Now the West started the Industrial Revolution which has allowed our populations to expand expodentially.We have more people than this planet can support.The Middle East owns 65% of the world's oil.The US are in there making sure that Muslum countries remain divided so they cannot form cartels than can fix prices.Not only the US benefits,but the population of the entire,planet which needs oil for their survival.

Poor countries have to be told to limit their populations or lose aid.If global warming continues to accelerate,then total anarchy will bring about the death of billions.

To succeed,Peace must become a worldwide movement.
It should be embraced by every Individual and thrust upon every Government.
It should be a compulsory subject in school curriculum
It should be accompanied by the simultaneous surrender and destruction of all weapons of war.
The 'I have a dream' address of Martin Luther King is as relevent today as it was in 1968.
Subsequent to the 1996 Port Arthur Massacre, John Howard saw fit to implement a 'buy back' of guns from the Australian population but that was as far as he went; probably as far as could be expected unless other countries followed suit.
Universal disarmament and the cessation of the manufacture of arms worldwide is a prerequisite for such an initiative.
It will not happen unless a worldwide movement follows such a path.
One thing is certain, humankind can not continue down the road of unending warfare. This article and the links to other work makes a lot of sense despite the ridicule of those who are not prepared to embrace the dream.

Arjay,
So the creative, sensible thing to do is reduce our reliance on oil, by developing clean green renewable alternatives to oil, correct. If the yanks put a man on the moon 38 years ago, it shouldn't be too difficult with some R&D to develop solar cars, hydro electricity, and wind generators, among many other alternatives, all that is needed is and has been the political will.

Crunch time is almost upon us, had Australia invested as much money into developing some of these alternatives, instead of developing the situation of murdering 100's of thousands of innocent women and children civilians in Iraq, we may be half way to solving our problems.

What a strange set of priorities we [U.S.A./Australia] have, preferring to murder people instead of creating a better world. Conservatism is a terrible drag on crateivity we need a progressive government to replace our regressive one.

Shonga- I refer you to my previous post and ask this question: If a large reserve of oil was found under Darfur or Harare and the United States suddenly decided to intervene in the humanitarian tradgedies unfolding in those areas, would it be worse to do so because of oil, or to not intervene at all?
The problem for all the idealists now is that after its withdrawl from Iraq, I think the US will adopt a semi-isolationist policy and show an even greater reluctance to intervene (even for oil). Then the world will be left with the systemically corrupt and ineffectual UN to prevent genocides and barbaric dictatorships. No hope really!

Interesting quote from Churchill on Ghandi. Let’s perhaps dispel a few of the myths held by the avowedly non-violent of one of their ‘greatest saints’. Peace is a wonderful thing and should be treasured – something seemingly unattainable, but lets ‘prick’ this little Ghandi myth anyway and get a glimpse of the historical Ghandi.

Those who saw the film ‘Gandhi’ had the pleasure of reinforcing the myth. The film revolved around three axes: (1) Anti-racism - all men are equal regardless of race, color, creed, etc.; (2) anti-colonialism, which in present terms translates as support for the Third World, including, most eminently, India; (3) nonviolence, presented as an absolutist pacifism. There are other, secondary precepts and subheadings. Gandhi is portrayed as the quintessence of tolerance ("I am a Hindu and a Muslim and a Christian and a Jew"), of basic friendliness to Britain ("The British have been with us for a long time and when they leave we want them to leave as friends") The film ‘Gandhi’ basically amounted to a paid political advertisement for the government of India.

This sanitized film would hardly show scenes of Gandhi's pretty teenage girl followers fighting "hysterically" (the word was used) for the honor of sleeping naked with the Mahatma and cuddling the nude septuagenarian in their arms. (Gandhi was "testing" his vow of chastity in order to gain moral strength for his mighty struggle with Jinnah.) When toldt here was a man named Freud who said that, despite his declared intention, Gandhi might actually be ‘enjoying’ the caresses of the naked girls, Gandhi continued, unperturbed. Nor would we see Gandhi giving daily enemas to all the young girls in his ashrams (his daily greeting was, "Have you
had a good bowel movement this morning, sisters?").

Despising consistency and never checking his earlier statements, and yet inhumanly obstinate about his position at any given moment, Gandhi is thought by some Indians today (according to V.S.Naipaul) to have been so erratic and unpredictable that he may have delayed Indian independence for twenty-five years.
Cont’d..

Cont’d..
The Gandhi of 1893, a conventional caste Hindu, fresh from caste-ridden India where a Paraiyan could pollute at 64 feet, as the champion of interracial equalitarianism is one of the most brazen hypocrisies one could believe. Gandhi (Sergeant Major Gandhi) was awarded Victoria's coveted War Medal. Throughout most of his life Gandhi had the most inordinate admiration for British soldiers, their sense of duty, their discipline and stoicism in defeat (a trait he emulated himself).

The admirers of 'Gandhi' would naturally suppose that, since the future Great Soul opposed South African discrimination against Indians, he would also oppose South African discrimination against black people. But this is not so. When he was fighting on behalf of Indians, he was not fighting for all the Indians, but only for his rich merchant class upper caste Hindus, he had no concern for blacks whatever. In fact, during one of the "Kaffir Wars" he volunteered to organize a brigade of Indians to put down a Zulu rising, and was decorated himself for valour under fire. In the Indian Opinion of September 24, 1903, Gandhi said: "We believe as much in the purity of races as we think they (the Whites) do... by advocating the purity of all races."

During his entire South African period, and for some time after, until he was about fifty, he supported the empire ardently in no fewer than three wars: the Boer War, the "Kaffir War," and, with the most extreme zeal, World War I. If Gandhi's mind were of the modern European sort, this would seam to suggest that his later attitude toward Britain was the product of unrequited love: he had wanted to be an Englishman; Britain had rejected him and his people; very well then, they would have their own country. Gandhi, in short, was a leader looking for a cause. He found it, of course, in home rule for India and, ultimately, in independence.

Perhaps it is better, after all, to cherish the myth – as propagated further with a rather inanely constructed article and presumably, book.