Rulers of the World

[Chicodoodoo]

This is an experiment.

Imagine you are the people of the world. That should be easy because you are.

Imagine further that you, the people of the world, make the decisions. This is a bit harder to imagine, since we have given away our power to a tiny minority called “leaders”. These “leaders”, in turn, have given away their authority to an even smaller minority, one that creates the money used to purchase the cooperation of everyone. So for the moment, imagine that you directly participate in making the decisions, and further imagine that you can no longer be “bought”.

The question above is the experimental question you get to decide. What say you?

[king anthony]

Seeing I voted "no" on your last poll - I feel it only fitting that I vote "yes" this time.

[panopticon]

G'day All,

I voted no because I would want Australian troops protecting an Australian embassy.
These troops would be part of a foreign military force.

Kind Regards, :yo:
Panopticon

[Marshlight]

I voted yes. Living in America and witnessing the response to 9/11 showed me what those in charge are really all about. If alleged terrorists from Afghanistan were behind the attack on the towers, the logical response would be to first hold UN meetings with the PM of Afghanistan, and then form a joint effort with the Afghan government to bring the alleged terrorists to justice. This did not happen. They sent troops into Iraq with shaky claims of weapons of mass destruction, which were incidentally never found.
While US and coalition allies occupy the country, various stories and leaks of the treatment of the local people have reached the ears of those intelligent enough to listen. Those of us who did listen know of an innumerable amount of injustices committed against the Iraqi people, as well as to it's priceless archeological artifacts which were cemented over, or crushed up for sand bags.

[Chicodoodoo]

I voted no because I would want Australian troops protecting an Australian embassy. These troops would be part of a foreign military force.

If Australian diplomats were welcome in Iraq, wouldn't the Iraqis provide protection for them? Would they even need protecting?

Something to think about....

[RedeZra]

Since WWII the US power has misused the nation's youngsters to expand it's empire and sphere of influence

this is not a fight for freedom and democracy in foreign places but a strategy of tension and perpetual war of aggression


it will go on as long as young men and women are willing to put on a uniform and travel 5000 miles to kill and maim for gold oil and drugs


step out of the uniform soldier and go home

[Lord Sidious]

I don't think it is that simple.
Saddam was the type of hard man that is required to keep a nation like Iraq under control.
When Britain put those borders in, they took no notice of ethnic divisions.
There are kurds in the north around Mosul. Their hatred for the arabs in the south is legendary.
Then there is the shia/sunni divide in the southern areas around Basra and the Shatt al Arab canal. Although many shia and sunni are intermarried, there is still fighting and stupidity that goes on.
There are around 14 ethnic groups inside the borders of Iraq, with all their attributes and petty hates.
If we just pulled our troops out now, as much as I would like that, there would be a HUGE power vacuum.
That means violence where there are multiple struggles for control.
That means death, rape, injuries.
This vote is not so straight forward.
So until that can be solved, I would vote no.

[panopticon]

I voted no because I would want Australian troops protecting an Australian embassy. These troops would be part of a foreign military force.

If Australian diplomats were welcome in Iraq, wouldn't the Iraqis provide protection for them? Would they even need protecting?

Something to think about....

G'day Chicodoodoo,

Not really something to think about for long now is it.
You asked a question in the poll.
I responded with a reasoned answer.
You further qualify arguing a hypothetical in response to my answer.
Seems I should have voted 'yes' doesn't it.
Must have been the 'wrong' answer because those who voted 'yes' didn't get asked hypotheticals.

So I'll ask you Chicodoodoo:
What if Australians would rather have non-elected representatives (bureaucrats) protected by their military and not by an unknown force?
Is it wrong for me to want that?
Does this mean that Australians don't trust the (in this hypothetical case) United States troops with the welfare of Australian diplomatic staffers in the 'Good Ol' US of A'?
Is this wrong?
Maybe it's part of a 'duty of care' to the bureaucrats in question?
Maybe I should have kept to the habit of a lifetime and not bothered with the poll?
Is there a way I can change my answer to 'yes' so I don't look stupid, naive and wrong before my peers?
Should I have chosen red (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?16690-United-People-Declaration-poll&p=188637&viewfull=1#post188637)?

