriors with what the intent of this policy is:

it is all meant to keep up a more professional peacetime force

22 posted on 04/03/2014 10:09:52 AM PDT by Gamecock (If the cross is not foolishness to the lost world then we have misrepresented the cross." S.L.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

To: CaptainAmiigaf

Warriors don’t need to be pretty outside. I personally don’t like tatoos but people who are willing to defend and die for this country, at great sacrifice to themselves and their families, can do whatever they damn well want to do to their skin. Your point is well taken; its the courage inside that counts.


24 posted on 04/03/2014 10:10:27 AM PDT by Starboard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

To: CaptainAmiigaf

A full sleeve will be seen when dressed....no way around it.....Same is true for face tats and neck tats....


31 posted on 04/03/2014 10:14:38 AM PDT by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson