My esteemed colleagues, sirs, and madams. If you are going to debate issues you need to learn to seperate them and not collude them in your arguments.
First, I didn't say the article was a great article, nor even factually accurate. I said I agreed with the author's stance on a solution. The Falklands / Malvinas and Gibralter are the last two colonized areas in the world. Britain and Spain found a workable agreement on Gibralter, which is strategically much more important to both countries than the Falklands.
Second, I'll clarify my statment on the willingness to talk. Neither Britain nor Argentina are currently willing to enter into diplomatic talks for a solution. Both have legal rights to the islands, but neither is willing to negotiate -the only viable option for a solution. If Christina really wanted the islands she'd be sending food and tourists, not cutting off supply lines.
Third, your perception of their ability to run the oil and gas production has nothing to do with good macroeconomic policy. Whether they can, or can't, is a seperate issue from the economic reality that a country's resources belong to the country and they should benefit from them. The PSA with YPF was a non-starter. Repsol didn't invest anywhere near enough in Argentina as they were busy exploring other areas of the world.
Fourth, that the government is corrupt is a seperate issue from the fact that they have the right, and responsibility to the people of the country to maximize the value of their resources.
Lastly, yes she's an effective and smart politician. You may not like her or agree with her but she's got an astounding approval rating from the Argetine people. Don't know where you blokes are from, but that's never the case where I'm from. Typically 1/2 of our population is at odds with the elected President.
