E.U. Agrees To Launch Galileo Satellite Location System 1318
waimate writes "The European Union today decided to go ahead with Galileo, the constellation of 30 satellites which will compete with the U.S. GPS system.
The U.S. abolished selective availability three years ago partly to make GPS more useful for all mankind, but also to dissuade other countries from developing their own navigational satellite system, and thus be dependant on the U.S. for both peaceful and military purposes. Since the demise of the Russian GLONASS system, GPS is the only game in town. Evidently recent events make Europe feel less comfortable about such things, and so they're building their own. Good thing for commercialization of space, or bad thing for world peace?"
It serves us right (Score:3, Insightful)
Plans started long before "recent events" (Score:5, Insightful)
Great (Score:1, Insightful)
Welcome back to Superpower Politics (Score:1, Insightful)
Not to be cynical, but the U.S. is hardly viewed as an unbiased and trustworthy party, a fact that has got worse since the turkey shoot in Iraq.
I think it's a good thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Competition is good for consumers! (Score:3, Insightful)
Well done, EU (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps at some point in the future, both satellite systems will be merged into an internationally-run outfit. Good standardized functionality as well as a symbol of building what President Clinton referred to as an "integrated global community."
Re:It serves us right (Score:4, Insightful)
At the rate things are going right now, the next time France is invaded it will probably be *by* the USA.
World peace? (Score:3, Insightful)
trully a shame (from a disgusted European) (Score:2, Insightful)
This is not even competition, it is simply a continued waste of money
Some European Politicians didn't understood yet what Alexis of Tocqueville (himself a French) found two hundred years ago and still think that Europe must, whatever it takes, be the Center of the Universe
Imagine if they had learned to cooperate : we could already be on Mars or close
but no, those Americans are the menace, and yet those Americans saved Democracy in Europe twice in the 20th Century !
Cheers from Portugal, Europe
Re:Peace? (Score:2, Insightful)
$$ for position information (Score:2, Insightful)
The basic service will be free and comparable to GPS in accuracy and reliability.
I have my doubts about their business model. They are essentially trying to compete with a totally free service that already offers high reliablility and is increasing in accuracy with WAAS (Wide Area Augmentation System) and LAAS (Local Area Augmentation System) enhancemnts to the GPS system.
Will you buy a GPS receiver with no licensing fee or a Galileo receiver that does the same thing for more money?
In fact, if Galileo allows basic receivers to be produced license free, GPS manufacturers can tap into the Galileo signal (frequencies & signals are supposed to be compatible) to further increase GPS accuracy, at no cost.
I guess I don't mind watching the French et al blow lots of cash enroute to having their asses kicked in the marketplace. Let 'em have at it...
Re:It's not just about challenging the US military (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:It serves us right (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:It serves us right (Score:0, Insightful)
Re:what a phenominal waste of money (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, when the US goes and dumps huge amounts into the military-industrial complex, doing the same bloody thing, that's "encouraging growth" and "creating jobs", both of which are generally considered good.
Re:What an Orignal Name! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I think it's a good thing (Score:0, Insightful)
Free to be forced to stage US-style elections (convince me that system isn't flawed)
Free to turn in their previously legal firearms
Free to be shot for not obeying their "liberators"
Fuck. Give us a break.
Isn't redundancy a Good Thing? (Score:3, Insightful)
It is a complex system, and if computer science has taught us nothing else (and it hasn't), we know that complex systems can never be immune to failure.
If there were a totally redundant system of different design, I for one would want to require planes and ships to carry recievers for BOTH systems. Then you can check for agreement or be in much better shape if either system failed for whatever reason.
- Peter
(extra points to anyone who sees my failed attempt at a Simpsons reference)
Sorry, its necessary (Score:5, Insightful)
I think its common knowledge that the US uses all its muscle when it wants something, and we're not just talking military here, but trade. Perhaps the EU believes this will be a boon for them during negotiations with American corporations when discussing stickly matters. No one wants to hear, "So how many GPS devices are you using in Europe right now?" from a high-level American office holder.
On top if it, and probably the main reason for this is control. The EU is going to connect all their expensive toys to GPS and have no control over it. What if its a bad "GPS day" in that part of the world? The Americans have priveledged information on how well GPS is working.
Also, this will create a Galileo market which will help offset the cost. Sure, the Europeans could be buying GPS toys, but after this thing is working guess who will be selling the Galileo toys first and how brand/country loyalty will play out in this multi-billion(?) dollar industry.
The final argument and I think this stands on it own, is autonomy. The EU is not the US-lite. They're their own association and if they want to get off the US teat, the better. Heh, I'd love to see a poll on how Europeans feel about paying for this. I think many wouldn't mind just to be that much less attached to Uncle Sam.
Whatever happens, it could not be a bigger failure than iridium, so lets not cry "financial crisis in the EU" just yet.
So are the EU's space programs "unnecessary" too?
I think we should be glad for redundency and competition right now while most of space program is in dry dock.
Actually... (Score:4, Insightful)
If France, sorry, the EU wants its copy of GPS, the U.S. will be ine with it. Until it's used to attack the U.S. At that point, it will cease to exist.
Re:Plans started long before "recent events" (Score:5, Insightful)
Europe being a set of quite sepperate countries, and the US ruling the world with its rough hand and feeling good about it self.
