It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Bill O'Reilly Wants a 25,000 Member Mercenary Army - HUH!?

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 10:09 PM
a reply to: retiredTxn

This is what I think of when I hear mercenaries mentioned:" target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">linku

posted on Sep, 23 2014 @ 12:17 PM
a reply to: retiredTxn

Yeah, well he may think it a good idea but after what happened with Blackwater...

WASHINGTON — Just weeks before Blackwater guards fatally shot 17 civilians at Baghdad’s Nisour Square in 2007, the State Department began investigating the security contractor’s operations in Iraq. But the inquiry was abandoned after Blackwater’s top manager there issued a threat: “that he could kill” the government’s chief investigator and “no one could or would do anything about it as we were in Iraq,” according to department reports.

Those who are large and in charge know that a mercenary force is almost impossible to control. and by the nature of being a mercenary force, can easily be bought ...

O'Reilly's plan might sound like a good idea... but....

posted on Sep, 23 2014 @ 03:11 PM
a reply to: retiredTxn

Here are the details you left out.

So, what should we do? First of all, there is not a single credible military person who thinks ISIS can be defeated without ground forces. So we need ground forces. However, the American people, perhaps rightly so, do not want to send any more of our troops into these chaotic countries. But what about a mercenary army? Elite fighters who would be well paid and trained to defeat terrorists all over the world. Here's how it would work: The fighters would be recruited by the USA and trained in America by our special forces. America would be in charge of selecting who makes the cut and how they are deployed, with an eye on a 25,000-person force. American and NATO officers would lead the army, basing the first soldiers in Kurdistan. The force would be called the 'anti-terror army,' with the cost paid by the coalition that President Obama is trying to put together. That means all countries that want intelligence and protection from the USA and NATO would have to chip in. If you don't pay, you get no help. Each soldier would sign a three-year commitment and, again, they would be well paid. Finally, it would help a lot if Congress would formally declare war on terrorism and stop trying to coax reluctant, sometimes cowardly countries into fighting terrorism. Islamic terrorists are going to kill as many people on this Earth as they can, so an anti-terror force will eventually have to be raised. Let's see if President Obama has the foresight and guts to do it now."

posted on Sep, 23 2014 @ 03:55 PM

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer

They've been privatizing the army since the first Iraq war. Xi/Blackwater/Academi being the most well known such force.

And the point is ?

Some people need to understand.

When a certain party guts defense.

Cuts our armed forces.

That creates the 'black waters'.

The past 6 years of defense cuts alone I wonder how many new PMC's have been created.

That are outside of the 'commander in chiefs' control, and accountable to no one.

From this response, I gather you didn't see the need for Blackwater to be Iraq either. That is when they were there as part of "Operation Iraqi Freedom".

As to O'Reilly raising an army of mercs. Why doesn't he just use some of his money and connections to come up with a small nuke and a drown.

That would show everybody he was not messing around.

top topics
<< 1   >>

log in