E.U. Agrees To Launch Galileo Satellite Location System

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?"

Comments

Plans started long before "recent events"

[Anonymous Coward]

This has been in the works for many years. It has to do with American power in general, and not any specific recent actions.

Re:Plans started long before "recent events"

[brejc8]

Im not sure what's better.
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.

Peace?

[Scrameustache]

or bad thing for world peace?

Er, I you mean good thing for world peace.

Unless you want to imply that the USmilitary is going to attack europe to stop them from lauching its satelittes...

Re:Peace?

[SETIGuy]

I think the "bad thing" is that it's being seen by many as a big "Fuck you" to the US - essentially "We don't trust you cowboy arseholes, so we're building our own system, so :-P" or something ...

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:Peace?

[maxpublic]

You say it, brother. Every day I see the creeping evangelism of Orwellian doublespeak advancing through the ranks, where you only want privacy if you have something criminal to hide, where safety can be bought at the expense of rights, and where Big Brother *really does* know what's good for you.

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

Combined receivers

[yet another coward]

A receiver compatible with both systems could provide increased accuracy over either alone. Even though current GPS is accurate enough for my practical demands, I want more for nerd reasons. I remember speculation on using both GLONASS and GPS signals several years ago with the idea of improving both reliability and accuracy.

I think it's a good thing

[LoztInSpace]

I'm sure I'll get blasted for this, but the US really showed it's true colours in this last war. They rode roughshod over every international organisation when the consensus didn't go their way and ultimately staged an invasion rather than liberation. I think under these circumstances the world needs another option.

Re:I think it's a good thing

[Pall Agamemnides]

...unilateral US action (with its lackey GB, Spanish, and Aussie friends holding pom-poms)...

Well, in Europe alone, the US was supported by Great Britain, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Denmark, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia. These are just from the "Gang of Eight" and the "Vilnius Group". There was also some support from other countries as well, I think (Ireland and the Netherlands?). Among European governments, at any rate, there was more of a consensus for the US than against.

Re:I think it's a good thing

[Chunky Kibbles]

That's the typical american attitude; "We're the biggest and the best, and country is not as good as us, and they know it."

In practice, American arrogance is altogether ridiculous, and given recent and past behaviour, the US is, I would say, more than likely to do things like break GPS leaving everyone else in the lurch.

Contrary to what you may believe, the interest in a common EU isn't in competing with the US. You never know, there's a danger it may be that it's the best for all of Europe, and Europe knows it, and that's why we're doing it.

We would all love to get together with the US, and provide various decent global systems... But the US simply keeps proving that it isn't trustworthy.

Flamebait, I'm sure. But The arrogance I've witnessed in the 8 months since I moved here is beyond anything I had ever been able to imagine it would be. And yes, I'm pissed and even embarrassed to be an American citizen.

Gary (-;

Re:I think it's a good thing

[Sanity]

The Eurocrats are jealous of the fact that the U.S. has the power to act in its own interest with or without anyone's help

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.

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:I think it's a good thing

[jabberjaw777]

FUD? Talk about FUD.

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:I think it's a good thing

[dackroyd]

However, I agree with one of the previous posters that this has more to do with American power in general. The Eurocrats are jealous of the fact that the U.S. has the power to act in its own interest with or without anyone's help, which makes them feel particularly irrelevant.

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:I think it's a good thing

[fruity1983]

Who else is around in that country to make that decision?

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.

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.

Not a new project

[Bunji X]

Galileo has been in the planning for quite a while, and will as far as I can tell be compatible and possibly linked with the US GPS system.

The Galileo homepage, in english.

Re:It serves us right

[cperciva]

Thank God!!! Maybe next time France is invaded they will call somebody else.

At the rate things are going right now, the next time France is invaded it will probably be *by* the USA.

It's not just about challenging the US military

[grungie]

Galileo is --in theory-- much more accurate than GPS. You probably don't want your airliner to risk missing the runway by a couple of meters in thick fog. Galileo will give QoS guarantees and greater precision, which will make it a viable solution for critical systems such as air-traffic control. But I have no clue what the current plans are to enforce the policy that it should be a civilian-only system.

