Which is the most 'evil' country?

Post Reply New Topic

North Korea? Why, marijuana is completely legal there, how can it be evil?

I heard an interesting thing today on Book TV. New Yorker journalist George Packer was discussing his book The Unwinding, which I'd like to read if I had time. During the Q&A period he mentioned that in the USA, when people say "that's history" they mean "that's irrelevant," while people in other countries widely view history as important.

This discussion brought that to mind.

Justin Bieber is Canadian... nuff said...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOzG7bBylRo[/youtube]

I vote North Korea. But it depends what you mean, of course..... at the moment, North Korea is mostly only a threat to its own citizens.

However, if we change the question slightly, and ask "What is the scariest country?" The answer has to be the USA.

The USA is ridiculously powerful, and to make matters worse, its politics are getting closer and closer to blind nationalism. Defeating a fascist USA would be almost impossible without using horrific weapons.

Yes- the question has two possible meanings- worse to their own people, or worse to the outside world.

We all seemed to agree that North Korea is most tyrannical to its own people.

Saudi Arabia is a contender for distant second. Pakistan has some of the worst aspects of both tyranny and anarchy and allows remote areas to be ruled by the Taliban who shoot school girls.


But foriegn policy wise the USA and China are the worst bullies (though not the only ones). But the USA has not actually invaded and occupied a country lately. And China isnt really that bad either yet.

So there are no real foreign policy villians on the scene right now. But competion between global powers is heating up.

The nasty civil war in syria has become a chessboard for the outside powers: Russia, China, and Iran, on one side backing Assad. And with Nato, the Arab League,and both the USA, and its friend: Al Queda backing the other (not the first time that the last two were unwiting collaborators). Kinda like that other brutal civil war-the one in Spain in the 1930's that drew in involvement by Germany, and Italy on one side, and both Stalin, and the western democracies on the other in a "dress rehearsal for World War Two".

??? what is lately ???

Weeeelll... while the current president has been in office, plus a few years.
Thats what I meant by "lately".

And MOST of the stuff I get from the store is stuff I pay for!
So how can you call me a thief?


Lol!

non barbarianism has always been a very rare quality, usually only found in remote insular tribes and never in entire Nations.

anyhow, there is no such thing as an evil country. a country is not an independent sentient being. it a conglomerate of (often) shifting decisions and opinions of those in power.

You could declare a Stalinist Russia an evil country and fail to take into account 80% of people who had no choice but to live the way that way and die that way. (after Poland, Soviet Union lost the most people during the second world war - between 13 and 14% of total population - compare that to 0.32% lives lost of total population of USA for example)

The way to world peace is not via more violence. That much is clear.

To the 21 people who voted for NK, were it represented in this chart, it would be nearly equal to Iran.

Thats true, if by lately you mean in the last 10 years and you disregard Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and its role in the Libyan civil war. Some of those 'Libyan' NTC rebels were awfully pale looking.

Evil as in what? Foreign policy? Human rights? Political corruption? And/or economic freedom?

General behaviour. Freedom of markets does not negate its evil-ness.

I didn't name any countries, I was asking a question in response to the title. It's easy to justify any point of view that's based on something as vague and arbitrary as "general behaviour". All I could give you under that criteria is a half assed response.

The country with the largest % of sociopaths and narcissists compared to other people would be considered to be the most evil by me.

Although it's hard to measure or to find decent statistics for.

These days that's a massive stretch. We've had 1000 years of interbreeding between Anglo-Saxons (who, let's face it, aren't "natives" either- not sure what the relevance of that really is but still) and Normans, and of course Normans were of Viking stock anyway so the interbreeding started before 1066. We've also had 1000 years of immigration and have invented a middle class. To claim that the working classes are Saxon and the upper classes are Norman is a simplification- our royals, just like the general population, have had to interbreed with Europeans to survive. Go back another 1000 years and the notion of someone being "Norman" would be just as ridiculous.

It would be like saying that racism in America only benefits black people because if you go back thousands of years everyone is black.