I wouldn't want a one-world government because absolute power corrupts. I don't want to see the demise of the Democratic party for the same reason. Believe it or not, I hope they recoup some of their power base. Watching the religious right make advances into government is not my idea of social progress.

Even American government on a global scale needs to be broken up into more power structures. Division of power always keeps people somewhat in check. I don't mind a superpower US leading the world, but I have strong objections to a superpower US that rules the world. And believe me, Iraq does not qualify as proving the US already thinks it rules the world.

Competing nations spur progress. Not just military progress, but the technological and economic benefits of international competition. One-world government is one of those models that sound nice and progressive but under the microscope force humanity into authoritarian rule. In today's world one can denounce one's citizenship in many nations and move to another country. Under a one-world system, if you don't like it - tough. You'll be sorted out with other dissidents and penned as subversives. (Something like Lindy imagines is going on clandestinely now under Bush)

No, too much power in anyone's hands isn't good. I wouldn't even trust such power to myself, despite what I know. Even in subtle ways, absolute national power is guaranteed to rob people of freedoms and choice.

A similar effect can be observed when companies merge and the buying public has less selection. The people pay more for less. A selection of governments to choose from is always desirable. In that sense governments compete for citizens. The US is a more attractive one and has been luring folks away for 2 centuries.

On a related note, you should see why schools competing for students would produce better grades, a whole new breed of competitive teachers and administrators and a better educated populace. Bureaucracy and its sidekick, indifference, absolutely destroys education in this country.

To some in Iraq, the US are rescuers. To others the US are tyrants. Our presence presents a wildly diverse spectrum of viewpoints to the various regions, religions and classes. US "nation building" obviously could never exceed the 3rd world nations, but even that understandably makes many nations decidedly uncomfortable. This discomfort can be used to bring about reform. Sometimes one has to make an example of one dictator, so that other dictators realize one means business.

PS
For the record, I've had a number of guns pointed at me (in a hostile manner) over the years, that I've been aware of, a Smith & Wesson 44 standing out among the rest and others of unknown make and caliber. I think five guns are the highest number that have been trained on me at once, but they were handled by professionals and so it's somewhat less frightening. It's the guns I'm not aware of that worry me the most. Such experiences help not only to focus the mind, but most importantly build people skills with individuals of a diverse nature.

;-)