Kind Regards, :yo:
Panopticon

[NancyV]

I voted no. The world is as it is and no amount of wishful thinking will make it different. Withdrawing all foreign troops from Iraq would guarantee more violence and suffering at this point. Yes, it would be best if we leave Iraq and let Iraqis freely kill each other off in their sectarian conflicts, but it isn't going to happen.

[Chicodoodoo]

You further qualify arguing a hypothetical in response to my answer.
Seems I should have voted 'yes' doesn't it.
Must have been the 'wrong' answer because those who voted 'yes' didn't get asked hypotheticals.

There are two things going on here. One is the poll. You can select whatever option you want, and because the poll is private, no one need ever know what your reasons are for your selection.

The other thing going on here is a public forum discussion. Participation is optional. If you elect to reveal your vote on the poll question, you can expect some public commentary. I found your comment to be an interesting reason why someone might justify a "Yes" vote, and yet you used it to justify a "No" vote. That was what triggered my interest in your comment and prompted my response.

We don't think alike, and that always makes for interesting conversation.

[Tangri]

I voted yes. Living in America and witnessing the response to 9/11 showed me what those in charge are really all about. If alleged terrorists from Afghanistan were behind the attack on the towers, the logical response would be to first hold UN meetings with the PM of Afghanistan, and then form a joint effort with the Afghan government to bring the alleged terrorists to justice. This did not happen. They sent troops into Iraq with shaky claims of weapons of mass destruction, which were incidentally never found.
While US and coalition allies occupy the country, various stories and leaks of the treatment of the local people have reached the ears of those intelligent enough to listen. Those of us who did listen know of an innumerable amount of injustices committed against the Iraqi people, as well as to it's priceless archeological artifacts which were cemented over, or crushed up for sand bags.
It is very sad to see; you are still believe Afghanistan involvement is related with terrorist activities.
Did Russians tried same, before, because of terrorist?

[RedeZra]

One would think that when a bully breaks an entrance into a house to burgle and harass a diverse family... that he will eventually leave and not occupy the house forever

perhaps the bully thinks he needs to stay to keep the peace in the house and raise the family

he has no business there unless it is to steal

[panopticon]

There are two things going on here. One is the poll. You can select whatever option you want, and because the poll is private, no one need ever know what your reasons are for your selection.
The other thing going on here is a public forum discussion. Participation is optional. If you elect to reveal your vote on the poll question, you can expect some public commentary. I found your comment to be an interesting reason why someone might justify a "Yes" vote, and yet you used it to justify a "No" vote. That was what triggered my interest in your comment and prompted my response.
We don't think alike, and that always makes for interesting conversation.

G'day Chicodoodoo,

Thank you for the response.
I must admit that I do not see 'two things going on here'.
My decision to explain the reason for my 'NO' vote was because I wanted to show that there was more than a single option here.
Lord Sidious and NancyV have done that above as well.

The problem with this format is that a skewing of data can come as an end result. That is what politicians use, to some extent, to justify certain actions.


We need a no fly zone over Libya = We need to bomb the place to destroy their infrastructure until we get our way and access to their oil reserves.
By not looking into a questions ramifications all sorts of possible results can come out in the end.

I took a different slant to the question deliberately.
I chose to focus on 'All foreign military forces' as opposed to 'foreign military forces should be withdrawn from Iraq'. By looking at what the word 'All' meant and the different possibilities it led to, I was able to say 'NO' because to say 'YES' would infer that I agree with leaving Australian bureaucrats unguarded in a dangerous zone.

Your hypothetical did not help other than to cloud my point.

I think that all troops should be sent to do rebuilding projects, guns should be removed from everybody to be replaced by frozen fish and that shrubberies should be the only fencing allowed by decree of the "Knights who say Ni".

These are hypothetical situations and do not serve to assist in answering the poll question at all.