Or the EU creating a super country to equal that of the US and not relient on the US investment, army or technology. Unfortunately in 20-50 years it might just take someone shooting a turkey to create a nasty global war.
Im in favour of the satelite system but I hope we dont get too big headed about it.
Re:It's not just about challenging the US military (Score:2, Insightful)
There are practical limits to reckoning systems. If the accuracy of your reckoning system is great enough to discriminate between two points inside your vehicle, then things like the position of the antenna on your car become important. A navigation system that is too accurate can be as much of a problem as one that's not accurate enough.
Bad for world peace. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It serves us right (Score:4, Insightful)
A bit of weasel-wording... (Score:3, Insightful)
The European Space Agency (ESA) said in a statement that an agreement had been reached among its member states which finalised the conditions for their participation in the project.
"The European Space Agency is now able to finalise the conditions for participation in the Galileo navigation program and to approve the Galileo joint undertaking foundation act to be soon signed by ESA and the European Union," ESA's statement said.
"Now able to finalize the conditions for participation"? Sounds to me like scheduling a meeting to discuss the meeting where they finalize the agenda items to be discussed in the main meeting.
Good luck to them, but I doubt they'll succeed.
Begging the question or what? (Score:5, Insightful)
I appreciate that this question is intended to provoke a debate, but it seems to me to narrow that debate through its phrasing. The implication seems to be that the US are the Guardians of World Peace (TM), and that we pesky Europeans have no business sticking our noses in when it makes the Yanks feel a little less in control.
Given the assumption that any removal of absolute control of some useful technology from the US is potentially "a bad thing for world peace", can anybody possibly point us to the evidence for Iraq's possession of WsMD, given that the Guardians of World Peace (TM) [whitehouse.gov] used them as their sole justification for starting a war?
Or could it be that the US should have listened to what the European states (with the sorry exception of my own nation) were trying to tell them about making unjustified assumptions? Might it not be a good thing if more than one kid in the playground has control of the baseball bat?
Re:Trust Us! (Score:3, Insightful)
No this is just the EU feeling it has to have something so it can be considered a player. Much like like Germany felt it needed colonies and a blue water navy at the turn of the century, or why small towns have international airports they cant afford or properly use.
Re:Isn't redundancy a Good Thing? (Score:3, Insightful)
Just something to think about.
Re:I think it's a good thing (Score:2, Insightful)
The American Army *dug up* the mass graves in Iraq, we didn't put anybody there. Amercians stopped the Iraqi government's mass murder of its own people. Can Europe say that? Europe was too busy signing oil contracts with Sadam Hussein to notice the mass murder (or perhaps they did notice, but didn't care). By the way, I can name several European armies that have historically put people *into* mass graves (and its not just the Germans).
Can Europe or the UN be trusted in military matters? Remember back to 1995 and the joint European and United Nations mission to Bosnia [cnn.com]. It led to the mass execution of 8000 civilians in one city alone. Ask the people of Srebrenica about Europe's and the UN's handling of military matters. The people of Srebrenica trusted Europe and the UN with their lives - they are now dead. Europe has the blood of innocents on its hands, but it is too arrogant and too busy pontificating about American power to bother to notice the blood on it own hands. Yes, Europeans love to pontificate about the evils of a world run by Americans, but the Europeans have done much worse when they are in charge. The war in Bosnia only can to an end when American intervened.
What is truly evil? American power or the lack of American Power? And who should conter-weight America? Somebody with an even worse record, like Europe?
Re:Combined receivers (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Good Thing for Europe (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Peace? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the "bad thing" is that the rest of the world hasn't been saying "fuck you" loud enough. Unfortunately my fellow countrymen and women apparently don't seem to see there is a difference between saying it to the U.S. versus saying it to the current administration.
Even worse, my fellow citizens apparently haven't paused long enough in handing over their freedoms to consider that they should be saying the same thing.
Re:World peace? (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, it isn't just European bombs that could be guided by the European satellite system, but anyone's bombs: Iraq, North Korea, etc. So, if the U.S. is in the middle of combat, and turns off public GPS to thwart emeny guided bombs, I can imagine a bunch of European beaurocrats sitting in Brussels trying to decide whether or not they should do the same. By the time they reach a consensus and turn off their system, the battle will be over, possibly with lots of allied casualties.
This really is an issue that needs to be taken seriously. Who controls the European system. How rapidly can a decision to be made to turn it off? Who controls the switch? These questions should probably be answered before the system is deployed.
Re:Too expensive (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, no one should _rely_ on GPS, because it can fail and drop out any time. In aviation, for example, where a high degree of fault tolerance and backup systems for everything are needed, GPS plays only a tiny role. But still, millions of people depend on it. Rescue teams use GPS-based navigation systems to get somewhere fast without getting lost, but can only fall back to paper maps if it fails because they don't have the resources to set up a backup system, et cetera et cetera. If you can't imagine a scenario in which someone in Europe needs sattelite navigation, but the US is blocking it, you must be an idiot. You're hitting straw men there. Europe did not take any actions, besides diplomatical ones, to stop US action in Iraq. The majority of people over here are still asking themselves whether it was really justified to liberate the Iraqis against their will (where are the weapons of mass destrucion, by the way?), or if it was just a PR campaign for Dubya, so it was the duty of their official representatives to give their opinion a voice. Galileo has absolutely nothing to do with interfering with US actions, it is not, and was never, intended to get in the way of US forces. The only relation to recent events is that the USA are waging wars and threatening to switch off civilian GPS every few years, so it became apparent that it's a bad idea to make onself depend on their goodwill. You're confusing politics with war mongering there. Besides, Europe doesn't raise the claim to be the _leader_ of the world. I don't think that the US would be delighted if Europe would compete for their role as world police. Besides, they're letting the whole world use GPS anyway. This only changes when they fear the system could be helping some 'rogues' to do evil things, and in this case, they don't care about Europe or anyone a bit, as we saw again recently. Expensive? Why do you care? It's not going to cost the US anything; to the contrary, Europe will probably import some parts from the US. And it's certainly not as expensive as certain US activities which arguably have less merit.
