Sinking of HMS Coventry.

[Lone_Ranger]

Panzon,

Nice to see you around good buddy.

[pulqui]

@Panzerknacker

I could be wrong but I believe the usual missions in war consisted to destroy the enemy within the limits of the war laws.

We can do all the moral, ethical and psichological considerations we like ( and I dont like in this case) but in the cramped cockpit of an A-4C wich try desperately of not being wiped out by flak or the red lighted combat room of a missile destroyer who is about to be attacked there is no much space for that.

Panzon is trying to give a tears soaked image of the all the combattants in the Malvinas war wich only exist in his imagination.

Talk for yourself Panzer. For me the brits think of themselves as the moral guardians of the world, but are the weapon providers of half of the african dictators. They, even provided bombers and ships to Argentina before the war.
So don´t act like a fake Mother Theresa of Calcutta. If we had the balls to attack the brits 28 years ago, we can´t now play it down, and try to kiss their asses.
Brits will love us again, when they see they can make business with us again.

[leccy]

pulqui

For me the brits think of themselves as the moral guardians of the world, but are the weapon providers of half of the african dictators. They, even provided bombers and ships to Argentina before the war.

I seem to see more AK’s, RPG7’s and T55 or PT76 (or their chinese equivalents) in use in Africa than SA80 or SLR, Garl Gustav and Cheiftan or Centurion or even CVRT series.

The Meteor (fighter) and lancaster/lincoln bombers were provided long before the falklands (most aircraft were french or american)

[Rising_Sun]

@pulqui

Talk for yourself Panzer.

I think you may find that PK will indeed talk for himself.

And I rather hope he will.

@pulqui

For me the brits think of themselves as the moral guardians of the world,

Well, that’s a refreshing change.

I thought the Americans had appointed themselves to that position.

We’d be better off with British moral leadership. For a start, unlike the Yanks, the Brits don’t have the loony conservatives supporting anyone who supports Israel to ensure the Second Coming and other Biblical notions which have distorted relations with the Middle East for the past half century or so.

@pulqui

but are the weapon providers of half of the african dictators.

Would this be during the Angolan butchery, where most people think that the USSR was the main provider of weapons?

Where would this fit with Nkomo’s Soviet and Mugabe’s China alliances in Rhodesia / Zimbabwe’s wars?

Or would this claim about supplying arms to half of African dictators be a little disingenuous when one recognises that Russia isn’t exactly lily white in this area? http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=45598

@pulqui

They, even provided bombers and ships to Argentina before the war.

Britain did not, however, supply Argentina with the Belgrano.

It came from America.

So why is it acceptable for America to supply Argentina with the Belgrano but it was wrong for Britain to supply Argentina and other nations with other items?

@pulqui

So don´t act like a fake Mother Theresa of Calcutta. If we had the balls to attack the brits 28 years ago, we can´t now play it down, and try to kiss their asses.
Brits will love us again, when they see they can make business with us again.

I’m guessing you’re about fifteen years old and full of uninformed conviction and righteous anger about things you do not understand and have not bothered to study before expressing your views.

Try to inform yourself before your next post. Because, so far, you’re just looking like a nationalistic idiot with ants in your pants about something you don’t understand.