Kind Regards, :yo:
Panopticon

[3optic]

I voted yes. Living in America and witnessing the response to 9/11 showed me what those in charge are really all about. If alleged terrorists from Afghanistan were behind the attack on the towers, the logical response would be to first hold UN meetings with the PM of Afghanistan, and then form a joint effort with the Afghan government to bring the alleged terrorists to justice. This did not happen. They sent troops into Iraq with shaky claims of weapons of mass destruction, which were incidentally never found.
While US and coalition allies occupy the country, various stories and leaks of the treatment of the local people have reached the ears of those intelligent enough to listen. Those of us who did listen know of an innumerable amount of injustices committed against the Iraqi people, as well as to it's priceless archeological artifacts which were cemented over, or crushed up for sand bags.
It is very sad to see; you are still believe Afghanistan involvement is related with terrorist activities.
Did Russians tried same, before, because of terrorist?

Hi Levent Tonga. I don't think Marshlight was saying that. In answer to your question, er.. yes The Russians were reacting to provocative attacks by the Mujahideen if you caught this interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski:


Q: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Article (http://www.counterpunch.org/brzezinski.html)

[3optic]

I don't think it is that simple.
Saddam was the type of hard man that is required to keep a nation like Iraq under control.
When Britain put those borders in, they took no notice of ethnic divisions.
There are kurds in the north around Mosul. Their hatred for the arabs in the south is legendary.
Then there is the shia/sunni divide in the southern areas around Basra and the Shatt al Arab canal. Although many shia and sunni are intermarried, there is still fighting and stupidity that goes on.
There are around 14 ethnic groups inside the borders of Iraq, with all their attributes and petty hates.
If we just pulled our troops out now, as much as I would like that, there would be a HUGE power vacuum.
That means violence where there are multiple struggles for control.
That means death, rape, injuries.
This vote is not so straight forward.
So until that can be solved, I would vote no.

An Iraqi police force and military have been installed. What do you suggest would need to happen before withdrawal? Sounds like an indefinite stay.

I KNOW! We can chemtrail them with prozac for a few generations until they've forgotten their beefs. OR we use a Hollywood-like industry to degrade their culture until they are thoroughly demoralized. Then we offer the "solution" of a New World Order for their "problem." Yeeeeah...
:tongue1:

[panopticon]

G'day 3optic,

The quote attributed to Brzezinski is one of my all time favourites.


Brzezinski: The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

For those who don't have a background in what is being discussed here I would suggest the series of documentaries made for the BBC in 2004 by Adam Curtis called 'The Power Of Nightmares'.
The full series is available here:
http://www.archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmares


This film explores the origins in the 1940s and 50s of Islamic Fundamentalism in the Middle East, and Neoconservatism in America, parallels between these movements, and their effect on the world today. From the introduction to Part 1:

"Both [the Islamists and Neoconservatives] were idealists who were born out of the failure of the liberal dream to build a better world. And both had a very similar explanation for what caused that failure. These two groups have changed the world, but not in the way that either intended. Together, they created today's nightmare vision of a secret, organized evil that threatens the world. A fantasy that politicians then found restored their power and authority in a disillusioned age. And those with the darkest fears became the most powerful."
The Power of Nightmares, Baby It's Cold Outside.

Part 1 - Baby it's Cold Outside
Part 2 - The Phantom Victory
Part 3 - The Shadows in the Cave


Again thanks for the link 3optic. :hippie:

Kind Regards, :yo:
Panopticon

[Lord Sidious]

I don't think it is that simple.
Saddam was the type of hard man that is required to keep a nation like Iraq under control.
When Britain put those borders in, they took no notice of ethnic divisions.
There are kurds in the north around Mosul. Their hatred for the arabs in the south is legendary.
Then there is the shia/sunni divide in the southern areas around Basra and the Shatt al Arab canal. Although many shia and sunni are intermarried, there is still fighting and stupidity that goes on.
There are around 14 ethnic groups inside the borders of Iraq, with all their attributes and petty hates.
If we just pulled our troops out now, as much as I would like that, there would be a HUGE power vacuum.
That means violence where there are multiple struggles for control.
That means death, rape, injuries.
This vote is not so straight forward.
So until that can be solved, I would vote no.

An Iraqi police force and military have been installed. What do you suggest would need to happen before withdrawal? Sounds like an indefinite stay.

