International Australia to Buy Nuclear Attack Submarine from US; France Furious Over Betrayal

[Cole train]

I mean, they've won more wars than American has... and you might not be independent if not for their help.
If you owe your existence to them, they win.

I think they've actually won more wars than almost anyone.

ETA: More battles, I see now.
I think the "French are quick to surrender" is WW2-era propaganda. They had the most powerful military at the time, and the British invented the stereotype about the weak French to try and avoid the demoralisation of their own troops.
I could be wrong, but if not, it's pretty interesting how many decades later people are still buying into the propoganda.

I mean french were holding the line while british army were running for their lives at dunkirk

 

[Ruprecht]

The US Military could potentially win a war against any country...

It's the Politicians who fuck everything up.... On both sides. Our Military isn't the World's Police or a Training Regime to teach 3rd countries how to defend themselves... and yes, they've been terrible at it.

But I'd put up the US Military against any enemy in an no holds barred conflict where our field guys don't have to fight with one hand behind their back.

You can't win a war where you have no defined goal with an achievable end point and exit strategy.
If they'd stuck to police action against Osama and then left, it would have been a win. Instead the decision was made to refocus on Iraq and stay for another 20 years attempting to build a nation. You can't "build a nation" with "no holds barred" attacks on the local population. Would it have been a "win" if they eradicated every last Pashtun in Afghanistan and Pakistan?
If there's anything that bothers me about this submarine deal, it's that it commits us to another half a century of knee jerk participation in every poorly conceived bit of foreign adventurism the US can come up with. We have no idea what the SASR has been up to with "intelligence missions" in Africa for the past 15 years, but it's hard to make an argument it's the pursuit of Australian interests.

 

[4daLuLZ]

Says the country that has barely existed for 200 years. Easy to have few military defeats when you literally have no history and all your wars involved an enemy an ocean away - zero real risk. France has a rich military record, to suggest they don't is profound ignorance that's not even worth addressing.

If I were EU countries looking at this, I'd be done making deals with the commonwealth. 27 countries in the EU, small countries with negligible economies like Australia or the UK aren't absolutely needed as trade partners by anyone - especially not at the cost of betrayal.

Bitch, please. @Fatality may be being hyperbolic with his "500 years" but France has been getting its shit pushed in for near 200 years and spectacularly too.
Whether it’s hi tech adversaries or rice farmers in SE Asia and North Africa, France hast been in a war where it hasn’t managed to embarrass itself.

If it wasn’t for others taking pity on it and pulling it back up, being French would be something you do with your woman when you’re drunk and want to make her day.

 

[Scerpi]

You can't win a war where you have no defined goal with an achievable end point and exit strategy.
If they'd stuck to police action against Osama and then left, it would have been a win. Instead the decision was made to refocus on Iraq and stay for another 20 years attempting to build a nation. You can't "build a nation" with "no holds barred" attacks on the local population. Would it have been a "win" if they eradicated every last Pashtun in Afghanistan and Pakistan?
If there's anything that bothers me about this submarine deal, it's that it commits us to another half a century of knee jerk participation in every poorly conceived bit of foreign adventurism the US can come up with. We have no idea what the SASR has been up to with "intelligence missions" in Africa for the past 15 years, but it's hard to make an argument it's the pursuit of Australian interests.

Agreed with this...

Bush Sr doesn't get enough credit for going into Iraq in 91... Kicking the living shit out of Saddam... Then leaving like 48 hours later.

It's too bad Bush Jr fucked it up by going back in. Saddam wasn't going to do anything like what he tried with Kuwait again.

 

[StoneColdSteveAustin]

Gulf war

There was no occupation there and the goals were clear cut. That was a good one but it was part 1 of the Iraq war which we botched.

 

[ShadowRun]

There was no occupation there and the goals were clear cut. That was a good one but it was part 1 of the Iraq war which we botched.

Kuwait . Qatar . UAE would be Iraq if we didn’t show up and occupy

 

[Halge]

If there's anything that bothers me about this submarine deal, it's that it commits us to another half a century of knee jerk participation in every poorly conceived bit of foreign adventurism the US can come up with. We have no idea what the SASR has been up to with "intelligence missions" in Africa for the past 15 years, but it's hard to make an argument it's the pursuit of Australian interests.

Getting practical combat experience? Military stuff isn't exactly my area of expertise, but I know the Swedish defense forces value participation in hot conflicts, even if it is just peacekeeping missions, training locals, hunting somali pirates et cetera. All the military excercise in the world can substitute for "the real deal".
And besides that, I imagine it's a bit of pragmatic quid pro quo. Helping out other nations (like the US) in their military actions means you can ask for their support in return. Australia has China to deal with, so cozying to at least one other major power seems prudent.

 

[Ruprecht]

Getting practical combat experience? Military stuff isn't exactly my area of expertise, but I know the Swedish defense forces value participation in hot conflicts, even if it is just peacekeeping missions, training locals, hunting somali pirates et cetera. All the military excercise in the world can substitute for "the real deal".
And besides that, I imagine it's a bit of pragmatic quid pro quo. Helping out other nations (like the US) in their military actions means you can ask for their support in return. Australia has China to deal with, so cozying to at least one other major power seems prudent.

