Summations Only

Actually, because suicide and homicide rates in the US military are skyrocketing, IMO, I would bet the military would love to develop soul-less murderous bastards who take orders without conscience. AKA, the "perfect soldier."

I can't tell if you're unable to follow a discussion or your'e just "joking" some more. I'm not saying don't consider it at all. I'm saying that it shouldn't be considered in determining the cost of the action. Well, maybe in hindsight it could be factored in but that's not what we're talking about. Huh? What are you talking about? I don't advocate the 9/11 attacks.

America has spent ELEVEN YEARS and SEVERAL TRILLION dollars on this goal. How successful have we been with our military solution so far?Obama has signed a nearly secret contract with Karzai for another ten year lease for US bases in Afghanistan. Was that a smart thing to do?

But since, as you say, the rates of PTSD symptoms are increasing, clearly the soldiers are not mindless killers.
Thanks for supporting my argument.

"Nearly secret"?
lol
If the Taliban ever read these forums then the cat would well and truly be out of the bag...My friend is nearly pregnant - do I congratulate her or not? Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

As in my joking response to Ringo, I'll try to continue to use emoticons when joking. But since a fair share of my jokes fall flat and cause irritation (which then cause me irritation), I should seriously consider limiting them. You're flipping a little here. I am pleased that I have made you think about this. The costs of blowback ARE what I am talking about. C'mon. You know I am referring to the cause of 9/11. Something that you admitted you have no idea.

Really, you think ALL soldiers are led by their conscience and not just by orders? Thanks for showing that not all jokes need emoticons.

Since you seem to have the 'low down' on this: how many soldiers are led solely by orders? Well, clearly my joke did.

Obama doesn't need to fool the Taliban, just the voting public.Earlier this year in May, while Obama was triumphantly declaring that he was bringing home troops from Afghanistan, he met with Kurzai during a surprise "midnight" visit to sign the ten year base extension hoping the corporate media wouldn't report that part. Obama, Karzai Sign Strategic Pact on Surprise Afghan Visit
Obama, Karzai Sign Strategic Pact on Surprise Afghan Visit - WSJObama pulls a fast one in Afghanistan- extends stay for 10 years

quote:

---

President Obama embarked on a hush-hush journey to his right war under the cover of darkness.

---

http://www.examiner.com/...anistan-extends-stay-for-10-years

I think "too many" is sufficient answer.

Wow!
How did you get hold of those photos of Obama's secret meeting?!

Not surprisingly, not from the corporate media.

No. It is not sufficient.The honest answer is:
"Dronester doesn't have any idea how many soldiers, if any, are only led by orders. Instead he is using weasel words aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact it hasn't."

No, that's exactly backwards. Militaries have the legal right to operate in other countries. Police have no legal right to operate anywhere except their own jurisdictions. I think restrained, surgical strikes against specific targets represent a higher ideal of civilization than the vast destruction and loss of human life that accompanies traditional infantry warfare. To subdue by killing, yes. Soldiers don't shoot to wound, but to kill. Directly targeting key personnel to disrupt enemy organization is a tactic that goes back to Sun Tsu. That's what military snipers do. That's why we killed Yamamoto (and his air crew, and probably somebody on the ground in China.) There's literally nothing new going when drones are used to strike at key enemies.

But it was a SECRET meeting!!!Do you have friends high up in government??
Were you using a stealth drone to take the photos??Or were you just talking shit and making up lies about how secret the meeting was.