Re: Background of Nations

You wrote: 

>Too true.  I think that while this may be seen as some (NOT me) as a 
cop-out >for not wanting to come up with innovative, 'futuristic' 
political bodies, I >like it, because it has the familiar ring of the 

IMHO, it's the only realistic thing.

I mean, France has been around for a few hundred years, and it's really 
the baby of the major powers listed.  Germans have been around since. . 
. Arminius?  Whenever.	The  Chinese have a culture thousands of years 
old.  Only Americans could imagine a culture completely changing in a 
mere 200 years, and that's just because we've only been around since 
1607.  

>an interesting idea to bring the big English-speaking nations under 
one roof >(no offense, Australia).  I also like the ESU - China 

Churchill did an alternate history involving that.  South wins Civil 
War, and eventually an English-speaking alliance results.  Seriously, I 
think US-Canadian amalgamation is probable, a US-UK odd, but imaginable 
under the right circumstances.

>and interesting to play the Bad Guys - especially if we get to use 
Maoist >Rhetoric(TM)!

The Indomitable Will of the People shall prevail!

John M. Atkinson