It was a previously non-existent squadron (4 squadron), raised secretly, with the role of military intelligence in 2005 (sounds like the plot of a bad action movie). Newspapers broke the story they'd spent the last decade in East Africa in @2012.
Given the revelations about Australian SASR behaviour in Afghanistan despite the supposed oversight and at least some degree of reporting, having an unreported secretive military special forces squadron in Africa supposedly pursuing military intelligence in pursuit of a barely reported on US conflict in the WoT, doesn't exactly put me at ease.
I doubt there's been a US conflict we haven't gotten involved in, but the election of Trump and his subsequent treatment of US alliances and agreements shows just how little that can mean.

 

[HeffDoesWant]

France is pissed

Statement issued by French Foreign Affairs Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian
The following is a copy of the statement issued by French Foreign Affairs Minister by Jean-Yves Le Drian and posted on the ministry’s website:

“At the request of the President of the Republic, I am recalling to Paris without delay our ambassadors to the United States and to Australia for consultations.

“This exceptional decision is justified by the exceptional gravity of the announcements made on 15th September by Australia and the United States.

“The cancellation of the Attack class submarine program binding Australia and France since 2016, and the announcement of a new partnership with the United States meant to launch studies on a possible future cooperation on nuclear-powered submarines, constitute unacceptable behaviour between allies and partners, whose consequences directly affect the vision we have of our alliances, of our partnerships and of the importance of the Indo-Pacific for Europe.”

 

[Halge]

I doubt there's been a US conflict we haven't gotten involved in, but the election of Trump and his subsequent treatment of US alliances and agreements shows just how little that can mean.

Yeah, the topic of respective resonsibilities in NATO and whatever other military alliances are relevant to western countries is a big and complicated one. Again, I'm not very read up on it, but I have some issues with the whole "our allies need to start standing up for themselves" position. It's a bit like saying "our frontier territories, which provide the buffer between our common enemy and our heartlands, and will fight the bloody war on their soil if it kicks off, need to start standing up for themselves".

I'm personally glad to live in a neutral country, and not have to deal with the subject.

 

[Dan O]

That’s cute.

 

[Hadron90]

https://www.axios.com/france-recall...lia-b4c9115d-81a6-4298-888f-5df85d95874d.html

France is recalling their ambassadors from US and Australia now. Remember when it was Trump that damaged our reputation to world leaders? I'm glad the adults are back in the Whitehouse.

 

[Ophydian]

Opposed to the US who hasn’t won a war in god knows how long.

No one has won a war in god knows how long.

 

[FIghtxIQ]

France should understand. US has better nuclear sub technology, AUS needs the best at this moment to address their risk factors going on currently. Their deal was made previously before the pandemic and before the added threats to AUS, and a lot has changed in the recent years.

France should work on another deal, or joining the new pact themselves instead of singling themselves out.

 

[Orgasmo]

https://www.axios.com/france-recall...lia-b4c9115d-81a6-4298-888f-5df85d95874d.html

France is recalling their ambassadors from US and Australia now. Remember when it was Trump that damaged our reputation to world leaders? I'm glad the adults are back in the Whitehouse.

How much you guys want to bet that China will capitalize on this?

 

[Orgasmo]

Not even the public spat over Iraq in 2003 or Trump's presidency had caused France to lose its shit like this. Great job Murica! How's the whole "adults back in the room" thing going?

France has said it is recalling its ambassadors in the US and Australia for consultations, in protest at a security deal which also includes the UK. The French foreign minister said the "exceptional decision" was justified by the "exceptional gravity" of situation.

The alliance, known as Aukus, will see Australia being given the technology to build nuclear-powered submarines. The move angered France as it scuppered a multibillion-dollar deal it had signed with Australia.

A recall of ambassadors is highly unusual between allies, and it is believed to be the first time France recalls envoys from the two countries. French diplomats in Washington had already cancelled a gala to celebrate ties between the US and France which was scheduled for Friday.

Aukus: France recalls envoys amid security pact row - BBC News

French officials then decided to reach out to the Biden administration "to ask what was going on", the source said. He added that discussions with Washington took place just two to three hours before Biden's public announcement.

France recalls its ambassadors to US and Australia in submarine deal backlash (france24.com)

 

[Hadron90]

The adults are back in the Whitehouse.

 

[HockeyBjj]

Ha. France is just pouting they got called out on not being able to fulfill their original contract for Australia to buy modern subs from

 

[Amerikuracana]

If it was about insane tyranny in Australia, and creeping tyranny and media propaganda In America, I would tip my beret to France and dip my fries in mayonnaise in honor.. But since it just appears to be about some money the MIC lobbyists in THAT country are mad about, they can just stfu and stfu.

 

[TUFNewb]

It's 2003 all over again. Freedom fries incoming.