Which is the most 'evil' country?

Post Reply New Topic

Tough question! The US certainly does a lot of awful sh!t, and we enable some truly horrible governments to continue their evil. On the other hand, we do considerable good as well. I consider it perfectly reasonable to hold the US to a higher standard for several reasons. We have access to more information and resources than the other contenders on my short list, and ample opportunity to influence the decisions of our government.

China is less repressive than North Korea, but so much bigger that I finally had to base my decision on average evil rather than the sum of evils. Saudi Arabia does many truly awful things: slavery is essentially legal there, and they fund a lot of vile religious leaders in other countries, but they can't (IMO) match the brutal efficiency of North Korea when it comes to causing misery.

No, "they" talked about it. I head that she is still viewed as a hero by some people, but that doesn't take away from the fact that she was one brutal b!tch. Considering the ancient Celts were a culture of slavery and tribal warfare, I would wager brutality was not a new phenomenon for them.

The Romans stole her birthright, and tried to genocide her culture. No matter what you heard, the Romans were worse. The difference is while the Iceni and those like them were brutal just to survive, the Romans were brutal for the sake of being brutal, and to conquer other nations. The Romans were a culture of imperialism, brutality and created some of the most cruel forms of punishment ever invented by man. There was literally no-one worse at the time than the Romans and arguably hasn't been since which is saying a lot.

They completely erased and genocided the empire of Carthage just for daring to be its equal.

If a foreign army came to your country, removed its sovereignty, raped your children, extorted wealth and surplus to pay for your army of occupation you'd be pretty pissed off too.

If you are interested in learning more about the Iceni watch the video i linked above ^

Unless Sherlock03 of Virginia is Native American, this statement above has unintentional levels of hilarity, I mean meaning.

Apparently the irony is also lost on the writers of the Red Dawn movies or the designers of the Red Alert series of video games.

You're right though, I suppose thats why the behaviour of the Roman Empire seems completely justified to many Americans, or at least thats what they pretend. To admit otherwise would make them examine their own country's history.

Just replace 'crucifixition' and 'feeding to lions' with 'arbitrary extended custody without trial' and 'waterboarding'.

Sherlock's responses and denial of Roman malfeasance is quite interesting for that reason.

Actually, I have already watched the video months ago ( ancient history is one of my many interests). I have no disagreement with you about the Romans. They were very brutal towards those who they conquered ( just ask the Gauls to raise their right hand). However, the ancient Britons were no saints by any stretch of the imagination As far as Carthaginian Empire, I believe the City of Carthage was razed to the ground, occupants butchered, and salt sewn in the soil. There is evidence that Roman claims of infant and child sacrifice in the city were true, however it was probably more likely that they destroyed the capital in the third Punic War for control of the sea. Or maybe they were just pi$$ed that Hannibal was able to destroy them until his defeat at Zama. Hey, we kicked you imperialists out of our country, so I can see getting pi$$ed. However, I can't condone slaughter.

Actually, my mother is 25% Algonquin. So there is some native blood in me. I'm a red blooded American mutt.

I never defended the Romans. I would wager that I know more about their barbarity than you. However I don't go around with my head in the clouds insinuation ancient Britons were a peace loving race. I also have a keen interest with Native American history. If you were even slightly educated on the subject you would know that the majority of Indian deaths were caused by foreign disease and not through weapons. That is not to say crimes by our government did not take place.However, to insinuate that it was the only cause is simply untrue.
I think our use of torture is and was flat out wrong. However, I would be remiss if I did not poke the London torture cages of WW2 or the concentration camps of the Second Boar War in your eye.

The US, on grounds that they refused to sign the declaration on human rights because they enjoyed executn.

I'm sure he's thought carefully about it and decided the Blair lies is too recent and so still in public memory. So maybe he just shelved the plan.

To be fair, the UK did allow nearly all of that 1/3 to have its independence and now is just another middling Western European power, less powerful than Germany and about the same as France (but without the EU agricultural clout France has.)

