Yep. It took them a while to let Sikhs wear turbans too, as they claimed they could hinder combat performance.
Ask the Indian military about that one… Sikhs make up a huge percentage. No problem.
Come to think of if, Sikhs have beards too. Shouldn’t this have been dealt with alongside the turban issue?
Not wearing a beard is a key tenet of wearing a gas mask.
As seen in Michael Bay’s 13 Beards.
So long as I am not required to wear hair on my face like Jo Jo the Dogface Boy then I am ready to serve my country - or fries - or what ever is on the menu - just so long as I don’t have to eat it or pretend it exists in my current timeline.
Do they have exceptions for faiths that believe in time travel? Because if they do, I’ve already done my time and am eligible for an honourable discharge.
And a pension.
For every fucking war that has ever been fought.
Pay that off first and then we’ll talk about any future military arms purchases.
So there.
I don’t want to smear all the kindhearted, decent heathens out there (heck, my name literally translates to “heath dweller”) but in the current sociopolitical environment it’s hard to ignore a disturbing trend here…
There’s some validity to that argument, but it also has some holes in it.
https://twitter.com/soyboymanlet/status/979246685846163456
How about him?
The USA did not declare war on Germany; Nazi Germany declared war on the USA, as a consequence of Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor. In the 1930’s, the USA was fairly evenly split between pro- and anti-Nazi sentiment; the Nazis looked to the USA for the inspiration of much of their policies.
Once the USA was reluctantly drawn into opposition to fascism, its primary role was in combatting Japan. The Wehrmacht were defeated by the Red Army; the Normandy landings were a late-war diversionary attack.
Nevertheless, the US Army was on the right side of that one. And putting down the Slaver’s Revolt in the 1860’s counts as a virtuous deed as well, despite the failings of the aftermath.
But that’s two out of hundreds. What about the rest of the time?
In its entire history, the USA has never gone a decade without attacking somewhere. On any given year, there’s a better than 90% chance of someone being under threat from the US military. Anyone with a real knowledge of history should realise that a career in the US military includes a near-certainty of involvement in at least one unjust war of aggression.
Exactly so. there’s many ways to approach heathenry. As such, it feels odd that a group say, as a blanket statement that beards ain’t a thing.
Alexander the Great insisted that his soldiers shave so that the enemy couldn’t yank them around by their beards:
Facial Hair’s Formative Years on Telegraph.com
Also, this is the second time I’ve linked to this on BB! Middle Eastern men who can’t grow beards get beard transplants by plastic surgeons in Turkey:
Hurray, it’s Link. 
Heathen was a pejorative term, a very long time ago. Heathens were people who lived w-a-y outside of the villages, out on the heaths. When Christianity started setting the trends, the villagers had a church nearby and could keep up with all the latest in religion. But the heathens way out on the heaths were slow to adopt new things, and kept tying knots in strings and burying birds under new moons, etc.
The movie that someone trying to annoy me by renting, thinking I would hate it, and I totally did not. It’s a pretty good film.
And I am calling it that from now on.
so, heathen literally means ‘out-group’?
Proof!
Well that’s just elegant. Sign me up!
Welcome, Brother Boris!
All of that aside, does not fighting Hitler sound to you like a good reason to join the US Army? @agger_modspil made an absolute claim of there being not one good reason to do that, which I found dubious (like most absolute claims, one way or another), so I present Hitler as a counterexample.
Hell, even today, with no Hitler around, I think a lot of people have what are for them very good reasons to join the US Army. It’s very well to bring up all the numerous negative things about US foreign policy and use of military force as reasons not to join, but that doesn’t mean the people who still do join are all bad and/or wrong.
Your source’s original source contradicts your argument. In the conclusions of the Lutz paper we see that
An important predictor to military service in the general population is
family income. Those with lower family income are more likely to join the
military than those with higher family income. Thus the military may indeed be
a career option for those for whom there are few better opportunities. For such
enlistees, military service can open opportunities that would not otherwise be
available. Indeed, research has found that military service often serves as a
positive turning point in the career trajectories of enlistees from disadvantaged
circumstances (Elder 1986, 1987; Sampson and Laub 1996).
But at least you aren’t quoting the Heritage Foundation at us like last time.
I assume he’s just laying the groundwork for a Danish invasion of the US. When I lived in Norway I learned quite a lot about such Danish duplicity.
Never forget: right and wrong is decided by writers of mainstream history books. Those books do not speak about the dirty tricks and lies our ancestors got into to gain power. In another words: hindsight is always 20/20.
Actually there has been a section allowing Sikhs to get permission to wear beards in the regulation for decades. (Since the mid 70s or early 80s, I think, but don’t quote me) But then the powers that be decided that they didn’t like bearded soldiers so they made a blanket policy to stop granting permission. So until recently, the only Sikhs allowed to wear beards were the ever smaller cohort of soldiers granted permission before the Army stopped giving permission.
The Lutz paper is based upon pre-9/11 data, the Heritage figure was based on post-9/11 data. And they don’t actually contradict each other that much.
To quote a bit more Lutz:
There is a slight negative correlation between income and enlistment across the population. However, this gradient is driven by low recruitment amongst the wealthy. In the pre-9/11 Lutz data, the middle class and working class enlist at similar rates.
The Heritage figure is based upon post-9/11 data, and uses slightly different measures (neighbourhood income instead of family income, etc). Its main features were that the middle class were not underrepresented (in agreement with Lutz), but also that the lower working class are underrepresented (in disagreement with Lutz).
But given the differences in methodology and timing, I don’t see much difficulty in accomodating both sets of data. I’d be surprised if 9/11 hadn’t had some effect in shifting enlistment motivation from economic to nationalistic.
