[TruthElixirX]

>Recently, the Guardian ran a commentary by Britain's secretary of state for defence Philip Hammond. I wish I could talk to him about the two friends and colleagues I lost, within one year leaving the military, to suicide. I am sure he has not been notified of that little bit of the secret UAV program, or he would surely take a closer look at the full scope of the program before defending it again.

I doubt he gives a shit, and the reason we are in this mess is because most people think people like him do give a shit, they are just "misinformed."

[rwmj]

The unfortunate truth is that any leader who orders soldiers to go to war should know that innocent and guilty people are going to die, women will be raped, property destroyed and looted, and so on. In WWII there was a deliberate policy of incinerating populated cities, but even if we don't go to that extreme the outcome is going to be grim. I hope any defence secretary both knows this, and considers it, but also considers what happens when you don't deploy soldiers/drones/etc.

[TruthElixirX]

>but also considers what happens when you don't deploy soldiers/drones/etc.

Nothing happens. Nothing. The reason those people are pissed is because of the U.S. government constantly fucking with them and poking them. Over throwing governments, secret renditions, locking up loved ones in Guantanamo with no trial indefinitely. I'd be fucking pissed too.

[rwmj]

I meant in the general case for war.

Obviously not much happens in the short term if we don't interfere in the affairs of Pakistan and neighbours. In the long term they might rebuild their terrorist training camps, but .. meh so what. Only a few people have been killed by terrorists, it's not a big deal and not a fundamental threat to civilisation.

You couldn't say that there would be no consequences for not engaging in the 1930s. Many more countries could have been overrun by fascism for decades.