Unless I'm confused, the present owners of these bonds never gave a nickel to Argentina, much less "saved" them.
Back in say, 1990, Argentina sold bonds to (foolish) investors. 10 years later, as it became obvious they were going to default, the original investors, or those they had transferred the bonds to, sold the bonds for pennies on the dollar to the "vulture investors," who gambled the low cost of the bonds vs. their face value against the low change of ever collecting.
The vultures never gave any money at all to the Argentines. That is unless I'm confused about how this works. It wasn't like Bush and Obama bailing out the banks. It's actually a lot more like our first major political controversy, where Hamilton insisted we pay our debts at face value even to speculators.
The existence of speculators, futures markets, and secondary purchasers is an essential means of mitigating risk, without which borrowing would not occur in modern markets to begin with. The claim that “speculators” do not support the original borrowers is false. Hamilton understood that.
The "vultures" said: "Everyone else thinks that Argentina will not do the right thing and stand up to their debts. We are voting with our wallets that they will do the honorable thing."
Argentina repaid their confidence with contempt - and yet they are "vultures" and bad actors?
Hamilton knew that countries who pay their debts improve their credit and thereby increase their resources and opportunities.
He knew that the best way for America to rise in the world is to demonstrate that US markets had integrity.
The Argentines are proclaiming to the world that they are thieves.