top 10 "evil" Nations?

[Farrowlesparrow]

Sweden...

I hate those filthy neutrals! With enemies you know where they stand but with neutrals? Who knows! It sickens me.
What makes a country turn neutral ... Lust for gold? Power? Or were they just born with hearts full of neutrality?

 

[The Monkey]

Sweden...

I hate those filthy neutrals! With enemies you know where they stand but with neutrals? Who knows! It sickens me.
What makes a country turn neutral ... Lust for gold? Power? Or were they just born with hearts full of neutrality?

I hope... You never know with Farrow.

 

[seinfeldrules]

NK, Iran, Syria, Libya, and Pre-Invasion Iraq are the only reasonable canidates on the list. I think everyone knows that.

Agreed. Possibly Saudi Arabia as well.

I'm american and I voted for North Korea

I'm not american and I voted for North Korea

I really dont think any unbiased source from either America or abroad could argue against N. Korea. Hell stern, they intentionally starve their own people just to build nukes. How is that not evil? Even you should be able to see that one.

 

[burner69]

Hell stern, they intentionally starve their own people just to build nukes. How is that not evil? Even you should be able to see that one.

And the US intentionally bombs Iraqi water supplies, resulting in over half a million deaths. How is THAT not evil?

 

[GhostFox]

And the US intentionally bombs Iraqi water supplies, resulting in over half a million deaths. How is THAT not evil?

I believe you mean the UN, since all actions were under UN mandate.

Cut the double standered. It gets old real quick and completely discredits you. You go from someone arguing an opinion, to just another guy spouting anti-american rhetoric.

 

[seinfeldrules]

And the US intentionally bombs Iraqi water supplies, resulting in over half a million deaths. How is THAT not evil?

Was that before or after Saddam squander millions in aid meant for his people on tanks and gold plated toilet seats? Maybe if he had cared more for his people then for power, you wouldnt have to be looking to blame Saddam's failures on America. This is just another attempt to try and discredit the US's invasion of Iraq. Face it, removing Saddam from power was a great service to the world and especially to the Iraqi people.

 

[CptStern]

Was that before or after Saddam squander millions in aid meant for his people on tanks and gold plated toilet seats? Maybe if he had cared more for his people then for power, you wouldnt have to be looking to blame Saddam's failures on America. This is just another attempt to try and discredit the US's invasion of Iraq. Face it, removing Saddam from power was a great service to the world and especially to the Iraqi people.

7 years before ..saddam was an evil bastard ..what's your excuse?

 

[Farrowlesparrow]

7 years before ..saddam was an evil bastard ..what's your excuse?

Probably what you just said actually...

 

[seinfeldrules]

7 years before ..saddam was an evil bastard ..what's your excuse?

Hell, at least we fixed our mistakes. If we take a look at Stern's ideal global environment, we find that Iraq is still in Kuwait, Saddam is still in power, and Saddam has a massive military poised to invade Israel after he is free to sell and purchase whatever he wants, whenever he wants.

PS Havent we gone over why we supported him against Iran, the situation back then was much different than it is now.

 

[CptStern]

Hell, at least we fixed our mistakes. If we take a look at Stern's ideal global environment, we find that Iraq is still in Kuwait, Saddam is still in power, and Saddam has a massive military poised to invade Israel after he is free to sell and purchase whatever he wants, whenever he wants.

PS Havent we gone over why we supported him against Iran, the situation back then was much different than it is now.

"tip toe, thru the issues with meeeee!"

 

[seinfeldrules]

"tip toe, thru the issues with meeeee!"

Not my fault you care more about bashing the US than dealing with real world issues. Again, if everything went your way:
1. Saddam would still be in Kuwait (per your objections to Gulf War 1)

2. Saddam would still be in power (per your objections to Gulf War 2)

3. Saddam would currently posses a massive army posed to attack anbody in the Middle East (per your objections to sanctions).

Thankfully history hasnt been very kind to Stern's viewpoints.

 

[CptStern]

Not my fault you care more about bashing the US than dealing with real world issues. Again, if everything went your way:
1. Saddam would still be in Kuwait (per your objections to Gulf War 1)

he never would have made it there cuz some minor despot/rival faction would have taken him out in the 70's

2. Saddam would still be in power (per your objections to Gulf War 2)

he never would have made it there cuz some minor despot/rival faction would have taken him out in the 70's

3. Saddam would currently posses a massive army posed to attack anbody in the Middle East (per your objections to sanctions).

hahahah you are truely naive ...so why didnt he invade anyone when he had the chance?

