Don't worry, facts are still facts even when you don't read them.

The Russians and Chinese are keeping very quiet about their intelligence on world leaders, as well as everything else. Since Snowden apparently didn't bother to bring copies of documents on what is know about them we probably won't hear much about it.

You're quite mistaken. Somebody cares.

In FY 1968 defense spending of $518 billion in 2005 dollars accounted for 9.4% of a GDP of $3,993 billion, and 46% of the Federal budget.

In FY 2014 defense spending of $519 billion in 2005 dollars accounts for 3.7% of a GDP of $14,113 billion, 16.6% of the Federal budget.

As of FY 2014 defense spending has already started to fall, and will be falling sharping over the next several years.

Sorry, but those are the facts (subject to change in case of war or natural disaster).

The increasing cumulative affect as new technologies are developed, accumulate, and interact.

In 1947 a loaf of bread in the UK cost 1.9 pence, and 12 cents in the US.

I understand those prices are no longer available.

Post WW2 defense spending in constant 2005 dollars didn't rise above 1968 levels, when the US had a large force fighting to preserve South Vietnamese independence, until 2008 when it had major forces fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan and surged additional forces to each country in turn. The current trend in defense spending is for falling budgets with the FY 2014 budget essentially at 1968 levels ($518B vs $519B) and is planned to fall sharply in FY 2015 and going forward. The overall long term trend of decreasing resources spent on defense in terms of GDP doesn't really change, and in constant 2005 dollars it is planned to decrease substantially from present spending. As another indicator, defense spending in 1945 was 89.5% of Federal spending, in 2014 it is 16.6%. If US Federal spending is a burden, it clearly isn't defense that is the real weight.

Try again. NATO's agreement is for NATO members, not the entire world. And you may have noted that Asian countries are outspending Europe. Terrorism isn't the only reason for defense. You may recall that European countries tried to intervene in Libya, and had significant difficulties doing so. Some of that problem was lost capabilities due to not meeting their defense commitments.

If you want to know what expensive is, just let Iran cut off Europe's oil supplies, as they have previously threatened to do, and see what happens if Europe lacks the capacity to restore the them. How long do you think industry, manufacturing, and the chemical industries will be unaffected? It would have a severe impact on Europe.

You've apparently sprung a leak, you should attend to that.

You may recall your previous statement.

Don't forget jealousy.

But anyway, I hear the European "union" is not a happy one.

Railing against the 'Fourth Reich': Anti-German Mood Heats Up in Greece

And someone is the family might be hearing the voices of ghosts of the past.

Germany shocked by secret service link to rightwing terror cell

And the "hired help" has caused some concerns.

Kohl wanted to reduce Germany's Turkish population by one half

Who can tell what will happen?

That's a great idea! I'll check to see if they have any openings tomorrow. It would be great to have more time and resources to correct some of the nonsense that floats around the intertubes.

It was actually 2 Marine generals - for failure in Afghanistan, as well as both a USAF general, and an admiral, for the Strategic command.

The "purge" has been going on for years, but has little to do with reducing staff per se, although the sequester may result in some consolidations.