I KNOW! We can chemtrail them with prozac for a few generations until they've forgotten their beefs. OR we use a Hollywood-like industry to degrade their culture until they are thoroughly demoralized. Then we offer the "solution" of a New World Order for their "problem." Yeeeeah...
:tongue1:

I was going to give you a coherant answer, but then I saw the vomit you posted under the question and decided you don't deserve an answer.
If that sounds harsh, then don't post crap like that as if that were what I would advocate.

[Gajanana]

tricky.... should we have helped the monks in burma? the people of bahrain? etc.... kick the chinese out of tibet? or how about bombing the united states? after all they have destroyed the natives of that little bit of land and are still doing so, perhaps maybe we should just forget it all and enjoy ourselves instead of worrying what others do in thier own back yard... I dont know, its tricky.
I realise that, while I am sitting on the fence pondering what to do, there are people suffering, but I have to be honest: I dont bloody know and it bugs me...

[Gaia]

New light comes into the world to give meaning to everything we do; this light, is another understanding of Rulers of the World. Most people do not throw that criticism and curses on those who govern. And even entertain the public, everywhere, in newspapers, we present leaders so ridiculous and grotesque. So, the poor, harassed by these negative thoughts and evil, they are driven to make bad decisions for the country, and their errors fall on the people. To help your country, we must be touched by our thoughts and heart.

[Lord Sidious]

Doesn't it sound off?
That the nuggets send military forces into Libya because they care so much about the rights of the people, yet they don't show that same attitude to the people that they supposedly represent?
1 + 1 + 1 = 5?

[Chicodoodoo]

I KNOW! We can chemtrail them with prozac for a few generations until they've forgotten their beefs. OR we use a Hollywood-like industry to degrade their culture until they are thoroughly demoralized. Then we offer the "solution" of a New World Order for their "problem." Yeeeeah...
:tongue1:

I was going to give you a coherant answer, but then I saw the vomit you posted under the question and decided you don't deserve an answer.
If that sounds harsh, then don't post crap like that as if that were what I would advocate.

Calm down, Sidious. One person's crap is another person's humor. Besides, I see the point of 3optic's sarcasm. It's not an attack against you. He's holding up a mirror for Americans to look into.

[Lord Sidious]

I was going to give you a coherant answer, but then I saw the vomit you posted under the question and decided you don't deserve an answer.
If that sounds harsh, then don't post crap like that as if that were what I would advocate.

Calm down, Sidious. One person's crap is another person's humor. Besides, I see the point of 3optic's sarcasm. It's not an attack against you. He's holding up a mirror for Americans to look into.

It could have been done better though.
I have a deep affection for the middle eastern peoples and dislike the fact that people like me doing their service now have destroyed their homes and families.
So that is why I don't want to be linked to that mindset.

[Chicodoodoo]

I have a deep affection for the middle eastern peoples and dislike the fact that people like me doing their service now have destroyed their homes and families.

There's an interesting disconnect there between "doing their service" and "destroyed their homes and families". Please don't think I am trying to put you on the spot personally. I think this is a cognitive dissonance that Americans in general have been deliberately spoon-fed and have willingly swallowed. It's like saying, "We have great affection for the middle eastern peoples, so we will as a service destroy their homes and families." Your thoughts?

[Peace of Mind]

step out of the uniform soldier and go home

That may be very hard for the young manipulated soldiers to do; they are growing up in a time where almost every toy and video game is about war.

Peace

[Lord Sidious]

I have a deep affection for the middle eastern peoples and dislike the fact that people like me doing their service now have destroyed their homes and families.

There's an interesting disconnect there between "doing their service" and "destroyed their homes and families". Please don't think I am trying to put you on the spot personally. I think this is a cognitive dissonance that Americans in general have been deliberately spoon-fed and have willingly swallowed. It's like saying, "We have great affection for the middle eastern peoples, so we will as a service destroy their homes and families." Your thoughts?

I am not an American as you probably know.
I think the deal you speak of is a safety valve. People don't necessarily want to deal with the consequences of their actions, hence the cognotive dissonance.
I never thought you were on my case, I do this too.

[Whitehaze]

I voted yes, we never knew the real reason for it. Nor will we ever know. They have stated reasons for these wars, but how many people actually buy into that bs?

