In the G-20 meeting last week apologized to know President Obama for "America's failure of Europe's leading role in the world to appreciate." I did not know that Europe a leading role in the world. Besides, what more can or should the U.S. do to show his appreciation? The United States and have shamefully defended a few allies in Europe as well as the rest of the freedom of the world since the Second World War. They have also intervened to quell skirmishes, attacks, conflicts, attacks and other acts of internationalAggression true many times in the past 60 years. The U.S. military spending has more than one trillion U.S. dollars per year, more than half of total military spending amounts to the world. This saves the rest of the world more than one trillion U.S. dollars a year to spend as it sees fit. All America in return receives critique is safe for their motives and their methods for keeping the world. The U.S. spends by far more than any other nation on earth for global humanitarian efforts forwhich it receives criticism for not contributing a greater percentage of its gross domestic product. Who should be apologizing to whom?
Europeans cheered the President's denigrating remarks about our nation, but the U.S. received little in return for its confession and apology. The G-20 rejected the President's plea to them to use stimulative spending to support their own economic growth. At least they agreed to spend $1.1 Trillion assisting the global financial system. France and Germany support agreement to "fully support the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan", reached but not the obligation to support our own troops. They are, however, provide staff for training and development. Americans have become so riddled with guilt about their bad behavior in the whole world that we are conditioned to be grateful if other nations to cooperate with us, even if they contribute to their own cause to be!
In the future it will be interesting to see whether the new spirit of cooperation gathers all G-20Support for our security efforts in relation to Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea and other issues that threaten the security of the entire free world. Why should they? They know the U.S. is willing to do the job without their support. You can wash their hands, literally and figuratively, to know all the dirty work and sleep quietly, that they retain the possibility to criticize the U.S., where public opinion against the actions to take his choice. Many nations revel in theirenvious position to be both receivers and critics of U.S. efforts to ensure their safety.
The G-20 is now discussing the concept of a trans-national agency to monitor and regulate the global financial system would promote free trade, monitor and other matters of international economic. For it to work effectively, it will require the U.S. and other G-20 countries to translate their sovereign control over important aspects of their economies and financial institutions give up. If itProceeds, some global regulatory bureaucracy effectively accountable to no one in America would be empowered to make decisions with far-reaching impact on our economic prosperity. It is a bad idea, and who is willing, our government "of trade and for the people" for such an arrangement should seriously reconsider their position. Obviously, the United States have more to lose and less to gain than all other parties to such a plan. Luckily, I can not see that happening any time soon.