Thankfully history hasnt been very kind to Stern's viewpoints.

history has already proven me rigth ..I am very confident that the history books of tommorrow will cast the US role in the destruction of iraq in a negative light

 

[GhostFox]

I am very confident that the history books of tommorrow will cast the US role in the destruction of iraq in a negative light

I don't know how you can be so confident. Even Bush haters are starting to worry that in 50 years Bush will be mentioned in the same breath as FDR and JFK. He's even got the initial thing down. GWB.

 

[Raziaar]

hahahah you are truely naive ...so why didnt he invade anyone when he had the chance?

He already had a massive army. One of the largest in the world.

Guess he just never had the balls to do much besides attacking Iran and trying to invade Kuwait.

I can't imigine an army that massive in a land mass about the size of one of the United State's States. Just, boggles my mind.

 

[GhostFox]

Saddams army was the 4th largest in the WORLD before the first gulf war.

 

[Raziaar]

I think you're confusing it with incidents of french neo-nazis desecrating mulsim graves, not british or american graves ..unless that is, you have a source to back you up ..here's mine


btw the french media was in a frenzy after those graves were desecrated ..the french public were outraged

This is from freerepublic. Many other sites about the same thing.

PARIS (Reuters) - French officials have condemned vandals who sprayed slogans supporting Iraqi President Saddam Hussein at a World War One British military cemetery in northern France.

"Saddam will win and he will make you bleed," said one of the slogans sprayed across the base of a large cross marking the entrance of the cemetery in Etaples. "Dig up your rubbish, it is contaminating our soil," another said.

Of the roughly 11,000 graves at Etaples, most are British but there are other nationalities including Canadian and Australian. There are no U.S. graves at the site.

France's relations with the United States and Britain have been soured by its opposition to the U.S.-led war in Iraq, but French officials said this was no excuse for venting hatred.

"Our disagreement with the American and British governments in no way authorises the undermining of the memory of men who sacrificed themselves for our country," the member of parliament for the region, Socialist Jack Lang, said in a statement on Tuesday.

The slogans were cleaned off by the French branch of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, which manages the site, but not before they were seen by two coach-loads of British tourists.

 

[GhostFox]

I know Stern was wrong, but there are stupid people in every country and no one should use this as an excuse to hate France.

 

[Raziaar]

I know Stern was wrong, but there are stupid people in every country and no one should use this as an excuse to hate France.

No doubt. I don't hate france over it. Just the stupid people who did it. To take their hatred about something modern day, and turning it against something that was truely, genuinely heroic that those men way back then did.

 

[CptStern]

This is from freerepublic. Many other sites about the same thing.

fair enough.. like I said all he had to do was provide a link. hmmm seems like it happens quite often, although the targets are usually jewish and muslim

 

[Raziaar]

fair enough ..btw no american tombs were vadalized only british australian and oddly enough canadian.. like I said all he had to do was provide a link. hmmm seems like it happens quite often, although the targets are usually jewish and muslim

I dun care the nationality. I'd be outraged if it were american, canadian, french, british, austrailian, russian, german, italian, polish, swiss, swedish wargraves of people who served in those wars, as long as they were the normal soldiers and not fanatics like members of the nazi party who brutally slaughtered others for no good reason.

 

[seinfeldrules]

hahahah you are truely naive ...so why didnt he invade anyone when he had the chance?

Am I? What happened before the US became his little watch dog?

On 17 September 1980 Sadam Hussein announced that he was ending the treaty with Iran that had been agreed in 1975, five days later the Iraqi armed forces had started a massive offensive and by the end of October 1980 Khorramshar, the largest port in Iran had fallen to Iraqi forces, who were now threatening the Iranian oil capital of Abadan and the regional capital of Khuzestan.

http://www.rickard.karoo.net/articles/wars_iraniraq.html

Then again a decade later:

1990: Iraq invades Kuwait
More than 100,000 Iraqi soldiers backed up by 700 tanks invaded the Gulf state of Kuwait in the early hours of this morning.
Iraqi forces have established a provisional government and their leader Saddam Hussein has threatened to turn Kuwait city into a "graveyard" if any other country dares to challenge the "take-over by force".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/august/2/newsid_2526000/2526937.stm

During that conflict Saddam:

Jan. 18 Iraq launches Scud missiles against Israel, Saudi Arabia

http://www.afa.org/magazine/jan2001/0101chrono.asp

See, Saddam wasnt this innocent peace loving man being unfairly singled out by America. He posed a true threat to the region. Oh, and as an interesting sidebit, who do you think persuaded Israel not to annihilate all of Iraq after being attacked yet again by an Arab neighbor?

he never would have made it there cuz some minor despot/rival faction would have taken him out in the 70's

But they didnt. I dont see how this has any relevance to his later actions anyways. You are, again, just attempting to shift the positive actions of this war into some sort of anti-US rhetoric.

