Comments by "Stephen Jenkins" (@stephenjenkins7971) on "China and France criticise UK-US-Australia submarine pact" video.

  1. Considering the US didn't approach Australia and instead Australia approached the UK who THEN approached the US; I'd say that you're full of it. Especially when the US shares this technology with both the UK and Australia.
    3
  2. Australia is not a nuclear power. These are nuclear-powered subs, not nuclear subs, smart one.
    2
  3.  Emilie Melounou  That's literally everyone. France backstabbed the British by giving arms to Argentina during the Falklands War and was literally about to sell Russia ships while they were in the midst of attacking another European state. To specifically pinpoint the Americans when literally EVERYONE does it smells of bigotry.
    2
  4. This was a UK idea, so I doubt that.
    2
  5.  @MegaAndrich  Aussies approached them, not vice-versa; and the UK in turn invited the Muricans.
    2
  6. Germany tried to undercut France on this too, so idk why your first response is to align with German interests when they're not aligned with Franch interests lol
    2
  7. No worries, China is working really hard to make up for that by killing children in Xinjiang and Hong Kong.
    1
  8.  Bilal Khattak  Knowing a grim fact isn't really supposed to help you sleep at night. I suppose denial would, though.
    1
  9.  @tinatang1  We don't have evidence besides hesrsay that Holodormer happened...until the USSR collapsed. So you expecting proof when the CCP actively prevents neutral human rights groups to investigate IS the proof. The only other proof is if the CCP releases all records it has in Xinjiang. Human rights orgs first blew the whistle on this, not Western gpvernments. Cry all you want, but I'm not the one listening to state propaganda here.
    1
  10.  @diegoyuiop  China doesn't seek to export, but it seeks domination; which is anti-thesis to European geopolitics. Aligning with dictatorships is not the same as aligning with a growing dictatorship that could threaten their way of life. China's flexing of economic muscle against even tiny European states is a bad omen of things to come.
    1
  11.  @tonylee9363  Europe is not a single entity, French shenanigans here is not indicative of what Germany, Spain, Italy, or Poland wants. This is the French screeching, not European screeching.
    1
  12.  @freekashmir754  No country is violating any weapons treaty, smart one.
    1
  13.  @peWpew-yh4er  Huh? No, I don't believe nuclear cores falls into NPT.
    1
  14. Australia isn't developing a nuclear program, genius. It's getting nuclear-POWERED subs, not nuclear-armed subs.
    1
  15.  @jbc13200  What is "Europe's interest"? There is no "Europe interest" because individual states have individual visions of what "Europe interests" are. What France sees as "European interests" looks an awful lot like "French-dominated interests". Tbf, France is hardly the only one doing this, but still. The point is there is no united front on this. Eh, I'm kinda taking things seriously. Partially out of boredom.
    1
  16.  @jbc13200  Idk about that. NAFTA exists, and is only a step behind the EU in terms of integration, but I don't believe there is a "North American interest". There are "EU interests", but even that varies wildly from person to person. I can't say that I agree with you. I celebrate multiculturalism, since I'm American. But you do you, I guess.
    1
  17.  @jbc13200  I never denied that, I just don't believe there is a wider interest beyond nation-state interests. Mutual interests can exist, but like "European" interests, I don't believe there is a "Western" interest either. Countries that are in the EU can have mutual interests born from their nation-states, but that's about it. Western Europe and Eastern Europe generally have very differing interests, and that's only the most obvious divide. The US didn't even do anything to get this deal. This was all Australia; it sought out the UK for a better deal and the UK needed the US who shares a technology-sharing agreement on nuclear subs to do so. Without that, the US would have literally nothing to do with this. So let's not act like the US actively sabotaged anything. Assimilation is often impossible due to the foibles of the people of a nation-state. It's the rallying cry of nativists, but very few when facing a multiple of "assimilated" non-native peoples are willing to accept them fully as "one of them". I understand where you're coming from, it just sounds regressive to me. A Melting Pot is superior, where immigrants keeps parts of their culture while melting into the greater whole of the nation. Well, it's a state's prerogative to keep all power in its institutions, so no argument there. But again; beliefs change. Better or for worse. You don't need immigrants for that.
    1