[DTA]

>>>>>>Not sure how legal any of this would have been, or how legal what happened was, seeing as how neither Argentina nor Britain was in a declared state of war when they were sinking each others ships and killing each other's servicemen...<<<<<

That was my point also, naval law can not be applied partially. Following logic that it was war, London could nuke Buenos Aires.

Britain had every right to declare war on Argentina, but did not bother.

I agree that states act in their own interest. So why accuse Israel of selling arms to anyone? There was no international arms embargo against Argentina. States act thuggish if they break the laws, treaties and agreements they ratified. It was ok for France to try to prevent Argentina from purchasing Exocet from third countries. But it was thuggish to provide data of Exocet sold to Argentina to Britain.

[Vanders9]

Britain did not declare war on Argentina because in the bizarro world of modern day media he who declares war is automatically assumed to be the aggressor.

Why accuse Israel of selling arms? I can't think of any reason other than to belittle Israel and try and drive a wedge between them and Britain, (or the west in general). You do realise, incidentally, that it is an Argentinian who is making these claims, don't you? The report is a British newspaper article on a book by an Argentinian.

I don't understand your point about data on exocet. What data? What did France give Britain that they didnt know already?