> > With regard to the fact that they were active in supporting the Taliban as a buffer against Communism some time ago? I mean, is that correct?
>
> I avoided answering that, because I'm not entirely clear about the history there. I believe we armed Afghanistan so they could defend themselves against the Russians, or something like that, but this would be before the Taliban got all tyrannical.

Unfortunately, we did more than simply arm them. From the linked-to article:

"In the twilight of the Cold War, the United States spent millions of dollars to supply Afghan schoolchildren with textbooks filled with violent images and militant Islamic teachings, part of covert attempts to spur resistance to the Soviet occupation.

The primers, which were filled with talk of jihad and featured drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines, have served since then as the Afghan school system's core curriculum . . .

. . . now [the US] is wrestling with the unintended consequences of its successful strategy of stirring Islamic fervor to fight communism. What seemed like a good idea in the context of the Cold War is being criticized by humanitarian workers as a crude tool that steeped a generation in violence."

I remember a bit about more recent US policy toward the Taliban, but I am reluctant to post it without a link; most newspapers only let you view articles for a week or so after they are written for free.