I don't do grudges, me - and I don't understand other people who do (which is why I don't want to go to Ireland, especially your end of that country, no offence.) What Britain did to its own working class (and continues to do to some extent) was as bad as what it did to the rest of the world, imo. I think the working class in this country and the ruling class have always been different ethnicities, anyway - so the worst things done by people from Britain weren't done by my ancestors, who spent most of their time trying not to starve or die of consumption. I get that the empire was 'built' by Scots and Welsh trying to make it in a new land (and being quite psycho in the process) - but the people it really served were the Norman aristocracy and their need for the pomp of Britain being an imperial power.

The native people of the British Isles (most of them working class) are colonial subjects themselves - this is what people don't realise. The class system in Britain is actually based on racism. So when people talk about the British empire and how evil it was, I can't help but think that 'my people' were its victims too, and they were British. The point I'm trying to make is that Britain didn't just colonise other nations - it IS a colony. None of this excuses what the British Empire did but I just want to make the point that British identity and British people are different things to the actions of Britain's imperial overlords.

The socialist and republican movements in Britain have always hinted at this but never actually spelled it out, probably because some of the leaders on the left have always been from well-off backgrounds themselves, so they'll admit the system is unfair but admitting it's racist and colonial is a bit too uncomfortable for them. That might've actually caused a revolution after industrialisation when it was most apparent (what we got was reform instead.)

Anyway, I don't think whole countries carry the taint of what they did in the past. If that was the case, then Germany, Italy, Turkey and Mongolia would be 'evil' countries.

Everyone was a barbarian back then, especially the Romans who thought they were civilised.

Celtic slavery was more humane than the Roman and Greek systems and I'd argue that imperial warfare is worse than tribal warfare. Religious human sacrifice is also not as bad as killing people for entertainment in stadia.

People romanticise the ancient Celts too much, but the important thing to remember is that the British history of cultural genocide and subjugation of its native people started with the Romans (but was really perfected by Normans.)

Again, I am not arguing that the Romans were better with respect to brutality or civility. I am only pointing out that the ancient Britons were far from laudable.

Almost all nations and peoples have acted like unimaginably barbaric savages to their own or others at one point or another in the past, and often near constantly. Britain is no exception, but it's no different to any other nation.

We can't do anything about it now, and it's irrelevant to the modern world in anything other than what it is - history. Interesting, but still history.

And countries will keep doing it in the future regardless of knowing history. It's because people are convinced bad history is perpetrated only by evil people. When convinced it's for something "good," it cannot be "evil," so people become blinded by what they are doing. Typical psychopathic rationalizations. Yes, countries can be psychopathic. But does that make them truly evil?

Look at Hitler for example. He was thought of as Germany's savior at one time now he's considered one of the most evil men who ever existed. This is why I don't believe it's ever evil for evil's sake. Does one country ever pounce on another and annihilate it just for the fun of it? When countries strike out, it's due to fear or desiring to get their greedy little hands on something the others have. They feel it's necessary for self preservation, not just because they want to destroy the other country, which is what a truly evil country would do. Very rare instances of true evil exist.

So you have the US and UK controlling other countries out of fear.
Number one reason, if we don't control this country, they will control us and we don't want that.
Second reason is financial. Private enterprise in both UK and US profit from controlling other regions, the governments run up huge debts, so the individual citizen doesn't profit as much as certain corporations.
Third is due to this idea we can make a country better if we control it.

These are the genesis of appearing evil.

That is quite a post. I think this too but have never been able to articulate what I thought.

I voted "Other" because I worried that the question itself might be a trick question.

I think that two types of countries are very likely to turn evil if they remain in power for too long. The first type (e.g. USA) assumes that it is God's chosen country to serve as a role model for other countries. (I'm not American and I think that my parents are rather... anti-USA.) The second type (e.g. China) believes that since it has been bullied by other countries for centuries, it has the right to wreak havoc on all its past and present bullies once it gains power. (I remembered posting on Wrong Planet before that I view China as a bully cum victim rather than a "pure" victim.)