"Alan Minyard" wrote in message
...


Much better than they were under the Taliban. And stop top posting,
it is rude.

Al Minyard

For everyone who yells at you and says "Don't top post, it's confusing.",
there's another one who says "Don't bottom post, I don't want to scroll
past
all the previous yatter."

Not on this group.

And thank-you, I won a wager that you'd say "Better than they were under
the
Taliban" without offering any kind of supporting evidence or reasoning.
How
many times have you been in Afghanistan? Why are *you* so authoritative
on
the subject?

I have been there twice. You have absolutely no clue as to what is
happening
in Afghanistan.

Things are better in Kabul and Khandahar. Elsewhere, they are much worse,
because the US and UK haven't lived up to their promises. There are
children
starving to death there *right now* because our governments bailed on
them.
Personally, I love my country, but I'm ashamed of the actions of it's
government.

Matt

You are incorrect (as usual). All of Afghanistan is better, much better,
off.
There certainly are some problems (poppy production comes to mind)
but they are minor compared to the former Islamic theocracy. Do try to
do a little research.

Al Minyard

I see. The UN, The Red Cross, and Medican Sans Frontiere are all wrong. But
you're right, because you're been there ... despite the fact you don't say
where. Or when. Or in what capacity.

There are *still* areas under the control of the Taliban, and those areas
are growing. Saying 'all of Afghanistan is better off' is complete and
obvious bull****. Half of Afghanistan is still under the control of the same
people as it was in 2001 - the warlords.

Matt