You make me wonder if you know anything about the Kirchner and Fernandez administrations, their dramatic turnaround of Argentina's economy after rejecting ruinous U.S./World Bank/IMF policies, their galvanizing role in Argentina's democracy and their critically important role in the rise of the Left and the success of Leftist policies throughout South America.
The Falklands issue is an old one--it is a sovereignty issue on which there is actually a consensus of right and left in Argentina (that England stole the Falklands from Argentina in the 1830s), and, as a matter of fact, Argentina is supported in this by the entirety of Latin America (all of whose leaders recently voted, in a CELAC meeting, in Argentina's favor on this matter). So, um, is all of Latin America "obsessed with the Falklands"?
How would you feel if, say, China had seized the Hawaiian islands in the past and was now building up military forces there? How would you feel if China's main interest in doing this was OIL?
England just partnered with the U.S. (Bush Junta) to slaughter hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq to steal their oil. England's main motive in the Falklands is to encroach upon Argentina's off-shore OIL and is, indeed, building up its military forces there. Is this not a legitimate matter of concern to Argentina and to all of Latin America--bearing in mind that Brazil's former president, Lula da Silva, said that the U.S. reconstitution of its 4th Fleet in the Caribbean "is a threat to Brazil's oil" and given the obvious hostility of the U.S. to the two OPEC countries, Venezuela and Ecuador?
I wonder, too, why your comment is so off-point. The article is about young Kirchner as a new figure on the Left, successor to his parents' hugely successful administrations. Those administrations have not been about the Falklands; they've been about ECONOMIC JUSTICE.
= new reply since forum marked as read