The war was a good thing (Score:2, Insightful)
What a bunch of bullshit.
The rest of the world should be embarassed that they were willing to leave Saddam in power.
The UN should be embarassed. They exist to take care of situations like this. The Gulf War was in 1994. The UN had been trying unsuccessfully to get Iraq to live up to the agreements it signed at the end of that war. They weren't doing their job.
Saddam was playing them like a violin. The U.S. was ready to do something about this whole situation years ago, after talks with Iraq failed and they weren't letting inspectors in. Then Kofi Anan went in, and somehow just took their word that they would let inspectors back in just for him. They were, of course, lying and any reasonable person could have noticed the pattern in Iraq's actions.
The UN totally fucked up the Iraq situation.
The US has managed to depose a brutal dictator, with a minmum of civilian casualties. More people would have died if Saddam had remained in office.
The US is not "stealing" Iraq's oil, nor are they claiming any territory.
You might think by now I'm a GWB supporter, but I'm not. I never really wanted this war to happen. My father was drafted his senior year of college, and I sure as hell didn't want that happening to me. I didn't trust GWB to do the right thing, and have a quick, respectible war, but....you know what?
He has. I think GWB is a tool, but I'm not going to make up bullshit reasons not to like the guy. There are plenty of real ones.
Your "invasion rather than liberation" comment is a lie. You have no proof that the US is doing anything but what's best for the Iraqi people. If that changes, you can expeect my views of this whole thing to change, but right now you're just making yourself look bad.
The Iraqi people, the US, and the World in general is better off due to the US' actions in Iraq. It's too bad some other countries couldn't see past their own petty oil interests, egos, and fears to make the world a better place.
Right now, I'm proud of what my country has done. In the past, we've had a tendency to prop up brutal dictators, in place of the original ones just so they'll do whatever we want. In both Iraq and Afghanistan, this has changed. I'm not about to go out an protest because my country is actually doing the right thing for once.
Re:I think it's a good thing (Score:2, Insightful)
Who else is around in that country to make that decision? Hey, we don't want to spend our tax dollars to rebuild a country that got fucked up on account of the stupidity of its former leader. May as well buy their oil and let them use the money to rebuild their own shit the way they want it.
Free to be forced to stage US-style elections (convince me that system isn't flawed)
Free to finally make a choice. Convince me that a system that gives a single man 100% of the popular vote isn't flawed.
Free to turn in their previously legal firearms
For the protection of our troops/liberators (or SS/Occupiers whatever you would like to believe). Whatever government that they establish during our occupation will be given the responsibility to allow their people to possess fire arms.
Free to be shot for not obeying their "liberators"
Ever been in a large scale natural disaster that requires martial law (I have)? Its pretty much the same thing. They set up rules that must be followed for A) the protection of the people and B) the protection of the troops who are A) bringing in food B) bringing in medical supplies C) trying to keep people from stealing shit from peoples homes D) enforcing what little law is still enforceable after the areas infrastructure has been incapacitated. The military saved our home and our lives with their style of law enforcement.
Fuck. Give us a break.
Ditto
Re:I think it's a good thing (Score:4, Insightful)
The EU is growing rapidly, its population already exceeds that of the US, and it won't be long before its economic strength does too (if it doesn't already). Most European countries have experienced first-hand the real meaning of war on their own soil (think 9-11 thousands of times over), and because of this they seek to create a world where justice doesn't have to be dispensed through Cruise missiles and Cuban concentration camps.
Re:It serves us right (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:It serves us right (Score:2, Insightful)
- Chris
PS hi moderators. Don't bother.
Re:I think it's a good thing (Score:5, Insightful)
No, I don't equate Bush with Hitler, but I am making the point that just because you disagree with the schoolyard bully doesn't imply that you are "jealous" of their strength.
Most Europeans (and many Americans) are concerned because they want to live in a world where nations obey the rule of law, not a world where the sheriff is whoever has the biggest gun, which is the world the US is rapidly creating. And lets remember that the UN was created by those brave Americans and Europeans who fought and won the Second World War, and it is being demolished by people who for the most part never risked their own lives at war, nor those of their family.
Re:Combined receivers (Score:4, Insightful)
This is why differential gps is more accurate - it tackles the systematic error.
Re:I think it's a good thing (Score:3, Insightful)
You may mark me as flamebait or redundant, depending on your point of view, but most of the countries you mentioned are in deep poverty or have just come out of very conservative governments (or at least their new government wants to look more "modern") and their topmost priority is to feel that they're important in this new playground they just joined, so they'll just play sweet to the school-bully and hope for some candy.
[/flamebait]
Then don't forget the big protests all over England, Italy and Spain.
Living in England, I have to note that the first protest in London was (apparently) the biggest protest *ever* in that city.
