Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Veterans Urge US Military to Remove Barriers That Prevent Sikhs From Serving

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Jose50 View Post
    Yup...and I'll bet that a lot of Canadian engineers trained at places like Georgia Tech, MIT, RIT and Dartmouth. But why go to all the time, effort and expense to re-engineer a gas mask that works perfectly fine already?
    So that valuable people are not excluded from a task.
    So that people do not have to choose between service to their religion and service to their nation.
    Because, in general, fitting the equipment to the person is easier than fitting the person to the equipment.
    To support claims of being an inclusive society.
    Because a lot of non-Sikh U.S. servicemen in Iraq and Afghanistan have worn beards, making it a bullshit excuse.
    Because it's already been done, making it a bullshit excuse.
    If you're willing to **** money away on the F-35 I can't see a gas mask design being a financial or resource burden worth noting, making it a bullshit excuse.
    Last edited by Duncan; 12 Nov 15, 14:18.
    AHIKS - Play by (E)mail board wargaming since 1965.
    The Blitz - Play by Email computer wargaming.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Taieb el-Okbi View Post
      Wrt beards specifically.. The way I look at beards in the US armed forces is very straightforward and right to the point.

      Lincoln, Lee, Grant, and even moving up in years to John J Pershing.... had beards or facial hair of some sorts . If those folks had beards then modern day military members ought to be able to have beards if they want.

      That said if for example there is a certain division of the Air force or Army that requires folks to wear masks, and beards might get in the way of these masks then I could see a no beard policy. But this does not mean that facial hair should be barred for all US armed forces personal. I know for a fact that some # of the Special forces folks over in Iraq and Afghanistan have large beards, and those beards dont get in the way of the Special forces folks carrying out their work. So to see the men of the Special forces sporting large beards is awesome, for me it brings back the American military men of the past who sported beards.
      Everybody in the military, all branches, have to be capable of wearing MOPP gear and gas masks. That is a universal thing. Beards make that impossible. The Sikh turban is another problem with wearing helmets and other head gear.

      Issuing special gear to some individuals (eg., beard friendly gas masks etc.) seems nothing but a major hassle, not to mention having non-standard gear in the unit now.

      And for the record, I knew a fellow with the NYS National Guard, an E-6 with a Queens-based intelligence unit (no longer there since post-9/11 reorg) and he was a Sikh who wore only a regulation mustache. Indeed, plenty of Sikhs have dropped the long hair and beards and have opted for shorter hair and trimmed mustaches -- and they're not any less Sikh. Hell, Sikh custom obliges men to be armed with a bladed weapon at all times. How many Sikhs do you see out there carrying swords? They carry a small folding knife on a key chain instead. They adopted that custom for this world, they can adopt their hair for it, as well.
      Exactly. Adapt and you can serve. The same goes for other religions. For example, if you're Muslim you need to adapt to having to miss some prayers for duty purposes. Do them later or just let the missed one pass.

      If you can't, then pass on serving.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Duncan View Post
        That is asinine. The U.S.A. has a hard-on for firearms. It's a nation where you can order a handgun by mail, has dumb ass stand your ground laws, wants everyone to carry a gun and even legislates it in some places, embraces and celebrates firearms as a form of jewelry, and it has a problem with kirpans?! You can open carry an M16 but people have a **** over carrying a kirpan. Absolutely ludicrous.
        Weapons laws within the City of New York, for both firearms and bladed weapons, differ greatly not only from the rest of the United States, and from the rest of the State of New York, but also from plain old common sense: they're a liberal's wet dream.

        Originally posted by Duncan View Post
        Dunno. But the guy who patented it has a tour in Bosnia and three tours in Afghanistan. The U.S.A. has engineers right?
        His effort would have been better spent inventing a new weapon, rather than a device for which even a fair share of Sikhs have no use.
        I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by slick_miester View Post
          Weapons laws within the City of New York, for both firearms and bladed weapons, differ greatly not only from the rest of the United States, and from the rest of the State of New York, but also from plain old common sense: they're a liberal's wet dream.
          Paranoid and asinine. Par for the course I suppose.


          His effort would have been better spent inventing a new weapon, rather than a device for which even a fair share of Sikhs have no use.
          He didn't need a new weapon. He needed a gas mask. Bullshit.
          AHIKS - Play by (E)mail board wargaming since 1965.
          The Blitz - Play by Email computer wargaming.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by slick_miester View Post
            I think that Sikhs can make excellent American servicemen. They've proved their valor over many generations, so I for one will be glad to employ their services here -- but I do not believe that uniform standards should be relaxed, or that special religious groups should be exempted from uniform standards.