Re:It's not just about challenging the US military

[Realistic_Dragon]

Your example is stupid in the extreme. Runways are much bigger than airplanes. A difference of ten feet one way or the other isn't going to matter to anybody.

You haven't ever met an AW guy then? Believe me, these guys are so anally retentive it's unbelivable - they would consider 2 feet to be dangerously out of spec. This is one of the reasons why planes don't land on GPS, or INS, they do so with the Mk.1 eyeball or ILS - both of which are rather accurate and capable of landing a plane right on the centerline - which _is_ required to save your life should you have a tire go, especially in a 747 landing at a normal airport.

Re:It's not just about challenging the US military

[mnemonic_]

Actually, with differential GPS (2 GPS receivers with software corrected data), accuracies of 2 to 45cm are attainable.

Source: http://www.geod.emr.ca/index_e/geodesy_e/gps-13_e. html

Two receivers are used; one receiver over a known location (the base or reference receiver) and the second (Rover or roving receiver) is placed over the new or unknown location. The receivers track and record data from the same satellites at the same time recording similar information. The data is eventually transferred from the receivers to a computer. Specialized software is used to 'correct' the data.

But this is kind of moot for your example. Since when do commercial aircraft use GPS for landings? Inertial navigation systems coupled with ground based positioning transponders and cockpit instrumentation provide highly accurate navigation data close to the airport, when necessary for low-visibility landings.

Re:It's not just about challenging the US military

[j_w_d]

Typical horizontal accuracy with a GPS is variable, generally it can be with 3 meters horizontal resolution with WAAS. However elevation is always more dubious with GPS and anything that improves it is a genuine advance. Not having the US militiary "dithering" it is no loss either. "Too accurate" is silly. Yeah, you care about where your antenna is, but an error of 15 meters in your vehicle could quite readily add up to increased insurance costs and hospital bills. An altitude error of 15 meters in an aircraft could mean the difference between an emergency manuever and a crater. Any navigational system can be programmed to account for antenna position and vehicle or vessel configuration. The accuracy of the system needs to be based on the greatest demand that can be placed on it. Right now that can be an accuracy requirement within a meter, or even within a cm. Survey grade GPS can require sub-centimeter accuracy that is only available with post-processing at present. There are a lot of us who would like to collect mapping data with a handheld or rod unit that didn't cost ten grand.

Re:It's not just about challenging the US military

[egburr]

Survey grade GPS can require sub-centimeter accuracy that is only available with post-processing at present.

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:It's not just about challenging the US military

[SerpentMage]

It is amazing how one sided news can be. Ask yourself this question. Would you rely on the European GPS if it were the only game in town? Would you rely on the European GPS for your military if it were the only game in town?

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!

Great Name

[yet another coward]

During Galileo's day, longitude was hard to determine. Ships at sea had no sufficiently good clocks to determine position. Galileo proposed a system using the moons of Jupiter, but it never worked well enough. John Harrison ultimately solved the problem, but I guess "Harrison" does not sound as good as "Galileo." Nova had a good program on the longitude problem. There was also a bestselling book about Harrison and his feat, but I have not read it.

Re:what a phenominal waste of money

[RollingThunder]

I don't see that it does anything other than keep Europes high tech industry working and sucking Europes taxpayers dry.

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:It serves us right

[Rumagent]

At the rate things are going right now, the next time France is invaded it will probably be *by* the USA.

You mean liberated of course.

Sorry, its necessary

[gad_zuki!]

>Unnecessarily duplicating a very expensive piece of infrastructure that the world needs only one instance of.

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.

Selective availability vs obfuscation

[KFury]

The /. article claims that the US abolished selective availability three years ago, but that's not the case. They abolished the 'fuzzing' of resolution, so that ordinary joes could get 10-foot accuracy instead of 70, but that's not selective availability.

Selective availability is the capability of 'turning off' GPS in specific geographic regions during times of war or for any other reason. They did it in Afghanistan last year, and they can do it whenever and wherever they want, though it's on an incident by incident basis.

Re:It serves us right

[javiercero]

"while the U.S. accounted for less than 1% of all arms sales to Iraq."

