"Alan Minyard" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 04:47:15 -0000, "killfile"
wrote:

"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.

That is not public information.

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

In 2001 it was controlled by the Taliban, with the exception of
a small area in the North East corner of the country.

Note that Afghanistan is about to vote on a constitution written entirely
by Afghanis. It would make the country an "Islamic Republic". Hardly
anything imposed by the US.

As for the UN and the international Red Cross, they are well known as
anti US
entities that twist the "truth" to meet their preconceived notions. If you
take
anything coming from the UN as "truth" you are sadly deceived.

Al Minyard

That's the 'Fox News' summery, certainly. Outside of the cities, much of
Afghanistan is still controlled by the same warlords as it was under the
Taliban - they just switched flags after a big application of guns and cash
from the CIA, and all of a sudden we've 'liberated the area'.

Whatever you might think of the UN and Red Cross, they're actually spending
money rebuilding Afghanistan, unlike the US - who haven't spent anything
like as much as they promised they would when the eyes of the world were on
them. As I've said, Iran has given more aid to rebuild Afghanistan than the
US so far.

I think those of us who aren't spitting froth and yelling "THE USA CAN DO NO
WRONG!" can agree that the UN and ICRC are political entities, and their
attitude has a lot to do with being "Pro-Me" than "Anti-US". Russia and
France wanted to protect their financial interests in Iraq, and those two
countries were enough to derail the US and UK in their efforts to invade
Iraq. You get the same reaction from the US when Europe tries to condemn
Israel for human rights abuses.

Still if you want to change that attitude, you might:

1.) Pay your UN dues.
2.) Allow the ICRC access to the prisoners you've taken in Gitmo and
Afghanistan.

And you still haven't explained exactly where, when and why you were in
Afghanistan.

Matt