            You've quoted the reason why you've seen US personnel with beards: their special operations. Their role is different, and often requires them to "blend in." They are not leg infantry, though they can -- and have -- been employed as such. For many years US Army Special Forces also had a foreign language requirement, such is the unique nature of their role.



            Here's the word from the Suck:



            M-50 came out in 2009 or '10, so this is a fairly recent manual, but the manual for the old M-17 mask stated that the maximum for deploying the mask in response to an alarm was eight seconds. Can you see putting on a mask -- airtight, 'cause if it's not airtight then you're dead -- inside of eight or nine seconds. Some jackass in Saudi Arabia claimed that he could put a mask on over a beard correctly within 9 seconds with the aid of copious amounts of vasoline. Let's just say I find his claim dubious at best.

            And for the record, I knew a fellow with the NYS National Guard, an E-6 with a Queens-based intelligence unit (no longer there since post-9/11 reorg) and he was a Sikh who wore only a regulation mustache. Indeed, plenty of Sikhs have dropped the long hair and beards and have opted for shorter hair and trimmed mustaches -- and they're not any less Sikh. Hell, Sikh custom obliges men to be armed with a bladed weapon at all times. How many Sikhs do you see out there carrying swords? They carry a small folding knife on a key chain instead. They adopted that custom for this world, they can adopt their hair for it, as well.
            I recognize that any human can apply any sort of identifier to themselves...and then they can use that identifier in any way they want. Heck you might see a Muslim, Jew, Hindu, etc who has a beard but also visits the strip club. I get that part of this discussion.

            But I dont find that a beard should totally negate some person from joining the US armed forces. I dont think its a big deal to have a beard and join the armed forces, I think that there are ways to go ahead and get that gas mask on someone with a beard in the 9 seconds...if not now then surely some technology exists or can be brought forth to respond to the issue of Beards and gas masks.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
              Issuing special gear to some individuals (eg., beard friendly gas masks etc.) seems nothing but a major hassle, not to mention having non-standard gear in the unit now.
              That's the crux of the issue. Issuing special equipment in order to pander to something like this is the wrong answer. Not only would it be expensive and logistically complicated to issue two diffent types of mask but it also opens up other problems. What about non-Sikh soldiers who want to grow beards. If the mask is available why can't they? Who decides what is and isn't a legitimate religious preference? What if my religion says I can't fight on Fridays during Lent and need to day off? What if I decide I'm some new Amish sect and demand be issued a flintlock Land Pattern to fight with? Everybody uses the same gear, you can't use it then you can't do the job. This is the military not a social club. Serving is not a right. You are allowed to serve if your service is in the best interest of the republic, if you are a burden rather than an asset you do not serve. Accomplishing the mission and saving lives is all that matters, your feelings do not.
              "Artillery lends dignity to what might otherwise be a vulgar brawl." - Frederick the Great

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Duncan View Post
                Paranoid and asinine. Par for the course I suppose.
                I agree, and that's why I vote consistently and often against the liberal dimwits who run City Hall. But alas, I only carry . . . . . . . . . . . . . one vote.

                Originally posted by Duncan View Post
                He didn't need a new weapon. He needed a gas mask. Bullshit.
                Perhaps he needed a razor.

                Originally posted by Duncan View Post
                So that valuable people are not excluded from a task.
                So that people do not have to choose between service to their religion and service to their nation.
                Because, in general, fitting the equipment to the person is easier than fitting the person to the equipment.
                To support claims of being an inclusive society.
                Because a lot of non-Sikh U.S. servicemen in Iraq and Afghanistan have worn beards, making it a bullshit excuse.
                Because it's already been done, making it a bullshit excuse.
                If you're willing to **** money away on the F-35 I can't see a gas mask design being a financial or resource burden worth noting, making it a bullshit excuse.
                The United States' is a very inclusive society, much like Canada's. The US Army's, Navy's, Marine Corps' societies, on the other hand, are not at all inclusive. One must qualify for entry into those societies. Those societies do not alter themselves to suit the individual: the individual accommodates the Army, Marine Corps, et al. Indeed, that's the very purpose of basic training: to overcome and BREAK civilian conditioning, rendering the individual but a cog in a Big Green Machine.

                I don't usually resort to the Rush Limbaugh noise, but on this one liberals never cease to amaze me: they want the military to bend to the individual -- but they want INDIVIDUAL PRIVATE CITIZEN IN HIS CIVILIAN CAPACITY to bend to the "needs of society" -- as the liberals define those needs, of course. Talk about schizophrenic . . . .