T.
Re:I think it's a good thing (Score:5, Insightful)
In 1990, the coalition consisted of 34 countries, the vast majority of whom sent troops, including Arab states like Afghanistan (funny enough), Bahrain, Kuwait, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, as well as nations such as the US, the UK, Canada, Germany, and France.
The vast majority of this support was in troops, material, and cash.
In 2003, the "Coalition of the Willing" was comprised of a varied number of states, depending on what you consider "support" -- in the case of a number of states listed by Powell, their only constributions were public statements of support; no material, no troops, no money.
Prominent "Coalition of the Willing" members include the Republic of the Marshall Islands, Iceland, Palau, and the Solomon Islands -- none of which even have enough of a military complex to defend their own borders, much less contribute to a massive undertaking as this. Colombia, totally dependant on the US for military aid against the insurgency that controls a third of it's territory, is also listed -- another "political support only" membership. Turkey was also listed by Powell as a coalition member. Japan, another member, promised only post-conflict support.
Other luminaries of the coalition include Uzbekistan, a totaltarian dictatorship; Eritrea and Ethiopia, both dependant on the US for the cease-fire between their nations (and both utterly destitute); Uganda and Rwanda, ah to be in THAT company; and various eastern european nations again dependant on the US, the IMF, and the World Bank to finance their economies.
Pretty telling that the only arab country involved is Kuwait, eh? Oh, I forgot -- Afghanistan, of course! We must have pulled some Special Forces off of Karzai's security detail for that one...
all a big stretch from '91 when even Italy was sending thousands of troops. "Coalition" my ass.
Re:It's not just about challenging the US military (Score:4, Insightful)
Even a delay of a couple of seconds can be fatal if you doing 200km/h at the wrong height
Would you care to explain that? It makes no sense to me at all. Why would GPS matter at all, in that situation? GPS is horribly inaccurate at calculating elevation, especially compared to barometric or radio altimeters. Never mind the fact that your absolute elevation isn't important - it's your relative elevation about the ground that will prevent you from smacking into it, and that's something that GPS will never be able to tell you...
Re:I think it's a good thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Irrelevant is a complete understatement. A more accurate picture would be scared and appalled.
Most people in Europe generally perceive that the war in Iraq was for the benefit of the US companies that will be given access to the oil in Iraq, and for the benefit of Dubya, who gets a war that satisfies his need for revenge and to distract from the fact that the war on terror isn't going too well (Bin Laden still free, Afghanistan fucked and on the edge on tribal warfare again, all sympathy for US from 911 having been dissapated by American agresssion).
We're also scared and appalled by the arrogance that the US administration has shown with it's mistreatment of France and Germany. These are countries that have been strongly allied with America for fifty years on most global issues. Now because of a single issue that they 'dared' disagree with the US on, the Bush administration has been making noises about how they no longer consider them to really be allies.
This is completely insane behaviour - If the US doesn't consider the countries of Western Europe to be it's natural allies, then it suggests the US will follow a path of having no allies in the world (apart from Mr Poodle Blair) and using it's sheer economic and military might to get whatever it wants.
It appears that the only way to even be allowed to negotiate with the US, is to have enough economic or military clout to resist the US directly. And that's one good reason for the Galileo system to go ahead.
Two other points, Europe is not jealous of the ability of the US to wage war anywhere in the world against any country - after having so many wars waged across Europe we are broadly opposed to all wars. This really is a cultural difference between the citizens of the US and the EU, probably because apart from the American Civil war, the US has not seen or had to bear the horrors of wars at close hand, and with the 'patriotic' news coverage of the Iraq war, you still won't.
Finally, France opposed the war both for it's own economic reasons and because it thought that the US was trying to manipulate the UN with false intelligence on the WMDs, massively overestimating Iraqs capabilities. Remember Colin Powell telling the UN how many thousands of litres of Anthrax the Iraqis had, and that they could assemble a nuclear bomb in a few hours ? Well turns out France was right and Colin Powell was either lying, or just repeating bullshit concocted by people in the US intelligence agencies that wanted an excuse to invade Iraq.
End result of the US decision to invade ? Thousands of Iraqi civilians dead (not to count tens of thousands of Iraqi army personnel), no WMDs found and the chances of terrorist attacks have increased as people see the US as invading and subjugating another muslim country.
Re:It's not just about challenging the US military (Score:5, Insightful)
What is the point of surveyors knowing the latitude and longitude to sub-centimeter accuracy? Continental drift, measured in centimeters per year, will invalidate the reading in only a few months.
One hypothetical case: On My 26, 2003, at 10:55pm EDT, this "x" on this marker was located with super-accurate GPS to be at precisely XX.xxxxx North and YY.yyyyy West. Continental drift at this location is estimated to be 2.7503 cm/year toward 289.57 degrees (approximately WNW) from true north. Calculation of the current location of this marker is left as an exercise to the reader.
Another hypothetical case: Your honor, when I bought my house ten years ago, I had the property lines surveyed to sub-centimeter accuracy with super-accurate GPS. I had it re-surveyed last month and discovered that my neighbor has moved his fence 45 cm (or 18.5 inches) onto my property. I can't figure out how he did it; he covered up all signs of the move very well. However, I have had both surveys validated and authenticated, and I want you to order him to move his fence back where it belongs.
Re:Still creating jobs (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bad for world peace. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:World peace? (Score:1, Insightful)
These questions should probably be answered before GPS is deemed safe for use in europe.
