Peter writes: I don’t know. Why don’t you go ask Saddam?

When y’all’s comments are idiotic enough I’m afraid they might be able to, through some kind of idiocy osmosis.

Gosh, don’t let a couple of comments scare you off! The idiocy of others can’t diminish your brilliance.

Or…?

Horse manure! This World has always been one. There is a theory that the Moon was once Part of the Earth, but very little evidence to support that theory. Only the fact that there is a hole in the earth that is just the right size to hold the moon. Of course, the theory of plate tectonics sort of argues against that, since that hole would have long since filled in, but it’s also possible that both theories are wrong. AFAIK, orbital mechanics and the theory of gravity that supports them argue against the moon is part of the earth theory also.
If you are talking politics, the world isn’t one now, never will be and is no closer to being one then it was 5,000 years ago. The players have changed and the game has gotten bigger, but the music still plays.
The World hasn’t gotten any smaller either, which is another urban legend. What HAS happened is communication times have decreased. That doesn’t make the world ‘one’ or any smaller or even a monopolitical system.
I think we will eventually end up as a monopolitical system, but that won’t happen for another few centuries. And I’m fudging the meaning of politics a bit when I say that.
Nationalism was the replacement for tribalism, of which Feudalism was the most prominent example. One tribe was stronger then the others, which allowed that tribe to declare their leader “King” and say he was ‘chosen’ to rule over the other tribes. Gather enough tribes sharing a language and culture in the same basic geographical area and add a common law, some standardization and presto chango, you had a Nation/State.
Nationalism is better then tribalism, but as communication time decreased, Nationalism created more problems then it solved.
Right now Humans are working on a replacement political system. America and Japan are working toward the Corporate State. Europe is working toward a Uberbureacracy. Although the German Courts put a LARGE stake thru that heart a few days ago. China is trying to turn back the clock with their benign Despotism theory. That will end the first morning the despot wakes up with a hangover and doesn’t feel so benign.
I think the Corporate State will win. That won’t make the world one, politically, but it will change the conflict over resources from that of mass armies and nuclear weapons to assassinations and leveraged buy-outs. Much more civilized then an Armored Division. More cost effective too.
The Corporate State, with ‘employees’ that are voters/shareholders would be the highest form of a capitalist/democracy. The Efficiency and creativity it would bring to the game will overwhelm all other forms of government. Not sure how stable it will be or what will replace it, but it WILL be better at taking care of it’s citizens/employees/voters then any other political types.
If it doesn’t there will be a new chairman of the board, CEO, CFO, whatever.

“The USA is a mighty power but how wrong it was in both Vietnam and in Iraq.”

Oh, dear.

Bohemond, notice there was no evidence to support that absurd statement. That gives it the same value as whatever processed roughage produced it.

When the tenor of the conversation is “Obama is a stealth Muslim bent on destroying Israel and the U.S.”, then it isn’t really fertile soil for intelligent comment, is it?

So you will have to toast yourself for that #72:

On my behalf, would you make it a double? I’ll be with you in spirit although not in spirits.