citizens of EU member states - what do you think of galileo GPS competitor?

[Furunculus]

a) I'm confused, you're saying its a waste of money, then you say countries ought to have high spending in defence. Since Galileo is primarily due to military independence, I'd say the EU is doing exactly what you propose. And you're arguing against having spending money on something which will make the EU countries better without needing the assistence of the USA.
That is a Pro-Militaristic point of view. But then, I'm sure Kim-Il Jung would agree with your views. I'd much, much rather have a low budget for defence and a high budget towards economic and social development. Having high spendings in defence at a time of crisis is foolish and ridiculous.
b) NATO takes part of the military sovereignty of its members. I don't see an International outcry about it.
c) HAHAHA. America cries when it sees chronic underspending? You should read up on what Realpolitik or International Realism is. For a proponent of high budget spending in contrast with economical social welfare, you sure have a liberal view of the International Relations that the USA executes, which is not quite up to par with the truth, and you're hearing this from a person who knows of what he is speaking.

a) it is a waste of money for a capability that already exists. what the eu collective lacks is power projection, where is the airlift, where is the sealift, where are the carriers, outside of britain and france where is there any real ability to support a significant force out-of-area. all of these things are way more important than penis waving with the US. where does kim-il-jung come into this, really? as to budgets, <5.0% of government spending on defence is still very little given that this is the first duty of the nation state.

b) it is a defensive arrangement and does not guide and control foreign policy.

c) america would very much like a europe that could pull its weight in international affairs, so what are you proving with all that excessive verbiage?

[LittleGrizzly]

<5.0% of government spending on defence is still very little given that this is the first duty of the nation state.

I don't see why it should be, Britian is under no risk of invasion what so ever, we simply use it around the world often as part of someone else's goals... it seems like a fairly low priority to me...

[Furunculus]

<5.0% of government spending on defence is still very little given that this is the first duty of the nation state.

I don't see why it should be, Britian is under no risk of invasion what so ever, we simply use it around the world often as part of someone else's goals... it seems like a fairly low priority to me...

i seem to remember people said there could never be another world war after the first................

and whether you think it should be or not, it is the first duty of the nation state.