                Originally posted by Taieb el-Okbi View Post
                I recognize that any human can apply any sort of identifier to themselves...and then they can use that identifier in any way they want. Heck you might see a Muslim, Jew, Hindu, etc who has a beard but also visits the strip club. I get that part of this discussion.
                So some Sikhs define Sikhism as wearing a beard -- and others do not. Why should DoD take the beard-wearers' word for it? Are not the beardless Sikhs too? Why should the bearded be allowed to define Sikhism for the beardless?

                Originally posted by Taieb el-Okbi View Post
                But I dont find that a beard should totally negate some person from joining the US armed forces. I dont think its a big deal to have a beard and join the armed forces, I think that there are ways to go ahead and get that gas mask on someone with a beard in the 9 seconds...if not now then surely some technology exists or can be brought forth to respond to the issue of Beards and gas masks.
                Very well then: I want to see you don a mask within nine seconds. When you pull that off, you let us know.

                [sorry - hit edit instead of reply - all restored - D ]
                Last edited by Duncan; 12 Nov 15, 14:51.
                I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by frisco17 View Post
                  That's the crux of the issue. Issuing special equipment in order to pander to something like this is the wrong answer. Not only would it be expensive and logistically complicated to issue two diffent types of mask but it also opens up other problems. What about non-Sikh soldiers who want to grow beards.
                  What about them?






                  If the mask is available why can't they? Who decides what is and isn't a legitimate religious preference?
                  Dunno about you guys but in Canada that would be the constitution and the supreme court.
                  What if my religion says I can't fight on Fridays during Lent and need to day off? What if I decide I'm some new Amish sect and demand be issued a flintlock Land Pattern to fight with?
                  We aren't talking about these issues. This is obfuscation.
                  Everybody uses the same gear,
                  U.S. military equipment is not standard. It is fitted to the task. For centuries you've done quite well with multiple weapons systems, multiple optics systems, multiple targeting systems, etc... Excluding someone for a simple gas mask design is bullshit.
                  This is the military not a social club. Serving is not a right. You are allowed to serve if your service is in the best interest of the republic, if you are a burden rather than an asset you do not serve. Accomplishing the mission and saving lives is all that matters, your feelings do not.
                  Not a right? At times it has been a requirement punishable by law. A man's religion is not about his feelings. Your presidential races would be a lot more boring and far more meaningful if that were the case.
                  AHIKS - Play by (E)mail board wargaming since 1965.
                  The Blitz - Play by Email computer wargaming.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by slick_miester View Post
                    So some Sikhs define Sikhism as wearing a beard -- and others do not. Why should DoD take the beard-wearers' word for it?
                    I don't think there is a high risk of someone lying about being a Sikh in order to grow a beard.
                    Are not the beardless Sikhs too? Why should the bearded be allowed to define Sikhism for the beardless?
                    There has been no demand by anyone to impose beards on people who don't want to wear them.
                    AHIKS - Play by (E)mail board wargaming since 1965.
                    The Blitz - Play by Email computer wargaming.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Duncan View Post
                      Not a right? At times it has been a requirement punishable by law. A man's religion is not about his feelings. Your presidential races would be a lot more boring and far more meaningful if that were the case.
                      No, it is not a Right. Everyone cannot serve, even if they want to. There are age restrictions, education, mental health, physical condition, height, weight, criminal record, and a plethora of other restrictions on being allowed in the service.
                      The US military in WW 2 with the draft going rejected anywhere from about 25% to 50% of draftees for service on a wide range of issues.

                      If you had a Right to serve, you couldn't be barred, or rejected for service except in pretty exceptional circumstances. That isn't the case. You have no Right to military service.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Duncan View Post
                        What about them?
                        The special forces exemption had already been discussed to death. There's nothing to day that hadn't already been said by myself and others. Go back in this thread band read it if you'd like.


                        Originally posted by Duncan View Post
                        We aren't talking about these issues. This is obfuscation.
                        Not at all, it is precedent. The fact that this one issue does not exist in a vacuum and affects others is exactly my point. If exceptions to policy are made for one person then the precedent exists and they must be made for others. The examples I gave are exactly the same as this, only the details differ. I'll give another. What if a Muslim woman is serving and wants to wear a hijab in uniform? I'm not talking about civil engagement teams wearing then in country to appease the locals I'm talking about in garrison. Should that be allowed?

                        Originally posted by Duncan View Post
                        U.S. military equipment is not standard. It is fitted to the task. For centuries you've done quite well with multiple weapons systems, multiple optics systems, multiple targeting systems, etc...
                        That's completely diffent. Those equipment differences are driven by differing mission requirements not by the desires of individual soldiers. For your example to make sense every soldier would have to be issued whatever gear and weapons he asks for.