Haaha hahha hahah hahaah buuahahaha hahhahah. Good one mate. I needed a laugh, of course you have to ignore the massive quantities of nerve and biological agents funneled into Iraq by US sources. And well if you want to talk about providing training and technology to roge states, we can alaways ask who trained and armed Mr. Osama Bin Laden. Was it the French? Hum... nope.

As late as 1998 Mr. Chenney was doing business with Iraq for over $25M via his beloved Haliburton. Quite interesting that one of the guys that claimed Saddam was such a scum bag that needed to be stopped did in fact help that douche bag to rebuilt Iraq infraestructures (well oil producing sturctures anyways... which is what the US was interested in after all). I guess Mr. Cheney just decided to cut the middle man and get the oil directly.

Oh, right... the Frenchies are the evil ones. Because the US has never sold weapons to nobody, rigth? The US is the largest weapons manufacturer in the world, who do you think they sell their tock to the girl scouts?

Bad for world peace.

[yoder]

Right now we (the US) are bad for world peace. Anything that will help level the world playing field is good for world stability and peace. The EU just needs to get their ducks in a row so they can truly be a world superpower.

Re:It serves us right

[javiercero]

Nope Rumsfeld visit was state funded, he was Mr. Reagan envoy to the area. Basically to let him know how much the US was enjoying the little Iran-Iraq conflict... and what did Iraq need to keep the "good" fight. Remember in those days Saddam was a good guy, much like Osama Bin Laden.

Begging the question or what?

[NickFitz]

Good thing for commercialization of space, or bad thing for world peace?

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) 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:Too expensive

[n3k5]

Even if I try really hard I can't imagine a scenario where Europe really needed satellite navigation but the US would block GPS from them.

Actually, it's very easy to imagine the US to switch of half or all of GPS because they're combating some 'rogue state'. It's even easier to imagine that they continue to use the encryptet military channels, but switch off or degrade the accuracy of the civilian channels again.

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.

Even if Europe had had this Gallileo that would not have enabled them to stop US action in Iraq or Afghanistan.

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.

If Europe would have taken a more of a leadership role in world politics ...

You're confusing politics with war mongering there. Besides, Europe doesn't raise the claim to be the _leader_ of the world.

... I am sure the US would be delighted and more the willing to let them use GPS.

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.

This sounds like a very expensive French idea.

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.

Re:Still creating jobs

[Sanity]

US at its worst, it better than Europe at its best.

Yeah, if your entire measurement of a nation's success is the unemployment rate. Tell that to the 50 million Americans without healthcare (many of whom are employed). Tell that to the numerous people I know who work hard for eight hours a day and are still worse off than an unemployed European. Tell that to the well-off Americans who pay taxes comparable to those in Europe, but whose money is spent on taking lives rather than saving and improving them.

Cake, eating of and having of

[A nonymous Coward]

Europe roundly condcemned us for not joining WW I fast enough, even tho it was a purely European matter which the Europeans couldn't solve.

Then Europe roundly condemned us for not joining in WW II fast enough, even tho that too was a purely European matter which was in fact jump started by the disastrous treaty, drafted by France, which ended WW I.

Not to mention that while Roosevelt was trying to help the Chinese, who Japan had invaded in 1931 and 1937, the Europeans couldn't be bothered with some trifle so far away.

Then the Suez canal fiasco, where Egypt nationalized that wonder of colonial days, Britain and France invaded to take it back ... and guess who told them to get out? Duhh ... the US! How about that?

And who told the French that trying to recover Indochina after WW II ended was a mistake? Duhh ... The US!

Then there's the Balkans again, 1990s, couple of purely European wars there ... and you'd think, this having been the very hotbed which started WW I, that the Europeans would have been a bit more eager to put a lid on it ... but wait a minute, I seem to remember France popping off their mouth that they wouldn't contribute any troops unless we contributed the lion's share.

And where were the Dayton Accords signed? Hmmmm ... Datyton, Ohio, USA ... how about that!

