You're going to need to find yourself another straw man with whom to argue. I did not say bombing rich countries is any more moral than bombing poor countries - it obviously isn't. However, the poverty of the Afghans is absolutely relevant because it means that attacks on them are all the more devastating. Think freezing or starving to death whilst fleeing a war zone.
So being dead and poor is worse than being dead and rich?
Or did you mean that it was tougher for the survivors? The same ones who are virtual slaves to the Taliban, and can be murdered for not joining the military, for not professing the Islamic faith, or (for females) for allowing one's skin to be exposed, voice to be heard or opinion to be known? Personally, I'm betting that they see that their true oppressors are getting bombed, and are holding on to hope that things will be better when the Tally-tubbies are gone. (Recall that they are a minority ruling party)
In this case, the silent-for-a-darn-good-reason majority are glad we're bombing the Taliban's resources, and are trying to avoid civilian casualties as much as possible. Their valuelessness on the eyes of the Taliban means more to them than their lack of cash. It would be nice to have more money, but being in a war zone sucks equally for all. (Having been raised in a family that danced with destitution for a few years and lived in a shelter for a while, I can tell you that the poor aren't the victim class that the Left makes them out to be... it stinks when toast is all you have to eat for a week, but it does not define your life.)