their own country than us, and will probably do a damned better job than the Bible-Thumping-Praise-The-Lord-Bubbas from Hicksville. (and Crawford) Sounds like Gaza. Will you call for a boycott of British academics or is this permissible only for the British? " Isaf's task is complicated by the presence of over 10,000 US troops who are not under Nato command but operate in the same zones, killing more Afghans than Isaf, and giving all foreign forces a bad name since no one can understand the difference." So the Brits kill Afghans, but that doesn't give foreign forces a bad name. But when the Americans - operating in the same zones - do the same, it does! Am I missing something, or is this just typical Guardian logic? But at least you admit that Brits are killing civilians. Normally the Guardian simply repeats army spokemen claims that all Afghan casualties are 'militants'. Again referring to Gaza, where is the skepticism shown when the Israeli army makes the same claims? For what? Kill thousands and spend billions to take revenge for the 3000 people that died in WTC? Cos I can't see how a decade long war in Afghanistan can prevent terrorists all around the world from planning and putting to life "another 9/11". Bush is a weak man, and like all weak men when pushed he will tend to over compensate. To prove that he is a hard man. Sept 11th took him by surprise and he lashed out. There was no