Re:Trust Us! (Score:3, Insightful)
Suppose the existing GPS system were controlled by France. Do you think anybody in the U.S. would say "The French won't turn on selective availability! We're dependent on each other's goodwill! We can trust them!"
Get your hand off it (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't want to support saddam, but in the years before america fucked up the iraqi infrostructure it had sanitation, health care and a quality of life that was the envy of the whole middle east. Sadam built the country into a prosperous nation (through fairly brutal methods that cannot possibly be justified such as the gassing of the Kurds). And most importantly, it seems that Sadam was smart enough to distroy his chemical and biological weapons to save his country. Unfortunantly for him, he had too much faith in American wisdom and his country was invaded anyway.
For the protection of our troops/liberators
Any liberator that anticipates that the people they have liberated will turn against them is fairly dubious. Hell! Sadam trusted the loyalty his countrymen for years without being shot, it seems that he had more popular support than the "liberators"
Ever been in a large scale natural disaster that requires martial law
What natural disaster has happened in Iraq? What has happened in Iraq in the ten years before the war? The fact is that the only reason the "liberators" had to come in is that twelve years ago Sadam got some personal beef with the president's daddy. And one and a half years ago some totally unrelated people (mainly from Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia) commited an act of terrorism and the people of America have decided that everyone who comes from roughly the same area, follows the same religeon, or stands up to America in any way that is noticable are worthy of death. Don't give me that shit about an emergency being held back by the liberators, because the liberators are the emergency.
Fuck. Give us a break!
Re:I think it's a good thing (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh? So tell me where the Weapons of Mass Destruction are then.
The US was wrong. They claimed the existence of WMD. They are not there.
The Iraqi people are free? Are they governing themselves? Are they controlling their own natural resources? I must have missed that bit of news...
Re:I think it's a good thing (Score:2, Insightful)
Having traveled thru France, Germany and now in Russia, I have been media blitzed into thinking the Americans are juvenile and that their 'invasion' was merely a selfish act.
it was so strange to call the States and talk to some of my extremely level-headed friends, only to find them glued to CNN, walking in circles and murmuring strange pro-war chants.
So, everyone should try this next time there is a world dispute on on particular isuue or another. First, read your local news. Then, read international news. Try to draw some sort of line down the middle of the two, and that's probably the most truth you will find.
Re:Still creating jobs (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, sorry - I forgot, in America those that get AIDS deserve it for being God-hating fags. Welcome to the new world order.
Re:I think it's a good thing (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Cake, eating of and having of (Score:3, Insightful)
Leaving aside the fact that the US was acting in its own interests, as much as those of its allies, in all the events you mention :
Isn't establishing a global positioning system doing just that? Aren't competition and diversity in the marketplace good things?
US != Peace (Score:3, Insightful)
While the US is not perfectly secure, the country is surrounded by water and 2 friendly nations. I can only imagine how tense it could be to live in Turkey, Serbia or even Germany right now. The European Union may prove to be the new stabilizing force in the world now that the US and USSR are not fighting over the way things should be.
In a few years we may realize the biggest threat to war is a nation that fears nothing and is sees nothing wrong with destroying other nations as long as it serves their interests.
Re:I think it's a good thing (Score:5, Insightful)
The Shiite Muslim majority who have been protesting for the US to leave since 3 days after capitulation?
Hey, we don't want to spend our tax dollars to rebuild a country that got fucked up on account of the stupidity of its former leader.
Oooh, boy. Do you really think it was Saddam's fault? Yes, he was a fairly cruel (not even particularly cruel) leader, but remember that he was also the only Iraqi leader, and in fact the only leader in the entire Middle East to cast aside all the blind Muslim law and doctrine, and established a very prosperous welfare state. They had health care that rivalled your own.
Then came Iran, and he mistakenly thought he could attack amidst the new Islamic threat rising, and expand his Pax Arabia vision (a good one, in my opinion. Much better than the "so weak you cant do shit" version the US prefers). He was wrong.
All his neighbors had lent him large sums, and he had to repay, but all the oil derricks were destroyed. Then, Kuwait and the Sauds sold his debts to the IMF (or maybe World Bank, I dont recall which one), resulting in huge interest hikes. Basically, he was sold out by his neighbors.
And here's the best part. His country was weakened, but he knew he could take Kuwait, and utilize their oil to rebuild. Note that they had previously destroyed his credit. If you don't think revenge is a sufficient cause, I suggest you take a look at all the French's mustard unsold at the supermarket next time you go shopping, and think a bit harder.
So, he was planning to attack Iraq, and the US knew this. April Glaspie, the US ambassador to Iraq, greenlighted the fucking invasion. She basically said "We won't do a thing, have your way." Link. [whatreallyhappened.com]
So, who is stupid? Saddam for taking the word of the people who had so far been his good allies (billions of dollars worth of chemical, biological and conventional weapons), or the US for basically backstabbing him, for reasons unclear. I personally think it was an example. Of what the US could do to any Arab nation there, but, that's just me. You no doubt of course think that Saddam sealed his own fate when Satan inhabited his body and shot fire from his arse, igniting the Shiite neighborhoods of Basra.
May as well buy their oil and let them use the money to rebuild their own shit the way they want it.
Hahahaha, the way they want it!? LMAO!
