The good, the bad and the ugly

  Earthsea 00:16 01 Apr 2012

Good - Aung San Suu Kyi, for her fight for democracy in Burma

Bad - President Ahmadinejad, because of his nuclear program

Ugly - Kim Jong-un, because he's a nutcase like his dad

Who are your choices? Doesn't have to be political.

  Quickbeam 08:33 01 Apr 2012

I've not seen the remake, but the original pasta western still cuts the mustard.

  Aitchbee 08:59 01 Apr 2012

I would go for BAD - as his name is easy to remember...sounds like " I'm a dinner-jacket"

  Brumas 09:17 01 Apr 2012

Bingalau would be my choice cos he is all three - I lied about the good ;o}}

  Macscouse 10:12 01 Apr 2012

Brumas - Leave my favourite uncle alone. He is good - for nothing.

  Brumas 11:22 01 Apr 2012

Macscouse LOL

  Bingalau 14:09 01 Apr 2012

You lot thought I would be busy elsewhere because it's Sunday didn't you. You know I go to church on Sundays of course, that makes me good. I hate you two that makes me bad. You two are ugly as well so that makes three of us. When the LHO sees what you have said about me Macscouse, you will be for the high jump.

Earthsea. Have you teamed up with those two? As soon as I saw the header, I thought what a brilliant "set up" that was.

Hope our FE knows we are only joshing.....

  johndrew 14:20 01 Apr 2012

I would have thought Bashar al-Assad would have featured in two of the categories, but that causes a problem with the numbers.

Added to that Ahmadinejad and Kim Jong-un both have nuclear ambitions (the latter is a bit further down the path) so they could both be in a single category or maybe two.

All a bit difficult really. Perhaps Dirty Harry needs to sort it out when he has finished being Good!!

  Bingalau 14:29 01 Apr 2012

I suppose these countries with nuclear ambitions think "Why should little trumped up nations like the British and French, have nuclear weapons and not us"? So they want to get on the bandwagon. As far as I can see the only way of stopping them is to use our weapons on them. Not a good policy, but may be the only one open to nations like us. God help our Grandchildren.

  johndrew 10:24 02 Apr 2012


As far as I can see the only way of stopping them is to use our weapons on them.

Stop trying to frighten me. I thought I was over that when the Cold War ended. The last thing anyone needs is to put the clock forward again; especially for the generations to follow us.

It could be that a way forward is to get rid of the emerging Warlord mentality adopted by some of these (so called) leaders, but how to do this is beyond me.

  Bingalau 12:38 02 Apr 2012

johndrew. I've got a lot of Jewish friends, I talk to them often and most of them feel upset by the thought of nuclear weapons in the hands of some of the states that surround Israel. They have family members living there, who feel threatened. If Israel is attacked it is odds on that the USA will help them retaliate. Then there may come the day when because the USA is involved our government will also get involved. We always seem to be helping out the good ole US of A in these wars. My big concern is the use of nuclear weapons anywhere on the Earth, that would affect us all in some way or other. There's no hiding place as the fall out will travel anywhere it likes, there are no boundaries. Remember the ash cloud from Iceland?

But who's side were the Yankie politicians on during the Falklands war? Who's side will they be on if that little lot escalates again? It looks as if it is going to as well. America is not keen on upsetting the South American countries, so could go against us. They went against us at the time of the Suez canal crisis. The consequences then didn't worry them too much and the consequences now wouldn't worry them too much either. Of course we do not have the facilities to go to war there again. Our politicians have done a brilliant job of reducing our armed forces to more or less zero. I think I heard a figure of 2% of our GDP is now spent on our armed forces, 10% wouldn't be enough in my estimation. We need new modern ships, new modern planes and new modern weapons for the forces we have at present. Supplying them with those might get our unemployment numbers down too.

Of course we could requisition large civilian liners (small ones would do now of course) to transport our troops out there again. But with the present record of the seamanship and the quality of foreign made ships these days, would they get there or would they break down on the way?

As others on this forum often say "Rant over, I'll get me coat".

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

iPhone X review

Political cartoons in 2017: Chris Riddell, Rebecca Hendin and Dave Brown on what it’s like to…

The best iPhone for 2017

Tennis : comment regarder la finale de la Coupe Davis 2017 ?