                        Originally posted by Duncan View Post
                        Excluding someone for a simple gas mask design is bullshit.
                        They aren't begin excluded because I'd a gas mask. They're being excluded because they refuse to conform to the same standards as everyone else.


                        Originally posted by Duncan View Post
                        Not a right? At times it has been a requirement punishable by law.
                        That doesn't make it a right. That makes it a duty when the draft is in effect. If it was a right the military would have to accept everyone, regardless of how fit or unfit for service they are.
                        "Artillery lends dignity to what might otherwise be a vulgar brawl." - Frederick the Great

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Duncan View Post
                          What about them?


                          Let's go over this again, since you skipped past much of the thread: they're Spec Ops, and their missions often necessitate "blending in." In Bosnia, for example, members of DevGru wore civies, carried concealed weapons, and rode public transport to their targets. Since when do such tasks fall within the purview of leg infantry?

                          Originally posted by Duncan View Post
                          Can you furnish that photo's provenance? I've lived in NYC all of my life -- aka "Hymietown," at least according to Rev Jesse Jackson -- and I ain't never seen no Haredi in a uniform, not USA, USN, USMC, USAF, USCG, nor NG, nor NYPD. They deliberately segregate themselves from the greater community, therefore they don't volunteer for armed services, police, etc. When they do EMT, they don't apply through a hospital or FDNY, but through Hatzolah: the Haredi medic and ambulance service.

                          Incidentally, my wife was recently pipped for training a Haredi women as an EMT, and she's the first, and thus far only, female EMT to work a Hatzolah ambulance.

                          Originally posted by Duncan View Post
                          Dunno about you guys but in Canada that would be the constitution and the supreme court.
                          Hatzolah still takes public monies, and still keeps women, save that one, off their ambulances. That's patently unconstitutional, but no one wants to cross them, so they keep doing it their way.

                          Originally posted by Duncan View Post
                          U.S. military equipment is not standard. It is fitted to the task.
                          Tell that to David Robinson: the only reason the seven footer went to Annapolis is because they promised him a shot at wings. What they didn't tell him is that USN flight seats aren't built to his dimensions, so he had to spend his navy career ashore.

                          I'd also heard about an Asian fellow of short stature who was denied entry to flight school on account of his thighs being too short for flight seats -- so he began an extreme exercise regimen that actually lengthened his femur the require amount. So much for one size fits all.

                          Originally posted by Duncan View Post
                          A man's religion is not about his feelings.
                          Really? Why don't you ask a Jew in an elevator about that on Shabbas.

                          Originally posted by Duncan View Post
                          Your presidential races would be a lot more boring and far more meaningful if that were the case.
                          Can't argue that one.

                          Originally posted by Duncan View Post
                          I don't think there is a high risk of someone lying about being a Sikh in order to grow a beard.There has been no demand by anyone to impose beards on people who don't want to wear them.
                          In a sense there is though. A good many Sikh men have chosen to crop their hair and beards, and now a handful of bearded Sikhs want the regs amended just for them. The shaven fellows are every bit the Sikhs that the bearded are, only they don't feel the need to advertise it by wearing a hairy billboard on their faces. This is just a case of "holier than thou," "look at me, I'm so pious" crap. Haredi Jews pull that crap on the Conservative and Reform Jews all the time. This sounds like more of the same.

                          Now, can that wonder Canadian beard-mask be deployed airtight within nine seconds? 'Cause if it can't, then it's useless, and you know it.
                          I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Duncan View Post

                            And since a beard friendly gas mask has been patented in Canada
                            Do you have a link to this "beard friendly gas mask"?
                            Last edited by Nichols; 12 Nov 15, 17:37.
                            "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Nichols View Post
                              Do you have a link to this "beard friendly gas mask"?
                              It was posted earlier. Here it is again. http://brevets-patents.ic.gc.ca/opic...8/summary.html
                              AHIKS - Play by (E)mail board wargaming since 1965.
                              The Blitz - Play by Email computer wargaming.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Duncan View Post
                                It was posted earlier. Here it is again. http://brevets-patents.ic.gc.ca/opic...8/summary.html
                                That is not a gas mask, that is a hood.

                                This adds an additional layer to the system. You will still need a hood over the gas mask to protect against being sprayed. Decontaminating without the additional hood would cause the hood to be contaminated.

                                Additionally the 'cooling gel packs' would be cut off and ineffective once you tightened your gas mask straps around the hood.

                                It is impossible to have a beard friendly gas mask.

                                The only way to have one is with a supplied air respirator which has a battery issue problem or a self contained breathing apparatus which has an air supply tank issue.

                                Both of those type of masks would not work very well in field conditions.
                                "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X