In case, you haven't noticed, American firms have been getting all the contracts, and they are more expensive than hiring local, or even Uzbecki firms to do the same work. They can spend it the way they want, of course. As long as they spend it in America.
So, instead of spending xxx million to repair all of Iraq, they have to shell out xxx million to repair the sewage system. Brilliant. Could corporate welfare be any better than this?
("Free to turn in their previously legal firearms ") For the protection of our troops/liberators (or SS/Occupiers whatever you would like to believe).
Hmmm. Apparently then, they dont have the choice to, in your own words, "make a choice" on their government.
Tell me, if they appreciate your imposed democracy, why would you worry about those guns?
I agree with the other stuff. You do need to enforce law while the transition takes place. However, I doubt that America will allow a transition to another Shariah government to happen easily.
I'm just hoping that Iraq doesn't turn into another Afghanistan. Forgotten, abandoned, exploited. Hopefully, and doubtfully, the media has a longer attention span.
Re:It's not just about challenging the US military (Score:3, Insightful)
So for example, your second hypothetical case is easily dismissed---because if your neighbor's fence moved 45cm, then so did the walls of your house, and the fence on the other side of your property!
Re:Bad for world peace. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Peace? (Score:5, Insightful)
The eyes of Americans glaze over, citizen by citizen, getting that glassy fanatic's look. If this continues, we will soon be the number one threat to world peace - if we aren't already there.
Why, today I heard a senator describe Canada as a 'safe haven for terrorists', demanding that something should be done to 'force' the Canadians into taking their 'duty to world peace and security' seriously. Goddamn if it didn't sound like some asshole prepping the ground work for a fucking invasion...if Americans could accept *that* then I'd say the world is well and truly screwed.
Max
Re:It's not just about challenging the US military (Score:5, Insightful)
I am almost willing to bet yes for the first question, but no for the second. Maybe even no for the first. But then I turn the tables and say since you might answered the questions in that fashion why should you expect that we do otherwise? Seriously! As sad as it sounds right now there is a President that has done nothing more than make the hawks of any government happy!
Re:Bad for world peace. (Score:4, Insightful)
I think this is the point of the EU. When large powerful countries like Germany are part of an integrated Europe, they're not going to have political differences that involve invading another part of the EU, since that would be like chopping off your own leg.
I think the more integrated the world is economically and socially, the better off we are (this is the upside to economic globalisation). It's just right now the US just doesn't get it and it going around like the class bully. The other good reason for the EU to exist is to balance out an overly strong US.
backwards governments that shouldn't be in power in the first place
You mean like the Bush administration?
Re:This will have no use! (Score:2, Insightful)
Isn't that a bit odd for even the most conservative of republicans? Perhaps you should have a look around and you will see that the ONLY other democratic allies you have still are Europe and that we still are your best friends, regardless you US current anger on France.
I honestly starts to feel a bit threathen by US more and more aggresive use of its force - what is next? Bombing of Hamburg because they had the Al Quadia cell responsible for september 11 on their university?
Re:World peace? (Score:3, Insightful)
What allies? The us will act unilaterally anyway. Sure we had "allies" like jamaica and somalia but they didn't actually do anything did they?
Also consider that US has a very stange concept of an ally. Our allies are only allies as long as they don't disagree. France went from being an ally to being an enemy in less then a month.
Europe now realizes that America is no friend or ally to anybody. It will never ever put the interests of any other country above it's own. We can and will declare war on europe if it feels it's own interests are threatened in any way.
Re:Plans started long before "recent events" (Score:2, Insightful)
Next year the UK will get mediocre votes as always - but the recent events meant that even Israel got more than us!!! Thats just because Israel behaves like a murderous shit all the time - the UK is more of a part time hobbiest war monger. Every one hates inconsistencies.
Re:trully a shame (from a disgusted European) (Score:4, Insightful)
As a European taxpayer, I applaud the plan to launch Gallileo! Competition is a good thing. This will also create jobs, and in the process of creating it, we will gain more experience in the space industry which will probably be a vital area in the future. Hey, guess what the more space infrastructure we get, the more likely we are to get to Mars.
Also, let's not forget that USEuropean relations are at a low. Being dependent on a system that HAS been switched off in the past is foolish. Just imagine the United States decide to re-implement selective availability - 22 meters accuracy just doesn't cut it. Imagine a ship entering a harbour being 20 meters off to one side. That's enough to ram something.
No, we need Gallileo, and we need not stop here. We need to become independent from the Americans, so in an ideal we can be equal partners and don't get pushed around by whatever weird ideas the US president of the day has.
The Americans who "saved Democracy twice" in Europe in the 20th Century are NOT the Americans running the US today. I will not get into a debate about what's fscked up with America today, but the list is truely long and growing by the month.
Europe cannot be the "center of the universe" (if that's what we want) without a reliable, working, accurate satellite navigation system. Even if you discount military uses, it's just too damn important for commerce today.
Finally, your "always the same gang" smells of jealousy. Yes, France in Germany are the "center of Europe". Together, we have about a third of the population, and I have no idea how much of the industrial output, but let's face it, it's a lot. Yes, France and Germany are in the limelight recently (The UK would, if it chose to participate in the EU instead of in the US). So, what's your point? Are you pissed that Portugal is not the center of attention? The idea behind the EU is that there is Europe of which everybody is a part. If you want your country to play a greater role, push your politicans to do something.
