We use cookies to provide you with a better experience. If you continue to use this site, we'll assume you're happy with this. Alternatively, click here to find out how to manage these cookies

hide cookie message
Contact Forum Editor

Send an email to our Forum Editor:


PLEASE NOTE: Your name is used only to let the Forum Editor know who sent the message. Both your name and email address will not be used for any other purpose.

Speakers Corner


It's free to register, to post a question or to start / join a discussion


 

The good, the bad and the ugly


Earthsea
Resolved

Likes # 0

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.

Like this post
Quickbeam

Likes # 1

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

Like this post  
Aitchbee

Likes # 0

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

Like this post
Brumas

Likes # 0

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

Like this post
Macscouse

Likes # 0

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

Like this post
Brumas

Likes # 0

Macscouse LOL

Like this post
Bingalau

Likes # 0

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.....

Like this post
johndrew

Likes # 0

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!!

Like this post
Bingalau

Likes # 0

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.

Like this post
johndrew

Likes # 0

Bingalau

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.

Like this post
Bingalau

Likes # 0

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".

Like this post

Reply to this topic

This thread has been locked.



IDG UK Sites

Nexus 6 vs Samsung Galaxy Note 4 comparison: What's the best Android phablet?

IDG UK Sites

The iPhone is doomed. Doomed to be marginally less successful than a very successful thing.

IDG UK Sites

How to prototype native mobile apps without writing code

IDG UK Sites

How to prepare for and update to OS X Yosemite: Get your Mac ready to download & install Apple's...