+0
Hi!

This might be a weird question, but it's really frustrating. Let's consider this simple sentence: US wants to capture and kill Bin Laden. Is this correct, or must it read: US wants to capture and TO kill Bin Laden. As you can see, in the second sentence, another 'to' is added just before 'kill.' Which is correct? And in longer sentences, such as this: he was eager to complete the job, and please his boss. Or, must it be: he was eager to complete the job, and TO please his boss. Again, one can see the "to" before 'please,' is that necessary at all?

I hope someone can answer this. It's so tiring, getting to think about this.[6]

Joker
+0
.
Unless it is a headline, it should read 'the US':

The US wants to capture and kill Bin Laden.

This is fine. A second 'to' is normally omitted as redundant-- so much so that adding it makes the sentence sound awkward and unnatural.
.
In your second example, there should be no comma:

He was eager to complete the job and please his boss.

My comment holds for this sentence as well. A much longer sentence of some complexity might require the second 'to' to avoid ambiguity or enhance word flow:

He was eager to complete the job to his client's satisfaction and (to) allay his boss's suspicion of his incompetence.
.
+0
It's common practice to omit the infinitive marker (to) when the subsequent infinitives are parallel. It / they may be optionally included.

As far as I know, it's a judgement call as to when the sentence becomes so cluttered that the marker should be repeated. Perhaps someone knows a rule.

- A.