Sorry, but it's people like you why the EU will fail. Put aside your damn jealousy and realize that we are one continent, one people; we are free to live and work anywhere we chose, travel anywhere.
I am not German, I am European. If the EU issued passports and direct citizenship, I'd be the first in line.
Sorry to rant, but you it really pisses me off that we finally seize an opportunity, that the EU finally gets off their collective butts and actually DOES something that will benefit people, and which is a cool project on top of it, and you just cry foul and complain.
Re:GLONASS IS NOT DEAD (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I think it's a good thing (Score:2, Insightful)
Most people in Europe think it was a good thing to get rid of someone who was a Very Bad Man (tm). We're not too bothered about secondary motives (some claim oil, others claim more military bases, etc).
We're also scared and appalled by the arrogance that the US administration has shown with it's mistreatment of France and Germany.
Are you kidding? France has a go at the US any chance it gets. France is jealous of the power the US has, which is why it wants to build a Federal Europe as an alternative superpower.
These are countries that have been strongly allied with America for fifty years on most global issues.
Now I know this is a troll.
Two other points, Europe is not jealous of the ability of the US to wage war anywhere in the world against any country - after having so many wars waged across Europe we are broadly opposed to all wars.
That is so not true. Europe definately is jealous of the US might. As for Europe being opposed to all wars, England didn't hesitate to defend the Falklands after being invaded by Argentina. Rather than being broadly against all wars, I would go so far as to say we now have many lazy democracies that are afraid to stand up and do the right thing.
This really is a cultural difference between the citizens of the US and the EU, probably because apart from the American Civil war, the US has not seen or had to bear the horrors of wars at close hand, and with the 'patriotic' news coverage of the Iraq war, you still won't.
I know in Britain we've never had anything like the Vietnam war. I hear that wasn't a picnic in the park.
Finally, France opposed the war both for it's own economic reasons and because it thought that the US was trying to manipulate the UN with false intelligence on the WMDs
Well France would know, having provided the WMD to Iraq in the first place.
End result of the US decision to invade ? Thousands of Iraqi civilians dead (not to count tens of thousands of Iraqi army personnel), no WMDs found and the chances of terrorist attacks have increased as people see the US as invading and subjugating another muslim country.
End result? A brutal dictator deposed, an oppressed country the chance to flourish and take advantage of the natural wealth their country can provide them (whether that happens or not is in their hands... but at least their fate now IS in their hands). For all the conspiracy theories you can come up with, from what I can see the world has ended up a better place.
And no, being an ostrich and sticking your head in the sand would not make crazy terrorists intent on killing Western people go away.
Phillip.
Re:Peace? (Score:2, Insightful)
europe doesn't need GPS like the US does. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Great Name (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:It serves us right (Score:3, Insightful)
Back then, a large percentage of the ppl in North America had (close) relatives living in Europe, so what happened in Europe affected lots of people personally. By now, I guess most family ties have been broken (I have uncles, aunts and cousins in MN, but time seems to dissolve family contact).
I think that the 'we saved them at the cost of our lot of American blood' is therefore a bit too simple a statement to correctly reflect the US situation, immigration and the (past) interdependency and ballances on poor taste, and probably aimed at the 'internal' public that only understands simple retorics. In Europe, it creates even more resistance to the US whose politics seem to many Europeans illogical and ununderstandable how the domestic public swallows it (e.g. Iraq is a threath).
The UN is not democratic and should go away. (Score:3, Insightful)
When was the last time you voted for your country's UN rep? In most countries, the representative is an appointed position. The UN represents the *governments* of the world, not the *people* of the world. I cringe when I hear people talk of turning the UN into some global governmening body. NO, NO, NO! First turn it into a democracy, then we can talk...maybe.
Re:trully a shame (from a disgusted European) (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Combined receivers (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:It serves us right (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:It serves us right (Score:3, Insightful)
The oil-for-food programme was a UN run initiative that US companies had as much right to particpate in as the French. However, Elf won the business fair and square. Are you suggesting that competing with an American company is wrong?
Do you think they were more interested in oil-money than ending a threat?
There was no threat to the west from Iraq and it now seems that there were no WMD. Maybe (like almost everyone outside the US) they did not believe the "evidence", after all it did look very amateur and tenuous. Using an ethical argument to attempt justify the replacement of French and Russian oil companies with American ones through an invasion is not a good position...
Re:I think I'm going crazy (Score:3, Insightful)
Compared to the prior 20 or so years yes.
Nixon pulled the US out of Vietnam.
Nixon opened up to China.
Nixon was responsible for de-escalating the cold war during the era of "detante".
Re:Other than the shoe bomber (Score:2, Insightful)
You judge an entire set of people because of the actions of one of them?
Timothy McVeigh was a Christian, Jewish extremists blew up the King David hotel, Hindu fundamentalists have killed thousands in India, Hitler was a Christian, Saddam Hussein was secular, Catholics and Protestants in NI spent years killing each other. Any religion has it's fair share of psychos - it's not just limited to Islam, they just happen to be an easy target because they look diferent and have diferent customs...
Re:I was totally wrong. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I think it's a good thing (Score:3, Insightful)
Most of them have lived under leftist dictatorships, which may be why they can sympathize with other people in similar circumstances, and would support freeing them from such a fate.
their topmost priority is to feel that they're important
Are you describing France here?
Then don't forget the big protests all over England, Italy and Spain.
