But no one bothers to actually read what I write properly. My point isnt a dispute weather Senna was right or wrong and what Balestre did and his favortism to Prost etc. All i aked if you take that win as a moral win? If you want me to expalin it better than how is this. Would you have prefered Senna winning the way he did by taking Prost out of the race (And himself) or would you have preferred him to win on the racetrack with a strong chance that he may not have won and conceded the victory to Prost/Ferrari? That is all I am wanting any of you McLarenites to answer. It is really a simple question and not as complicated as you want to make it out to be.
I would have preferred both titles to be won the proper way. If Senna didn't win the title in 1989 or 1990, then so be it. As things turned out, however, Balestre and Prost resorted to dirty tactics in 1989, screwing Senna out of the title. The following year, Balestre tried to do the same again. Therefore, both as a result of what happened in 1989 and Balestre getting involved again in 1990, I think Senna was morally right to do what he did. Justice and revenge were served.

Ayrton Senna: WDC 1988,
1989, 1990, 1991
McLaren: WCC 1974, 1984, 1985, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1998,
1999, 2007McLaren: WDC 1974, 1976, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1998, 1999, 2008