The daily poll.

[cover drive man]

OK, basically I give a poll based question every day on the news and what have you (maybe we could do a cricket one as well) and each day we'll get results, I think it will be interesting.


Today's poll:

Should the U.S. pursue talks with moderate elements of the Taliban?

1) Yes

2) No

3) Unsure


I found this one on the time magazine website, personally I think the war what the US and other western powers has not been very successful whatsoever and has resulted in even more hatred toward the west by the middle east. One could argue that we have took down Saddam Hussein's brutal dictatorship, weakened Al Qaeda and the Taliban and created a democracy in Iraq. But at what price? Both sides have shown disgraceful incidents which comes back to that "All's fair in love and war." Cliche and thousands (If not a million) have died. Personally though I think the US would get a lot done through basic diplomacy. So I think yes they should at least talk with each other, but what if one side doesn't want to listen? It could result in only more violence, but on the whole I think they should try. So I choose option one.

But what do you think?

[superkingdave]

Couple of questions arise for me...are they really the Taliban anymore(as in if you manage a negotiation with 'the taliban' will that stop the fighting or are there really just groups of insurgents all with the same goal but probably to fight amongst themselves if they ever achieved it)? and what is the meaning of 'moderate' taliban?

[Kweek]

extremist from the middle east wouldve found other reasons to ' hate the west'

[Burgey]

Assuming there are moderate elements in the Taliban (and I just don't know tbh).

Then Yes. Unequivocally Yes.

Jaw Jaw is better than War War
- Sir Winston LS Churchill.

[G.I.Joe]

My friend and I were at the bookshop this week. He needed to read The Art of War by Sun Tzu. I thought it was appropriate that a book entitled The Art of Negotiation was placed on the rack right next to it.

[Matt79]

Sun Tzu devoted a significant portion of his text to the question of when you should or should not fight.

I say 'no'. There are no sufficiently 'moderate' elements the West could live with, so it's a pointless exercise.

[Burgey]

Originally Posted by G.I.Joe

My friend and I were at the bookshop this week. He needed to read The Art of War by Sun Tzu. I thought it was appropriate that a book entitled The Art of Negotiation was placed on the rack right next to it.

The Art of War was once famously circulated by John Buchanan to the Aussie cricket team.

I think the best advice in the book was along the lines of "When faced with a superior enemy, run away".

[G.I.Joe]

Originally Posted by Burgey

The Art of War was once famously cirdculated by John Buchanan to the Aussie cricket team.

I think the best advice in the book was along the lines of "When faced with a superior enemy, run away".

Not intending to run the book down, but IMO Shane Warne would probably have tossed it into the bin Only read a few pages, but much of it seemed like common sense cloaked in elaborate prose.

[Uppercut]

Originally Posted by G.I.Joe

Not intending to run the book down, but IMO Shane Warne would probably have tossed it into the bin Much of it seemed like common sense cloaked in elaborate prose.

You say that, and you're right, but it's incredible how often the words of that book have been fatally ignored in history.

[age_master]

Assuming there are more moderate elements of the Taliban they should, i doubt they would get very far but talking is always good.

[Goughy]

The answer is a resounding 'No' (though behind the scenes, unofficial, contact will, Im guessing, exist)

It is not politically prudent nor does it fit into the objectives to parley with terrorist organization (especially those that attacked on US soil).

I assume, the diplomacy aspect is to work behind the scenes and get other actors backing US policy objectives.

[Langeveldt]

Yes





What was the question?

[andyc]

Irrelevant third answer for me, thanks.

[cover drive man]

Yes: 3

No: 2

Unsure: 1

Next poll:

Does Bernie Maddoff (Wall street investment manager responsible for billions in fraud) Deserve to spend the rest of his life in Jail?

1) Yes

2) No

3) Unsure

Anothe one from time (They wont all be from time trust me) But anyway. Personally, the man is 70 years old, a sentence of five years could mean he'll die in prison. 94 percent said yes on the Time website, I would like to see what they would say if he was 40/50 or younger. But I cant decide on this one. what about you?

[Uppercut]

Yeah. Fraudulent billionaires get off far too lightly IMO. What he did was the equivalent of burgling a few hundred thousand people's houses and should be treated no differently.