 

[GhostFox]

I dont see how this has any relevance to his later actions anyways. You are, again, just attempting to shift the positive actions of this war into some sort of anti-US rhetoric.

Have you ever honestly debated an opponent of the war without it decending into anti-american rhetoric? Because I have tried and never suceeded. Which is really to bad, becuase some of the problems with the war could have possibly been avoided if opponents had stuck to real issues where they had points. Instead I have found it impossible to talk to one without it decending into "Bush is a Nazi, America is Evil" within 5 minutes. After so obviously discrediting themselves, people stop listening to any good ideas they have.

 

[Absinthe]

Anti-American rhetoric? You mean, like, when I'm accused of being unpatriotic for disagreeing with the Commander in Chief?

 

[Pesmerga]

Hahaha, I simply can't believe US is in second place next to NORTH KOREA. God, for those who voted US, you're either just an energic teen, not much unlike myself, or really believe that the US is WORSE than pre-occupied Iraq. What other country has so much oppurtunity than the US? Where else can you be born from some country that 90% of the population hasn't even heard of, come to the US, and start a business? Or make clay pots and sell them? Seriously, unless you're totally opposed to capitalism (which is, of course, just trade) then the best place to do whatever the feck you want is the United States of America.

If America didn't have the kind of stance it does now with foreign policy, I gaurentee you N.Korea would be having -alot- more votes, along with Iraq and other middle eastern countries.

 

[KoreBolteR]

He already had a massive army. One of the largest in the world.

Guess he just never had the balls to do much besides attacking Iran and trying to invade Kuwait.

I can't imigine an army that massive in a land mass about the size of one of the United State's States. Just, boggles my mind.

nah nigeria, India and china had more than saddam did.
his army was small compared to thiers.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Anti-American rhetoric? You mean, like, when I'm accused of being unpatriotic for disagreeing with the Commander in Chief?

No, I mean like when you refuse to point out any positive actions that this country performs. You can hide behind your Ted Kennedy defense all you want, but I call em as I see em. Ever since he said "I'm accused of being unpatriotic for disagreeing with the Commander in Chief" it seems to be the new liberal punchline used to defend anything they do.

 

[CptStern]

No, I mean like when you refuse to point out any positive actions that this country performs. You can hide behind your Ted Kennedy defense all you want, but I call em as I see em.

sure you do :upstare: want to admit that your country is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of iraqi civilians or are you going to sweep it under the carpet, blindly repudiate the evidence, and spew your usual patriotic rhetoric?

 

[burner69]

Cut the double standered. It gets old real quick and completely discredits you. You go from someone arguing an opinion, to just another guy spouting anti-american rhetoric.

Are you denying that 500'000 were killed by America's actions? Explain how it's rhetoric, it's fact, and you're avoiding it. You CANNOT say that those actions were Saddam's fault, you fired the bombs, you blew them up, your actions resulted in half a million dead innocents.

 

[Bodacious]

Are you denying that 500'000 were killed by America's actions? Explain how it's rhetoric, it's fact, and you're avoiding it. You CANNOT say that those actions were Saddam's fault, you fired the bombs, you blew them up, your actions resulted in half a million dead innocents.

He isn't denying it, he is calling you out on your double standard. WHen something good happens, it is because of the UN. When something bad happens, it is because of the US.

They were UN sanctions, not US santions. Also, as many others have pointed out the sanctions could have been a lot worse had Saddamn complied with them. That fact has been sidestepped throught the entire debate. And, the sanction's effects could have been lessened a great deal had the oil for food program not been abused.

 

[seinfeldrules]

sure you do want to admit that your country is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of iraqi civilians or are you going to sweep it under the carpet, blindly repudiate the evidence, and spew your usual patriotic rhetoric?

