Syria

I think May has to thank our "allies" for standing by us over Salisbury, so she is going all guns blazing over Syria.

I think he meant to say Sainsbury's

It's not just us though is it ,it's only now it's being reported quicker ,even in ww2 everybody were funnelling money,raw materials and turning a blind eye ,during the falklands our so called ally and eu partners france were perfecting the exocet in argentina during the war knowing what they were used for , it's an age old problem and as long as so much money is to be made from war it will continue.

Don't forget we tossed out people and gave land to resettle the jewish faith ,who then have ragged war on those living around them, however what right do we as westerners have to impose our values on others in their own countries ,ie what gives us the right to attack muslim countries and impose our way of life on those who choose to live there whilst arming and funding another faith based country ,then turn a blind eye to the atrocities and destruction they are reaping on their neighbours. 

I don't care if other countries destroy each other in the most inhumane ways possible but i do care about all of our young troops who get sent there to try and impose our so called morals and values on those countries ,it has always came back to haunt us more in the past than now ,although i fear for future generations in this country,things are going to get a lot harsher till it gets better.

Used to think banning religion worldwide would be a good start ,but now realise the weak would just start off another type of religion then another and would end up back at square one.

As long as people believe in fairy tales and become puppet regimes of the west ,then fall out with the west ,the world will continually be at war.

The most crucial arms sale of the falklands war was the americans providing us with the brilliant latest version of the sidewinder missile used to deadly effect by sea harriers in that conflict.

Good point BB ,it just winds i up when so called allies give our enemies weapons, although the reality is we play that game too ,but it still galls.
Although our troops are one of if not the best in the world when it comes to actually fighting rather than the yank approach of bomb the sh** out of it and wait for us to go in on foot ,one of the best examples of this was i think in iraq where the yanks were stopped on a bridge closely grouped firing blindly ,then as i recall we went in on foot and sorted it , as for the Falklands not many countries could do what we did

That version of the Sidewinder missile (the L or Lima) was actually a bit of a myth interms of its importance. The vast majority of Sea Harrier engagements were within the parameters of the existing, previous version. The real benefit the US gave us was logistics and intelligence. Logistics being near unlimited fuel and the use of Wideawake airfield which was a NASA asset and intelligence being satellite and communications.

We also had access to the Stinger (SAS and SBS only) and the first one used was by an SAS man who hit a plane. Apocryphally he later went to the US to be trained by them in its use. Couldn't hit anything afterwards though and was just a fluke. 

As regards to the French, they were praised and quite rightly by many. They did a lot for us especially the pre deployment training with their fighters which were the same as the Argentinians used and gave our pilots great insight. The Dassault team working with the Exocets may or may not have included a DSGE agent.

Not sure which event you're referring to in Iraq but I think you are underplaying the US ability and style. We are good at the small scale stuff but over a certain size of deployment the US comes into its own by quite a margin. They learnt a lot in Iraq and we forgot a lot too.

In terms of ability, there were only four nations who could have done what we did in the Falklands according to the Franks Report commissioned after the war.