[buckminster fuller]

I voted yes too, it's enough to be controlled from the inside of a country, no need for cowboys from good'ol america or in that mater from anywhere, with an easy trigger near schools, or out of reach in helicopters, shooting civilians and journalists (http://www.collateralmurder.com/). ... Culturally, historically, it is I think out of question that their internal affairs be solved by an empire like nation which starved them to death to try to control sadam, the US goal being to secure the oil both in Irak and in Koweit. Enough interference with the world, using terrorists ways.

[3optic]

An Iraqi police force and military have been installed. What do you suggest would need to happen before withdrawal? Sounds like an indefinite stay.

I KNOW! We can chemtrail them with prozac for a few generations until they've forgotten their beefs. OR we use a Hollywood-like industry to degrade their culture until they are thoroughly demoralized. Then we offer the "solution" of a New World Order for their "problem." Yeeeeah...
:tongue1:

I was going to give you a coherant answer, but ...

Calm down, Sidious. One person's crap is another person's humor. ...

It could have been done better though. ...

Thanks Sidious. Chicodoodoo was right I didn't mean to offend and I wasn't targeting you with my sarcasm so sorry if it came across that way. The first paragraph was a serious response, the second was a humorous riff. I would not broadside you in such a passive aggressive way. I only weaponize humor when clearly provoked and even then only if I lose my head :)

[Lord Sidious]

Thanks Sidious. Chicodoodoo was right I didn't mean to offend and I wasn't targeting you with my sarcasm so sorry if it came across that way. The first paragraph was a serious response, the second was a humorous riff. I would not broadside you in such a passive aggressive way. I only weaponize humor when clearly provoked and even then only if I lose my head :)

Ok, sorry about that, I took it the wrong way as I have had some people try to start stuff and I assumed you were the same.

[3optic]

Completely understandable. I need to be clearer about my POV when writing satire. Heheh.

[modwiz]

Thanks Sidious. Chicodoodoo was right I didn't mean to offend and I wasn't targeting you with my sarcasm so sorry if it came across that way. The first paragraph was a serious response, the second was a humorous riff. I would not broadside you in such a passive aggressive way. I only weaponize humor when clearly provoked and even then only if I lose my head :)

Ok, sorry about that, I took it the wrong way as I have had some people try to start stuff and I assumed you were the same.


3optic is one of the good guys, LS.

You might want to try more fiber in your diet. :rockon:

[Lord Sidious]

3optic is one of the good guys, LS.

So you reckon I call Vader and the boys back then?


http://www.starwarshelmets.com/2009/ESB-Screen_troop_001.jpg

[Davidallany]

Hi Chicodoodoo, I voted Yes. However, it doesn't matter anyway, a new regime will be installed by "them" with a fresh colour, and the corrupted are plenty. Mission was accomplished there "they took what they wanted".

[Marshlight]

I voted yes. Living in America and witnessing the response to 9/11 showed me what those in charge are really all about. If alleged terrorists from Afghanistan were behind the attack on the towers, the logical response would be to first hold UN meetings with the PM of Afghanistan, and then form a joint effort with the Afghan government to bring the alleged terrorists to justice. This did not happen. They sent troops into Iraq with shaky claims of weapons of mass destruction, which were incidentally never found.
While US and coalition allies occupy the country, various stories and leaks of the treatment of the local people have reached the ears of those intelligent enough to listen. Those of us who did listen know of an innumerable amount of injustices committed against the Iraqi people, as well as to it's priceless archeological artifacts which were cemented over, or crushed up for sand bags.
It is very sad to see; you are still believe Afghanistan involvement is related with terrorist activities.
Did Russians tried same, before, because of terrorist?

You misunderstand me. Have you considered using a translator, as I can see English is not your fist language. I did not state that terrorism was involved from the people of Afghanistan. The term 'alleged' means claimed until proven to be true. Please translate my statement into your native language and reread before passing judgment.

[RedeZra]

step out of the uniform soldier and go home

That may be very hard for the young manipulated soldiers to do; they are growing up in a time where almost every toy and video game is about war.

