Look what I saw flying today!

[Viking]

Honestly, I would rather refrain from answering but since Im here now: How have you “suffered” in the last deccade? Say in the last Iraque War that have killed aprox 1 million Iraques? Or how mutch did you "suffer" in the Vietnam War that killed aprox 3 million? We can go back or forward in time, or south and east, north and south to add to the total by millions but I will rest my case here.

Viking

[Flying Pencil]

Originally Posted by Viking

Honestly, I would rather refrain from answering but since Im here now: How have you “suffered” in the last deccade? Say in the last Iraque War that have killed aprox 1 million Iraques? Or how mutch did you "suffer" in the Vietnam War that killed aprox 3 million? We can go back or forward in time, or south and east, north and south to add to the total by millions but I will rest my case here.

Viking

Ah, I understand. The nightmare to those who survived, and yes, I agree that it is mean to open old wounds...

Unfortunately it is the nature of man to do incredibly cruel things to each other for all manner of reasons (and not just intentional! We build houses in the path of destruction). Evil will happen, people will be hurt (physically and emotionally), but we have to move on and live. The only hope we have is to tell the future to avoid their mistakes.

The Vulcan is the perfect messenger. It is a beautiful and awesome aircraft, but that angel also trumpets a message of destruction to those who dare to hurt peaceful people, and is a VISUAL reminder not to allow the mistakes of the past repeats themselves.

Just a side note:
Did the Vulcan ever directly kill someone? Best I recall it was only a tanker during the Falklands war.

[Viking]

I see that you, very conveniently, have put yourself on the “peaceful” side. A view not necessary shared by all.

But now back on topic: During the Malvinas conflict the Vulcan's bombed the Argentinian airfield, if anyone died I don't know but I guess that was the intention. The tankers you refer to where the Victor bombers/tankers.

Viking

[Buzpilot]

Wasn't it the airfield in Falkland?

World Factbook; 'Although first sighted by an English navigator in 1592, the first landing (English) did not occur until almost a century later in 1690, and the first settlement (French) was not established until 1764. The colony was turned over to Spain two years later and the islands have since been the subject of a territorial dispute, first between Britain and Spain, then between Britain and Argentina. The UK asserted its claim to the islands by establishing a naval garrison there in 1833. Argentina invaded the islands on 2 April 1982. The British responded with an expeditionary force that landed seven weeks later and after fierce fighting forced an Argentine surrender on 14 June 1982.'

Except for the weeks Falkland was occupied, Argentinia has never held Falklands, Argentinia got their independence from Spain in 1816.

[Viking]

Yes, held and claimed by the Argentinians at that time.

Viking

[ATAG_Dutch]

Originally Posted by Viking

During the Malvinas conflict the Vulcan's bombed the Argentinian airfield, if anyone died I don't know but I guess that was the intention. The tankers you refer to where the Victor bombers/tankers.
Viking

During the Falklands conflict, the Vulcans bombed the runway at Stanley Airport in order that Argentinian fast jets could not use it. Then they used Shrike missiles to take out radar facilities.
The Victor's sole purpose was as a tanker by this time.

[Flying Pencil]

Originally Posted by Dutch_851

During the Falklands conflict, the Vulcans bombed the runway at Stanley Airport in order that Argentinian fast jets could not use it. Then they used Shrike missiles to take out radar facilities.
The Victor's sole purpose was as a tanker by this time.

Ah, thats right. The Victor's where used to refuel the Vulcan's, who took off from UK.

[Viking]

Reading up on the situation regarding the five attacks on Port Stanley during “Thatchers War” I find that the Argentinians state that two where killed and two injured. And one hole in the runway, easily patched up the next day.

So that is the final score for this war-bird. Not sure whether that is a success or a failure for the UK taxpayers money.

Viking

[ElAurens]

Viking, you lack a long term global perspective.

You cherry pick your facts to suit your personal agenda.

Would you be happier in a Russian Communist dominated Europe?

Would you even be able to post on a site like this.

Think man.

[ATAG_Dutch]

Originally Posted by Viking

Reading up on the situation regarding the five attacks on Port Stanley during “Thatchers War” I find that the Argentinians state that two where killed and two injured. And one hole in the runway, easily patched up the next day.
So that is the final score for this war-bird. Not sure whether that is a success or a failure for the UK taxpayers money.
Viking

Ah yes, but the fact that Argentina realised that the bombers could get there had a huge psychological impact on the occupying forces.
Also, Argentina realised that their Homeland was within range, and redeployed their air defence fighters to Northern Argentina, to defend against an attack which never took place.
This meant that the UK's carrier based air defence fighters could take on the Argentinian strike aircraft without worrying too much about enemy fighters.
You have to see the bigger picture in this respect.
The damage by the bomb itself did prevent use by fast jets, the repair was inadequate and one transport aircraft almost crashed on take-off as the repair kept subsiding.
It's a fascinating story, whichever side of the fence you're inclined to sit on.