Ahh yes, if you are ever debating something with an American, just say the words "Iraq" or "Afganistan" and everyone will assume that means you're right and they're wrong.

I don't want to get into the topic of who is doing the most fighting and dying in Afghanistan (EU vs. non-EU) because that is off topic. The topic is government spending on NASA. The statement I originally replied too was commenting that part of the problem is that EU countries appear to have much better functioning governments than the US. My point, in essence, is that anyone's government will look worse if they have to spend (4.1 - 1.5) 2.6% of GDP on something the other country doesn't.

What we disagree on is the question of how much military is necessary. Your point is that the EU governments have a sufficient defense for what you think they need. I'm saying that the increased spending (the 2.6% difference between the US and Germany) is necessary to keep the world in an acceptable state. Reasonable people can disagree on that. The Darfur refugee's are on my side, though. They think we should buy enough helicopters to protect the victems of genocide. The EU doesn't agree with them.

the combined EU defense budget sometime (or NATO without the US). It's still bigger than all other contenders (except for US). As it is, Europe can defend itself from any possible threats - let's assume Russia, China and Iran, for simplicity sake - on its own well enough.

Your figures are worthless. There were far more cases of frostbite in India last year then there were in Antartica. That means your safer from frostbite if you move from Mumbai to McMurdo, right?

Look at the data as a percentage of GDP, as stated at the bottom of the exact wikipedia page you cited: United States 4.06%, New Zealand 1.0%, Spain 1.2%, Ireland 0.9%, Switzerland 1.0%, Belgium 1.3%, Germany 1.5%, Sweden 1.5%, Denmark 1.5% ... even that bastion of European militarism, France is only at 2.6%. With all that spending, they should have a working aircraft carrier again any year now. Even those numbers are deceiving, because the EU countries use their armed forces as a jobs program. Most of that money is going to pay for people to keep the unemployment rate down, not training or weapons or anything else that makes for an effective military.

I could respect you if you were arguing that it's OK to hide behind a nuclear missile, and let the rest of the world go to hell (because if you do that you can't do anything except concede to tyranny or destroy the world, no middle options). But don't try to argue that the EU or New Zealand carry their weight. Just ask your average Sudan refugee camp resident how well the EU peacekeepers are doing without effective helicopter support. Most of those refugees get squat for protection. The EU can choose to help them or not help them, but it's despicable to say that you want to help them but then secretly be too cheap to do it.

Most Europeans at this point say "the Americans should do it" which is EXACTLY my point.

"I also have enough European friends to know what a government can be WHEN SOMEONE ELSE PAYS FOR THEIR DEFENSE, and I've seen it for myself as well when I studied in NZ for two years."

There, fixed that for you

P.S. Mods: I'm not necessarily off topic. NASA spending should properly be considered defense research (or at least much of it should be).

A couple of days after our son was born I left my wife alone in her hospital room...

You made the mistake. You left your newborn child in the arms of a woman who is too weak to sit up. How many more years of school do you need before you are qualified to help her keep from falling out of a chair? I learned that "skill" freshman year of collage after my roomate had too much to drink.

Basically, health insurance today does not cover a 24 hour personal attendant for every patient. The nurse is off somewhere else handling some complex medical issue necessary to save someone's life. (She is likely responsible for 5 other patients at least).

You should be there 24/7, or at least while she is awake and with the baby. Too busy to do that? Fine, that is not a personal failing, just pay for a private personal attendant. Can't afford that? Sorry. Get some family or friends to help. This is hopefully only a short term issue. What ever you do, don't blame the nurse. It is not her fault that you don't have the money or the support network of friends to be there for your wife and baby when they need you. Next time, do favors for your friends on Sunday afternoon instead of sitting front of the TV watching football. That way, when someone you love is sick and needs help, your friends will be willing to cover the shifts at the bedside that you can't. You haven't paid enough in health insurance for it to provide a 24/7 personal attendant for routine post-partum care. Few people have. It will be there if she truly needs it (if she is critically ill and needs to be in the ICU). Otherwise, suck it up and stay with your wife and help her take care of your baby.

You can start the "child care is the mom's job, not mine" attitude after she gets out of the hospital. When my child was born, I viewed taking care of the baby as 100% my responsibility until my wife was well enough to leave the hospital. Yes, I needed her to provide the breast milk, but I was hovering less than two feet away EVERY SINGLE TIME she was breast feeding in the hospital. The baby was MY responsibility. My wife's only job was to rest, recover, and try to eat enough to make sure that our daughter had plenty of breast milk available.

A very good friend of mine hit her head, and had amnesia for about 5 days. She didn't know anyone's name, for example, including her own. Her parents and boyfriend were strangers. We took her to the pool for morning workout (we were both on the swim team). She says that she swam to the opposite wall, and remembers thinking "I don't know what I'm supposed to do when I get to the wall. How do I turn around?" Her body promptly went through a typical perfectly executed flip turn, and as she pulled away, she thought to herself "Oh, I guess that must be what you do."