Peace

yes it's wishful thinking

perhaps the warmongers have to retire first or be forced into retirement before the soldiers will follow suit and come back home where they belong

[ThePythonicCow]

You misunderstand me. Have you considered using a translator, as I can see English is not your fist language. I did not state that terrorism was involved from the people of Afghanistan. The term 'alleged' means claimed until proven to be true. Please translate my statement into your native language and reread before passing judgment.
The burden for clear communication lies with both parties. Your post, Marshlight, the first paragraph especially, relied somewhat on conditionals and implications. I can appreciate that some readers might have read it the opposite of what you intended. I had to read it twice myself to be confident of your intent.

Let us have compassion for our readers - whatever be their first (not "fist" ;)) language.

[sygh]

Personally, I'd like to see all of our troops come home. The next step would be to turn weapons into plowshares... but more than that, I'd like to hear what the Iraqi people want, and I do mean a real understanding from all sides of the issue. It's their country and it's really up to them. All the information we ever get here, in America, is canned, or selling something.

I'd also like to see Obama impeached for taking us into Libya without first gaining the congressional go-ahead, and I'd like to see Hilliary Clinton removed from her position; I don't care if she says what Obama did was legal under the United Nations.

[Marshlight]

You misunderstand me. Have you considered using a translator, as I can see English is not your fist language. I did not state that terrorism was involved from the people of Afghanistan. The term 'alleged' means claimed until proven to be true. Please translate my statement into your native language and reread before passing judgment.
The burden for clear communication lies with both parties. Your post, Marshlight, the first paragraph especially, relied somewhat on conditionals and implications. I can appreciate that some readers might have read it the opposite of what you intended. I had to read it twice myself to be confident of your intent.

Let us have compassion for our readers - whatever be their first (not "fist" ;)) language.

Wow, I was under the impression that this was a forward thinking forum. Two posts in a row I have been insulted. Maybe I signed up for the wrong forum?

[Chicodoodoo]

Wow, I was under the impression that this was a forward thinking forum. Two posts in a row I have been insulted. Maybe I signed up for the wrong forum?

I am sure no insult was intended, Marshlight. Please don't be offended. Even for those with perfect mastery of the English language, misunderstandings happen all the time. I've had that same problem of being misunderstood (and misunderstanding) numerous times, despite a good command of the language and careful proofing. I've even remarked several times on Avalon of having the experience where two people are speaking the same language, and neither one understands a word the other is saying!

[Chicodoodoo]

It won’t do any good. It won’t matter. It doesn’t make any difference.

These are all reasons that could be given as to why the United People movement is a waste of time and effort. I would like to briefly address these arguments and explain why United People can make a difference.

For eight long years the war in Iraq has dragged on, with no end in sight. The sample poll has been up for one week now. 94% are in favor of withdrawing all foreign troops from Iraq (69 out of 73). Imagine if 94% of the entire world’s population expressed the same opinion, and the Iraq occupation continued to drag on. What would that tell us about our world?

United People is a way to determine consensus. It allows the people, all of the people, to directly express their will. We have all been brainwashed into believing that our governments reflect the will of the people, when in fact, they do no such thing. A United People poll can expose this debilitating lie, and in doing so, it can reveal the truth for all to see. The truth is that hidden figures dictate the actions of our governments. We are being led by unknown dictators operating in direct opposition to the will of the people.

This fact is covered up by media propaganda and lies that are designed to fool the people into believing that their will is being carried out. There is no freedom of the press when the press is controlled by a handful of powerful people that serve the hidden dictators. The “free” press is another lie that will quickly become apparent when the people have an uncensored voice.

United People can give the entire world something it has never had – a voice. If humanity could speak with one voice, what would it say? What could it accomplish?

[Chicodoodoo]

Empathy.

Most humans can feel what another human being is probably feeling just from context. A few humans have difficulty doing so. Most of these are sociopaths.

Because sociopaths dominate our positions of control and power, they become role models, and their deviant characteristics "trickle down" to influence the masses.

Do you find yourself rarely imagining what it feels like to be in another person's shoes? That's exactly what the sociopaths want.

Ever wonder what an Iraqi is feeling?


http://www.ted.com/talks/sam_richards_a_radical_experiment_in_empathy.html