Mercaneries would be military trained forces that do not have any moral restrictions or patriotic obligations. Forces that are funded by private organizations and do not report, or are supported by any country.
The bleeding hearts out there will probably say that Mercaneries is a type of terrorism, but is that so bad? having US forces standing around until they get shot doesn't seem to be an effective means to stop terrorists and insurgancy. Why not fight fire with fire? the world needs to be less sympathetic if we are to advance as a society.
2006-06-25 04:41:57 · 10 answers · asked by hades 1 in Society & Culture ➔ Other - Society & Culture
yes i absoultely 110% support that cause like i bet they can do alot better than our forces there right now, cause there will be no bullshit no we cant do this or that cause it is unethical, or we dont have permission, and on top of that the media would never know nothing, or be able to report anything cause they would never know
2006-06-25 04:46:33 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Mercenaries would probably get the job completed in short order. They don't have to play political games or conform to all the screwing around that our regulars have to put up with.
They wouldn't stand still long enough to be shot at nor would the enemy know where they were at any given moment. They would blend in.
They would get in, get 'r done and get out.
They would probably break a lot of war game rules in the process but the end results would be satisfactory.
They would be there because they wanted to be there.
There are a lot of dangers to using freelancers in war but it is a risk that some are willing to take.
Yes, it is a form of terrorism. It's called counter-terrorism. Fighting fire with fire. Just like the swat team coming in with the big guns matching the bad guys big guns. It is a balance of fire power.
In the end it would save a lot of lives.
2006-06-25 04:57:13 · answer #2 · answered by BP 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
So glad you know how the bleeding hearts will respond. Besides, what do you call terrorism? People fighting against enemy invaders and occupiers? People trying to get control over their own country? When it happened in the US, they were called freedom fighters.
To add to that, mercenaries are being used in Iraq. They get paid enormous amounts of money to do the same work American soldiers do for military pay.
If these mercenary forces you are talking about do not have to answer to any country, whose war would they be fighting? Private industry? Yeah, that's what we need. Private industries having their own armies. Maybe the US will supply the war machines to them the way they do to Israel.
2006-06-25 04:54:44 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
A good question to ask is, "When might those mercenaries that you've been supporting be turned on you"? Do you really trust a government that hires soldiers who only "defend" you for profit?
You cannot win a war on "Terrorism" regardless of who is doing your fighting because terrorism is an idea. Not a government or country or a people. "Terrorism" cannot surrender. During World War II, we killed Nazis, but we couldn't kill Nazism. It still lives. The best way to end any terrorist threat to the country and people is for the government to mind own business.
2006-06-25 04:57:16 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why would mercenaries do a better job? You think indiscriminate shooting at civilians will halt the insurgents? Have we seen any evidence that they care about the civilians they're infiltrating?
And, pardon me, but where did you get the idea that US forces are standing around getting shot at and not aggressively assaulting. Have the balls to read info from non-stream media. Read the Nation. Lsten to te BBC, that's not extreme. Just widen your horizons. If you're right, it won't corrupt you. You'll know what you're up against. But hopefully, you'll gain a more objective view of what's going on in the Middle East.
2006-06-25 04:55:54 · answer #5 · answered by browneyedgirl 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You talk as if there are not already mercanaries working both sides of the war on terror. The CIA black ops division is doing big business in the post-9/11 world, let me tell you.
2006-06-25 05:18:15 · answer #6 · answered by PALADIN 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sure just let a bunch of psycho's loose in the middle east with guns and plenty of ammo.
Wouldn't be any different then what they're doing.
2006-06-25 04:45:25 · answer #7 · answered by a_poor_misguided_soul 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Rather have a UN force, where each country contributes a number of people according to its population.
2006-06-25 04:45:05 · answer #8 · answered by Thomas_Harris 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, absolutely
2006-06-25 04:44:04 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
NO, they are terrorist by a different name!
2006-06-25 04:45:59 · answer #10 · answered by Pobept 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