Stern's world:
1. Saddam would still be in Kuwait (per your objections to Gulf War 1)

2. Saddam would still be in power (per your objections to Gulf War 2)

3. Saddam would currently posses a massive army posed to attack anbody in the Middle East (per your objections to sanctions).

 

[GhostFox]

He isn't denying it, he is calling you out on your double standard. WHen something good happens, it is because of the UN. When something bad happens, it is because of the US.

Logic? On this board?????? *Flees in horror*

 

[CptStern]

He isn't denying it, he is calling you out on your double standard. WHen something good happens, it is because of the UN. When something bad happens, it is because of the US.

They were UN sanctions, not US santions. Also, as many others have pointed out the sanctions could have been a lot worse had Saddamn complied with them. That fact has been sidestepped throught the entire debate. And, the sanction's effects could have been lessened a great deal had the oil for food program not been abused.

is this a sanction?:

IRAQ WATER TREATMMENT VULNERABILITIES

FAILING TO SECURE SUPPLIES WILL RESULT IN A SHORTAGE OF
PURE DRINKING WATER FOR MUCH OF THE POPULATION. THIS COULD LEAD TO INCREASED INCIDENCES, IF NOT EPIDEMICS, OF DISEASE AND TO CERTAIN PURE-WATER-DEPENDENT INDUSTRIES BECOMING INCAPACITATED


WITH NO DOMESTIC SOURCES OF BOTH WATER TREATMENT REPLACEMENT PARTS AND SOME ESSENTIAL CHEMICALS, IRAO WILL CONTINUE ATTEMPTS TO CIRCUMVENT UNITED NATIONS SANCTIONS TO IMPORT THESE VITAL COMMODITIES.

DRINKING HEAVILY MINERALIZED WATER COULD RESULT IN
DIARRHEA AND,OVER THE LONG TERM, STONES FORMING WITHIN THE BODY.





Effects of Bombing on Disease Occurrence in Baghdad

Food- and waterborne diseases have the greatest
potential for outbreaks in the civilian and military
population over the next 30 to 60 days.

Increased incidence of diseases will be attributable to
degradation of normal preventive medicine, waste disposal,
water purification/distribution, electricity, and decreased
ability to control disease outbreaks. Any urban are

in Iraq that has received infrastructure damage will have similar problems.


Disease Outbreaks in Iraq


[ (b)(2) ] assessment is that major disease outbreaks
currently have not occurred in Baghdad or Basrah. For severe
outbreaks to develop, a protracted war or more extensive
collateral damage would have to occur.

However, conditions are favorable for communicable disease
outbreaks, particularly in major urban areas affected by
coalition bombing. Data necessary for determining expected
numbers and rates of cases are not available, and any estimate
would be totally unreliable.


MOST LIKELY DISEASES DURING THE FOLLOWING 90-180 DAYS

- Diarrheal diseases (particularly children)
- Acute respiratory illnesses (colds)
- Typhoid
- Hepatitis A (particularly children)
- Conjunctivitis (Eye infections)
- Measles, diphtheria, and pertussis (particularly children)
- Cutaneous leishmaniasis
- Meningococcal meningitis (particularly children)
- Malaria
- Cholera (possible, but less likely)



A formerly classified US document, 'Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities,' provides evidence that ill health was
knowingly induced in the population of Iraq through the ruination of that country's water purification system.

source

 

[CptStern]

is this a sanction?:

IRAQ WATER TREATMMENT VULNERABILITIES

FAILING TO SECURE SUPPLIES WILL RESULT IN A SHORTAGE OF
PURE DRINKING WATER FOR MUCH OF THE POPULATION. THIS COULD LEAD TO INCREASED INCIDENCES, IF NOT EPIDEMICS, OF DISEASE AND TO CERTAIN PURE-WATER-DEPENDENT INDUSTRIES BECOMING INCAPACITATED


WITH NO DOMESTIC SOURCES OF BOTH WATER TREATMENT REPLACEMENT PARTS AND SOME ESSENTIAL CHEMICALS, IRAO WILL CONTINUE ATTEMPTS TO CIRCUMVENT UNITED NATIONS SANCTIONS TO IMPORT THESE VITAL COMMODITIES.

DRINKING HEAVILY MINERALIZED WATER COULD RESULT IN
DIARRHEA AND,OVER THE LONG TERM, STONES FORMING WITHIN THE BODY.





Effects of Bombing on Disease Occurrence in Baghdad

Food- and waterborne diseases have the greatest
potential for outbreaks in the civilian and military
population over the next 30 to 60 days.

