Japan's desperation for energy in the 1930's is somewhat justifiable compared to our own as the Japanese home islands have few energy resources. On the other hand, we have huge energy resources in the US. Our problem is that we squander them with an extravagance unrivaled in history and thus need more.
History will not judge us kindly for this waste. We will be seen as a nation of petty potentates running around in our SUV's. Same as the decadent historical ones eating gold or dissolving pearls in wine.
I also do not doubt that in the tiny minds of the Cheney/Bush regime such delusion and desperation exists.
This will curse us for years to come. But it is what happens when a passive population stops paying attention.

I agree with you, ww and Jonathryn, the conflicts of the future (over the coming thirty years until oil and LNG will have been replaced with more efficient and less costly alternatives) are already predetermined and oil and gas rich Central Asia as well as to a lesser extent Africa will be their prime battlefields, and the US and China their main antagonists. That's a truism, what's less known is that the US is already about to lose Central Asia. The SCO is much better positioned here and the current and Bill Clinton's administrations have played into their hands. I'm sure Sean Paul can tell you more about it as this region is his hobby horse, but I don't see the US making any ground in CA anymore. On the contrary.
China and Russia prosper on an energy symbiosis and as long as China doesn't interfere too much into the political systems of these autocratic republics, Russia is happy to provide them with what they want most: energy security. And in a quid pro quo Russia when buddy-buddying with China enjoys the influence, prestige and muscle of the good ol' days of the USSR.
Both, Iran and Pakistan are the ultimate prize for the SCO and I have no doubt Moscow and Beijing want them to join sooner than later. They just have to make sure that they're not drawn into a conflict over Iran with the US; hence the nuclear issue has to be settled first. Concerning Pakistan, China is already heavily engaged there and perceives it as its prime energy hub for the future. They're investing billions in the deep water port of Gwadar at the eastern entrance of the Strait of Hormuz, which they want to connect with three major pipelines, IPI, an underwater one connecting Gwadar with the UAE and Qatar and a third one running up to the gas fields of Turkmenistan. Thus they control both, the pipelines and the shipping lines. China's major concern in Pakistan is the support for the Taliban. BTW, Iran would act as a counterbalance for China and Russia in CA against the Saudi Arabia financed, primarily Sunni radicals in Uzbekistan et al.
To make a long story short, if Iran and Pakistan were to join the SCO, the US will have lost the New Great Game for good. And that's why Musharraf is still in power and why a war with Iran over the next four years is almost inevitable (if the US were not to reconsider its entire geopolitical approach).
On all this, I highly recommend Michael Ruppert's Crossing the Rubicon. I don't agree with all his conspiracy theories and question his scholarly background, but on many occasions his observations are a true eye opener.

I should have been more specific by saying “coherent agenda beyond keeping the US out of Central Asia.” That’s a truism. But integrative agendas, common values, ideologies, and closer cooperation in other than cultural and military affairs is what the SCO lacks – at present. That this is evolving and in a constant flux towards further integration we witness with the proposed free trade area. Once this is accomplished and once the SCO has adopted a mutual defense clause, it will equal NATO in terms of regional integration.

I'd much rather that the boys in McLean spoil things for the SCO member nations as Putin tries to keep all these balls in the air. An ounce of prevention in the form of old-school diplomatic frisson leading to mistrust and dysfunctional alliances would be much preferable to the pounding cure the Marines mete out. The ways to do this are too numerous to count, but I'm not sure what was once the Directorate of Operations has the depth, degree of sophistication, or personnel and language experts to do it. I'd rather see Obama as president, given the three candidates we have, but of the three it appears that Clinton would make the shrewdest and best use of the CIA.

the author gave a qualified endorsement to Michael Ruppert, and this comment referring to Alexander... no wait, apparently it really is Andrew... Cockburn.

I read counterpunch for a couple months around Christmas time, and was pretty damn intrigued by it, until Alexander Cockburn posted a very self-satisfied assessment that global warming was a conspiracy/hoax cooked up by Al Gore and some other assorted persons for financial gain. It was a trite, pathetic, and utterly wrong argument, and it so throughly destroyed the credibility of him and his editorial direction of the newsletter in my mind that I haven't read it since.

I ordered Crossing the Rubicon in the mail, but it was returned to sender cause the box was too big for my apartment-complex mail slot, and by the time those five weeks had passed, this Cockburn moment had come and gone and I wasn't sure I wanted to read it anymore either.

Anyway, can anyone speak to the relative quality of these kinds of sources? It seems like they talk about fundamentals (energy, debt, balance-of-trade, drug/arms trade, finance, capital, military-industrial sector) in ways that mainstream "political" sources never do, and I want to hear about fundamentals. On the other hand, they seem to be flat over-the-edge on at least some subjects (WTC and global warming as conspiracies??), and that makes them difficult to believe on any subject.

I can't figure out how to deal with this problem, so if anyone has figured out the nature of these peoples' credibility or sources for information that are both complete and credible, I'd be really really interested...

Alexander Cockburn is the eldest of the tribe; Patrick and Andrew are his younger brothers. Alex is spot-on on some matters and way off the main path on others (e.g. global climate change). I can take him or leave him. I was surprised to see Andrew's name on the byline for this Iran article--he's usually not that visible on Counterpunch.

Cockburn has a lot of other guest writers, so the selection can be quite varied.

Canada is number two when it comes to proven oil reserves, right after Saudi Arabia and ahead of Iraq and Iran.

I know only too much.

_{repressive governments mix administrative clumsiness & inefficiency with authoritarian tendencies.}

Canada could have some very profound effects on US policy. For example, were Canada to officially legalize marijuana, the US would almost surely follow, as the "war on drugs" for that particular drug would be lost.

As I understand the situation, the Canadian electorate is overwhelmingly in favor to do just that.

Of course, the residents of BC would have to go back to logging for a living, but they'd lose much of the organized crime that deals with smuggling bud into the US.

Not truly the situation. Your Right Wing has convinced you that we are socialist because we have provincial taxpayer-funded government medicare. Our drug policies have been more lenient than yours.

I think you are naive to believe that what Canada does or will do has any influence on the US.

The real problem for us is that your RW is doing its best to destroy what we have in Canada.
Albert

Almost as we speak the heads of government of the US, Canada and Mexico are meeting (under the aegis of the 25 largest multinationals) to discuss economic cooperation. The US is definitely the elephant in the room here. The US, Canada and Mexico are joined at the hip economically and are in the process of becoming Siamese twins at the behest of the multinationals.

The Conservatives in power in these countries can only go so far.

In Mexico, the deal breaker is privatizing Petroleos Mexicanos, which would lead to widespread protests. Mexican schools celebrate the nationalization of the oil industry. On March 18th, each child in a Mexican school receives a model oil well with a US flag on it. At the appointed time, the child pulls down the US flag and replaces it with the Mexican flag to signify that the oil belongs to Mexico.

In Canada, the deal breaker would be the end of medicare. No Canadian government would survive if that happened.
Albert