I think the larger point - that the Soviet-installed government was better than anything since - is still valid, regardless of which group of warlords is 'Taliban' and which group is 'Mujahedeen'.
You are far too intelligent to believe that drivel which opebo does not actually believe himself, right?
Well, there isn't a group of rulers that performed particularly well in the Middle East. But certainly the Soviet ones were the best among a bad bunch. I guess the only exception is Ataturk, but that was before Soviets could install government in the region. But I suspect the point of this post is to defend the King of Saudi Arabia or some other monarch as an example of properly installed government. Either way, the people you admire(British upper-classes) are responsible for making it difficult to have a proper government in the region.