Increased incidence of diseases will be attributable to
degradation of normal preventive medicine, waste disposal,
water purification/distribution, electricity, and decreased
ability to control disease outbreaks. Any urban are

in Iraq that has received infrastructure damage will have similar problems.


Disease Outbreaks in Iraq


[ (b)(2) ] assessment is that major disease outbreaks
currently have not occurred in Baghdad or Basrah. For severe
outbreaks to develop, a protracted war or more extensive
collateral damage would have to occur.

However, conditions are favorable for communicable disease
outbreaks, particularly in major urban areas affected by
coalition bombing. Data necessary for determining expected
numbers and rates of cases are not available, and any estimate
would be totally unreliable.


MOST LIKELY DISEASES DURING THE FOLLOWING 90-180 DAYS

- Diarrheal diseases (particularly children)
- Acute respiratory illnesses (colds)
- Typhoid
- Hepatitis A (particularly children)
- Conjunctivitis (Eye infections)
- Measles, diphtheria, and pertussis (particularly children)
- Cutaneous leishmaniasis
- Meningococcal meningitis (particularly children)
- Malaria
- Cholera (possible, but less likely)



A formerly classified US document, 'Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities,' provides evidence that ill health was
knowingly induced in the population of Iraq through the ruination of that country's water purification system.

source

*ctrl click ...add to favourites*










:|

 

[Sgt_Shellback]

Quoting yourself Stern? I'm not sure if your obsession with yourself is bigger than this one.

 

[burner69]

He isn't denying it, he is calling you out on your double standard.
...
That fact has been sidestepped throught the entire debate. And, the sanction's effects could have been lessened a great deal had the oil for food program not been abused.

is this a sanction?:

IRAQ WATER TREATMMENT VULNERABILITIES

Quoting yourself Stern? I'm not sure if your obsession with yourself is bigger than this one.

*Inserts funny picture for emphasis*

Sidestepping, again anybody?

This is about the most evil country, US clearly did something evil here. We mention it. It get's side stepped and the UN are brought in.

Shall we just have a "most evil action of the UN" thread?

 

[Raziaar]

If the US were evil, it would be a hellhole to live in. But its not. Only place i'd rather live besides the US, would be Canada, cause its US Junior with less crime :-P

Unless you want to argue it being outwardly evil, in which case I would have to agree in some areas, and disagree in others. Though I believe most of US's bad actions to be more misguided than evil. For instance. US certainly didn't purposefully kill the innocent bombing victims in Iraq, but it happened anyways. It wasn't evil, because it wasn't intentional. The soldiers who caused I am sure were most saddened by it.

If you look at WWII, the same thing happened. COUNTLESS numbers of innocent civilians were killed when the b-17's bombed berlin, and the pilots and bombadeers knew it, but tried to keep their mind off of it. Innocents die in war, its a fact, and unless its intentionally done, its not evil.

 

[GhostFox]

It has been estimated that whereas 90 per cent of the population had access to safe
drinking water before the sanctions were imposed in 1990, by 1999 the figure stood at 41 per cent

From your article. So you are blaming the UN again? I am so confused.

EDIT: I was reading more of the article. It makes it very clear that these were the actions of the UN. Among many other references "legitimized by the UN Security Council"

You guys spin stuff so fast I'm getting dizzy.

 

[GhostFox]

cause its US Junior with less crime

More crime actually. Surprised me too when I read it!



Anyway, I'd let you in if you show up at the border.

Though I believe most of US's bad actions to be more misguided than evil.

I already tried explaining the concept of a "lesser of two evils" to them. You are wasting your breath.

 

[CptStern]

From your article. So you are blaming the UN again? I am so confused.

EDIT: I was reading more of the article. It makes it very clear that these were the actions of the UN. Among many other references "legitimized by the UN Security Council"

You guys spin stuff so fast I'm getting dizzy.

IRAQ WATER TREATMMENT VULNERABILITIES

FM: DIA WASHINGTON DC


A formerly classified US document, 'Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities,' provides evidence that ill health was knowingly induced in the population of Iraq through the ruination of that country's water purification system.

 

[GhostFox]

A formerly classified US document, 'Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities,' provides evidence that ill health was knowingly induced in the population of Iraq through the ruination of that country's water purification system.

And as your own source states, this was done by the UN not the US. Do you have trouble with the differences between letters 'N' and 'S'?