wrong so he thought that was a good enough reason but everybody else say i know it is not crest -- kristian but i have to defend my honor but what you learn is honor will make people do things that is illegal and immoral and of christian and crazy does not make sense to the point* of view of reason but they will do it. that is a very important lesson and discovery at least for me. that duke of wellington fights to fight and 1850 if you challenge somebody to a duel in england, people laugh. it is ridiculous. in 20 years it goes from being something a gentleman should do to not just recognized to be wrong but as a source of this honor and going from being honorable to ridiculous nothing more dishonorable than being ridiculous it goes from honorable to ridiculous. why? that is complicated story. read the book. [laughter] but a great deal of it has to do with the fact it was the first direct -- aristocratic practice if anybody can do it than it does not distinguish you and one of the things that happened is and in predicting this they said butchers and barbers and other rude mechanicals i remem

so while i agree, and kristian, hereby. it's not that helpful to articulate positions because those will not be the final positions. talks will change all the positions. but it might just be a way to start analytically thinking about how does one see a way forward and what issues need to be discussed and where the positions might start off at. and part of making, creating that coherent with the taliban is giving them, finding a way of giving them a platform. on the government side, i think there's quite a few things that have been mentioned, kristian also mentioned earlier, as to the afghan government leadership and support for the poker process, a question, and i would agree with the. i think there are many interests among the senior members of the government that point to perpetuation of conflicts, not the least of which is the money that comes through and the ability to partake in that, and those inflows of money. but also things like the militias. i think we should be, rather than encouraging for the initiatives for loc

so while i agree, and kristian, hereby.not that helpful to articulate positions because those will not be the final positions. talks will change all the positions. but it might just be a way to start analytically thinking about how does one see a way forward and what issues need to be discussed and where the positions might start off at. and part of making, creating that coherent with the taliban is giving them, finding a way of giving them a platform. on the government side, i think there's quite a few things that have been mentioned, kristian also mentioned earlier, as to the afghan government leadership and support for the poker process, a question, and i would agree with the. i think there are many interests among the senior members of the government that point to perpetuation of conflicts, not the least of which is the money that comes through and the ability to partake in that, and those inflows of money. but also things like the militias. i think we should be, rather than encouraging for the initiatives for localized

so while i agree, and kristian, hereby.t's not that helpful to articulate positions because those will not be the final positions. talks will change all the positions. but it might just be a way to start analytically thinking about how does one see a way forward and what issues need to be discussed and where the positions might start off at. and part of making, creating that coherent with the taliban is giving them, finding a way of giving them a platform. on the government side, i think there's quite a few things that have been mentioned, kristian also mentioned earlier, as to the afghan government leadership and support for the poker process, a question, and i would agree with the. i think there are many interests among the senior members of the government that point to perpetuation of conflicts, not the least of which is the money that comes through and the ability to partake in that, and those inflows of money. but also things like the militias. i think we should be, rather than encouraging for the initiatives for local

>> let's start at that end of the table now, kristian and hamish. >> i don't know my question. >> in interest oftime i won't touch on all of those many interesting questions. i think maybe what i would touch on was the question about parliament very briefly in which many parliament members are also members of high peace council, and those particular respondents do have a view of the role which is much more focused on reaching out to different kinds of disgruntled groups in their own regions of the countryet cetera. so there may be grounds for the. a lot of the respondents outside either the high peace council or the paliament felt that i think more because of sort of ineffectiveness or division of the parliament rather than an argument against it is intrinsic or theoretical role in this regard mentioned frequently mechanisms like those, like the emergency constitutional jerk is as kind of way to get views from across the country represented. certainly your characterization that most felt because it's an appointed body, the high peace council is limited in its ability to play that rol