US outflanked in Eurasia energy politics...

[bridgit]

'The United States' global energy-control strategy, it's now clear to most, was the actual reason for the highly costly regime change in Iraq, euphemistically dubbed "democracy" by Washington. But while it is preoccupied with implanting democracy in the Middle East, the United States is quietly being outflanked in the rush to secure and control major energy sources of the Persian Gulf, the Central Asian Caspian Basin, Africa and beyond.' http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/HF10Dj01.html

[Kolesar]

1. The bush gov was depending on "success" in Iraq to secure our oil supplies

This article really does not detail the mode of our failures in Iraq and Iran. I liked these paragraphs, though. We would have watched China & Russia become autocracies, anyway, IMHO:

Kagan declared, in reference to Russia and China, "Until now the liberal West's strategy has been to try to integrate these two powers into the international liberal order, to tame them and make them safe for liberalism. If, instead, China and Russia are going to be sturdy pillars of autocracy over the coming decades, enduring and perhaps even prospering, then they cannot be expected to embrace the West's vision of humanity's inexorable evolution toward democracy and the end of autocratic rule."

Kagan charged that China and Russia have emerged as the protectors of "an informal league of dictators" that, according to Kagan, currently includes the leaders of Belarus, Uzbekistan, Myanmar, Zimbabwe, Sudan, Venezuela, Iran and Angola, among others around the world, who, like the leaders of Russia and China themselves, resist any efforts by the West to interfere in their domestic affairs, either through sanctions or other means. "The question is what the United States and Europe decide to do in response," wrote Kagan.

The mainstream US foreign-policy organization, the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations, has also recently weighed in on the question of Chinese energy pursuits. In a recent report, the CFR accuses the Bush administration of lacking any comprehensive long-term strategy for Africa. It criticizes US focus on humanitarian issues such as in Darfur southern Sudan, demanding instead that the US "act on its rising national interests on the continent". Those interests? The CFR lists oil and gas as No 1; growing competition with China (closely related to No 1) as No 2.

[bridgit]

2. little doubt in my mind that this bush admin attempted to parley...

all of whatever good will america had engendered up to the time they seized office, i have little further doubt that this gang of criminals are not capable of putting together a deal; any deal, that will be of benefit to anyone but their crony-donor base..imo of course

but now it is undone, and the whole world knows it

[cliss]

3. Great article.

Thanks for posting, Bridgit.

Articles like this are so important, because they give us the REAL reason why the US does the things it does. The mystery vanishes, like fog in the early morning. Everything becomes clear.

You realize that this country, as well as all the rest of them, are engaged in a desperate battle for the earth's remainind energy sources. Wars will be fought over this very issue.

[bridgit]

4. yup, cheers...

:toast: well not cheers for the destruction of the world but to you, friend, as i do agree

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. Great article. The strong arm tactics of the bunglers are failing.

I have always given Reagan top honors for sheer stupidity, but this outfit has outdone him by miles.

I always find articles showing the "commies" besting us in capitalism, deliciously ironic.

[bridgit]

6. free markets...bush should be very careful what he asks for indeed...

[Pab Sungenis]

7. "We have always been at war with Eurasia."

Brace for impact.