Those were organized by Socialist and Communist organizations. I'm not really surprised at the size of the protests, given how many socialists there are in Europe.
Re:I think it's a good thing (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, just like the allies went to war with Hitler because they were "jealous" of him. Get out of the playground politics and into the real world pal!
No, I don't equate Bush with Hitler, but I am making the point that just because you disagree with the schoolyard bully doesn't imply that you are "jealous" of their strength.
Even more importantly, counteracting the US isn't about counteracting Bush, but about the next US government, and the one after, and the one after that. The US has shown that it is willing to ignore international law to protect it's interests. Nobody should feel safe that in 10-15-20-50 years the US won't have an even more hawkish government and that "protecting US interests" won't mean coming after them.
Re:I think it's a good thing (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't you hate it when someone completely proves your point:
http://www.eetimes.com/sys/news/OEG20030522S005
The nation's largest intelligence agency by budget and in control of all U.S. spy satellites, NRO is talking openly with the U.S. Air Force Space Command about actively denying the use of space for intelligence purposes to any other nation at any time--not just adversaries, but even longtime allies, according to NRO director Peter Teets.
At the National Space Symposium in Colorado Springs in early April, Teets proposed that U.S. resources from military, civilian and commercial satellites be combined to provide "persistence in total situational awareness, for the benefit of this nation's war fighters." If allies don't like the new paradigm of space dominance, said Air Force secretary James Roche, they'll just have to learn to accept it. The allies, he told the symposium, will have "no veto power."
---------------------
This would not make us Europeans very happy at all.
Re:I think it's a good thing (Score:2, Insightful)
Bullshit. The Crusades, WWI, the naval wars between England and France, England and the Netherlands, about your very existence as a country, these are all wars that started because European countries respected their obligations to allies and overseas colonies. As for Iraq (which is undoubtedly what you are blithering about above), the European nations in NATO have a mutual defense pact with the US -- it doesn't obligate us to support the US in a totally unnecessary war that the US is (was) itself starting.
By the way, you do realize that Germany is in Europe, right? This wasn't a matter of a united Europe standing up against an outside foe -- there was no such thing as a united Europe or even the idea of it.
and confronted a militaristic Germany early on, WW2 would never have happened.Confronted it with what? With militaries that had been downsized after several years of the Great Disarmament Drive (look it up)? With populations unwilling to fight another bloody war after World War I and desiring a diplomatic settlement at all cost? Not to mention that in the end, they did confront Germany. That's why there was war. As there would have been no matter what -- the foundations for WWII were laid on November 11th 1918 at 11:11 and not a moment later.
Crack open a non-European history book one of these days.So I can get the US-government mandated dose of "we are great and they are wimps"-Americana nonsense? No thanks.
Re:I think it's a good thing (Score:2, Insightful)
Austria wasn't a sacrifice; the vast majority of Austrians wanted the Anschluss. As for Czechoslovakia, that's what I was talking about as well -- the Munich Pact.
France and Britain had a pact to protect Czechoslovakis but allowed Germany to snap it up because they believed that appeasing Hitler would prevent further agression.No, they didn't. The Munich Pact was the agreement whereby France, Britain and Czechoslovakia turned over Sudetenland to Germany in return for Germany agreeing not to annex any more Czech territory. France (or at least its president and prime minister) already knew at the time that it was just a delay. They also knew they weren't in any shape to go to war with Germany in 1938, so they started preparing for war. The defense pact between Britain and France was with Poland, not Czechoslovakia, and came in March of 1939 when Hitler annexed the rest of Czechoslovakia. And they stood by that agreement -- Hitler's invasion of Poland started World War II.
It only emboldened Hitler, who actually expected France to go to war over the Sudetenland.No, he didn't. Hitler didn't know what Britain and France were willing to do (although he had a reasonable idea of what they were able to do). He started the play for Sudetenland to test the waters and the limits; note that he didn't seize Sudetenland until after the Munich Pact.
That history of Europe, particularly France, putting its own self interests ahead of its obligations to its allies has been going on for hundreds of years. It is nothing new.That history of Europe doesn't exist. There is no obligation to any allies that France broke (much the opposite and much to France's detriment). And you'd be hard-pressed to find an example of it before 1938 either.
That aside, the idea that France or Britian should have gone to war before 1939 would have been deemed ludicrous back then and is simply insane with hindsight. France was in no shape whatsoever to take on Germany in 1938. In 1939/40, Germany crushed France in a matter of weeks; had war come about 18 months earlier, France would have been pulverized.
France's army was much larger than Germany's prior to 1939. France lacked the will and courage to fight.That's the stupid type of wartime accounting that got millions of soldiers killed needlessly in WWI. The kind of thinking that says "they have twenty-five siege mortars and seventy machine guns, but we have five hundred rifles so we outgun them" and then sends half a regiment of men to be blown to bits on that basis. So what if France had more men? Germany was better armed, its men better trained and equipped, the German army had more and better tanks, the Kriegsmarine had U-boats that swept the seas and the Luftwaffe was damned near invincible in 1938 -- and it was only four years from having fighter jets. There is no way in which France could have realistically defeated Germany in 1938 or even brought it to a standstill. If the German surface navy had been worth anything, not even Britain would have survived the 1940 onslaught. Hell, the United States would be part of the German Reich right now. And you think France should have gone up against that when they were even weaker than they were in 1939?
Does this ring a bell ?Only the resonating of your cranium.