Skip to comments.Bill O’Reilly: Why not raise a 25,000-man global mercenary army to fight ISIS?
Posted on 09/23/2014 3:43:15 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
click here to read article
Because Obama would arrest anyone even attempting to do this....
WITH the blessing of the UN too...
How about just nuking the bastards to hell?
“The flaw is that theres no obvious next step if the mercenaries succeed in routing ISIS from Raqqa and eastern Syria. Who takes over and rules that half of the country if that happens? “
Just call it “Middle East Texas”....
Does he not understand, this is how we wound up with ISIS...?
” Does he not understand, this is how we wound up with ISIS...? “
McCain did this....
No opposed to the idea except I don’t think it will work.
Why not just let ISIS kill as many other Muslims as it can first ... or other Muslims fight back and kill ISIS, either way a win-win for us.
Most would probably just join ISIS.
Sounds good to me.
It would be kind of cool to organize another crusade - although I doubt anyone would follow Bill O’Reilly to the Holy Land.
I’d bring the bacon grease.
And arm each side and let them kill each other until no one is left.
we need an armed force like the army of pirates in Lord of the rings. Go in there, swarm them and kill everything that moves. Kill everything, back-up the oil tankers and take what we need until it runs dry and let them kill each other after we leave.
Why not just tell those thousands of sheriffs and police chiefs that anyone of them who accepted that surplus military gear had personally volunteered for the O’Reilly Rangers! :)
Put a giant protective shield over Israel first though
Cheaper by far.
BOR wants to round up AR’s and lock them in armories.....yet he wants to start a global mercenary force?
Article 47 — Mercenaries
1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.
2. A mercenary is any person who:
(a) is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;
(b) does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities;
(c) is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party;
(d) is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict;
(e) is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and
(f) has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.
Nah nothing to go wrong here , Right, Bill???
You Pompous Gas bag
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.