Now I personally am not a big fan of Bush, or either gulf war. But by gum, the UN signed up in 1991 to cleanup Iraq, put in sanctions, rid it of the big nasty weapons ... and who actually monitored it and enforced it? The US mostly. France and Germany even agreed to a UN resolution just a few months ago telling Saddam he had stalled long enough .. yet when it came time to back it up, they slid into a corner and made silly noises.

I personally am sick and tired of saving Eurpoe's ass. WW I, WW II, Suez, Balkans ... why don't you damn fools get some spine and take care of yourselves?

Re:Cake, eating of and having of

[Goth Biker Babe]

I personally am sick and tired of saving Eurpoe's ass. WW I, WW II, Suez, Balkans ... why don't you damn fools get some spine and take care of yourselves?

You didn't in WWII the Rusians did by tying up the German forces on the Eastern front. By the time you turned up we'd won North Africa and the Battle of Britain, Hitler had given up on the invasion of Britain and had turned to the east hence the Russian involvment.

You did help financially because we were running out of money. Two and half years of fighting drains a country especially when it's being bombed regularly.

When you finally got involved, with typical US arogance and lack of control you cocked up. The Omaha beach landing was a fiasco because you ignored the advice of the Brits who had far more experience and who landed fairly safely. The scene at the start of Saving Private Ryan didn't happen elsewhere.

In the first Gulf war you did it again killing more Brits than the Iraqis and in the second you did it yet again.

From the Daily Mirror, Monday April 7th 2003

Brit Pilot's Punch-up

A Furious British Helicopter Pilot who came under "friendly fire" from American troops landed yards from them, leapt out and exchanged punches
with a US Marine.

The Chinook pilot shouted at him: "When was the last time you saw a f******* Iraqi in a helicopter?"

The pilot and the marine had to be pulled apart as American troops advanced on the north of Baghdad, according to US reports from US Central
Command in Qatar.

British military spokesman Group Captain Al Lockwood said: "I'm afraid it would be an RAF kind of thing to do. "These guys are not known for tolerating fools gladly."

And

The following was broadcast live on CNN on the 24th of March.

In front of camera is the CNN anchor. He is joined by three American military experts (one being a retired two-star general from the 'elite'
Delta Force) and an ex SAS soldier. Footage on side-screen shows Iraqi soldiers surrendering to coalition troops.

CNN Anchor: "We've no current verification as to whether these are US or British troops the Iraqis are surrendering to. "
Yank 1: "They look to be ours - only US troops wear boots like those."
Yank 2: "Indeed, and they appear to have the standard issue camouflage fatigues."
Yank 3 (Delta Force): "I'm not sure - we'll have to get close-up images of them to be 100%. We'll definitely be able to tell from the shape of their Kevlar helmets if they're ours."
Ex SAS: "I'm surprised to learn you're all experts. Since when did US forces carry the SA80 rifle as standard issue? Their DPMs could've been bought, as could their boots and webbing for that matter, so you're chasing rainbows if you can I.D them from their clothes!"
Anchor: "I think you're right."
Ex SAS: "Of course I'm bloody right - anyone with half a brain and basic military training worth their salt should be able to I.D a British soldier by his rifle unless he's special forces! Not to mention the fact that they're covering all their arcs of fire properly, not shouting "woo yeah!" randomly and haven't raised a flag in direct contravention of their orders!"

...At this point one of the Americans pulls his mic off and leaves the floor. The other two look very uncomfortable...

Anchor: "I think we can safely say that the soldiers on your screen are British. Now for these messages..."

Re:It serves us right

[cperciva]

You mean liberated of course.

No, France doesn't have any oil reserves. When France is invaded it will be for the purpose of disarming them.

Re:World peace?

[plaa]

Well, it isn't just European bombs that could be guided by the European satellite system, but anyone's bombs

I somehow doubt that the ultimate motivation for the system is for guiding bombs. Yes, of course it's a factor, but Europeans seem to be culturally more opposed to war than the US.

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.

Well, perhaps this will make the US think twice before going off to wage war that most of the rest of the world opposes. If Europe should choose to go to war (not very likely), I think that the decision would be made easily (if it will be possible to achieve at all).

Is it somehow better to have absolute power in the hands of some kid trying to play dad?