Gwynne Dyer's Point Of View Millinium Three, Year Three
#1
Posted 01 January 2004 - 11:19 PM
http://allafrica.com...0312310225.html
Anatole France
#2
Posted 11 January 2004 - 06:08 PM
by Gwynne Dyer
The Daily News
'"That enormous sucking sound you hear," third-party candidate Ross Perot told American voters during the 1992 presidential campaign, "is American jobs disappearing south to Mexico."'
http://64.4.10.250/c...a12%2c00%2ehtml
'But a large chunk of the world's jobs is now open to the lowest international bidder. This is not just a trend; it is an earthquake that is going to reshape the global economy.'
Anatole France
#3
Posted 11 January 2004 - 09:24 PM
I have tremendous respect for Gwynne Dyer. He is probably the most truthful and honest 'reporter'/columnist I have heard for a long time.
However, not sure what sort of debate you hope to arouse by referring to him, or his articles. I expect that they would all be true.
Are you for or against overseas manufacturing? Sure, jobs may be lost in the US, but upper management will be created in the US as marketing execs will 'pimp' the product here. Lots more profit that way, without the overhead.
#4
Posted 13 January 2004 - 02:39 PM
It was only recently that I discovered that Dyer was a columnist, so upon noticing his columns, I was curious to know first of all, if anyone else had heard of him, and if so, what did they think of his musings.
"Two Years on Afghanistan Today'
by Gwynne Dyer
Daily Gleanor, Fredericton, NB
http://www.republico...ARTICLE_ID=1102
'It was probably never taken seriously at the Pentagon, which has always backed its warlord allies against the Karzai government's attempts to assert the authority of the centre. When Karzai tried to fire four or five governors who were running their provinces as personal fiefdoms last May, U.S. officials overruled him.
Until recently the U.S. also blocked every attempt to expand ISAF's role beyond Kabul, because international peacekeeping troops would not tolerate the informal American-warlord alliances that are the norm in rural Afghanistan.
Now the roof is slowly falling in, and U.S. policy is slowly starting to change. More aid money and new Provincial Reconstruction Teams are being sent to Afghanistan, and ISAF is at last being asked to deploy its troops outside of Kabul.
But there is little enthusiasm among NATO countries for playing second fiddle to the U.S. special forces in provincial Afghanistan, and there is still no sign that the U.S. is ready to break with its warlord allies. Three predictions. There will be no internationally recognized free elections in Afghanistan in 2004 (though some sort of charade may be arranged).
U.S. forces will pull out within three years. The Taliban will be back in power within five.'
This post has been edited by maplesyrup: 13 January 2004 - 02:50 PM
Anatole France
#5
Posted 13 January 2004 - 06:15 PM
My faith in his infallibility was shattered however in a lecture he gave in Nov. 1990 at the University of Saskatchewan when he predicted there would not be a war with Iraq. He said these people (Iraqis) are not stupid. They know that within 45 minutes of the outbreak of war, the U.S. Air Force will destroy every scud missile before it can be launched.
Ah, what the heck. He's smarter than me. He made one little error and he sure is entertaining.
#6
Posted 13 January 2004 - 10:26 PM
Gwynne Dyer is one of the most 'straight-shooters' I have ever heard. I missed a recent opportunity to hear him speak, and regret it.
I believe he has served in 3 different country's armed forces, and has a wealth of knowledge and dry wit that I respect greatly.
Too bad he only has 'truth' to offer, and no real 'marketability value'.
#7
Posted 18 November 2004 - 08:39 PM
I was watching CPAQ today and there was Gwynne Dyer being interviewed. This latest article of his is, as usual, exceptionally on target.
Anatole France
#8
Posted 20 November 2004 - 10:24 AM
maplesyrup, on Nov 18 2004, 11:41 PM, said:
I was watching CPAQ today and there was Gwynne Dyer being interviewed. This latest article of his is, as usual, exceptionally on target.
Frankly, though I've seen some insightful comments from Dwyer in the past - this isn't one of them. He is correct that other "powers" opposed US intervention in Iraq, but not for any selfless reasons, nor do they have any care of a US "run amok".
France, Russia and Germany clearly opposed the US in Iraq in part for selfish economic reasons, due to multi-billion dollar contracts their companies held with the former regime, not to mention the bribe money apparently flowing into them from the "oil-for-food" program. I don't believe any of them gave a damn what happened to Iraq, or how many people died. They were operating out of pure self-interst. They wanted to have influence in Iraq, and on its oil money, and thus opposed the US. Let us not forget that while Put in was crying crocodile tears about the possible loss of innocent life in Iraq the Russian military had heavy artillery lined up wheel to wheel outside Chechin cities and was pouring fire indiscriminately into residential neighbourhoods. France has always been the bitch of anyone with money to spend, especially oil money, and Chirac has long been a close friend and ally of Sadaam Hussein. Germany's president was in an election campaign and playing to domestic radical opinions to swing a close race.
#9
Posted 21 November 2004 - 04:41 AM
What they do instead is however, try to honestly find and write what they think from what pieces of this big puzzle they can asemble and fathom. Sometimes leaving out pieces that change the aurgument and other times ading some in that don't really belong. I like them because I am sure they don't do that on purpose and yet, their intelligence gives them great credibility and I find that the facts, are always right on the money when you disassemble their arguments.
For me, the revelation is when reassembling those facts and adding in my own bias I find a fuller truth. For that, I thank them greatly and respect them as well. As I said before, they are not like so many are who rant and then distort truth to jam a round truth into a square holed argument. They use logic and sound arguments.
#11
Posted 21 November 2004 - 09:01 AM
Quote
in September by the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins
University in Baltimore and published online by the British medical journal
"The Lancet" late last month concluded that there have been between 100,000
and 200,000 "excess deaths" among Iraqi civilians since the March, 2003
invasion, and that most of these deaths were due to American air strikes in
civilian areas.
I think we can all acknowledge that this came from a reliable US source.
Anatole France
#12
Posted 21 November 2004 - 11:12 AM
maplesyrup, on Nov 21 2004, 12:03 PM, said:
Quote
in September by the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins
University in Baltimore and published online by the British medical journal
"The Lancet" late last month concluded that there have been between 100,000
and 200,000 "excess deaths" among Iraqi civilians since the March, 2003
invasion, and that most of these deaths were due to American air strikes in
civilian areas.
I think we can all acknowledge that this came from a reliable US source.
100,000 figure discredited
#13
Posted 21 November 2004 - 12:30 PM
The Lancet thread
I hope I'm not being redundant here but since I brought it up I suppose I should provide a link instead of just expecting people to look it up.
I guess Greg will let me know if I should or should not.
#14
Posted 22 November 2004 - 10:55 AM
Quote
That's still conservative. IBC is doing good work, but I think they are limited because they only use reported civilian deaths. Given nature of the insurgency and the predilication of U.S. forces for inflating hostile body counts (in other words, dead Iraqis are posthumously dubbed "insurgents" and thus, would not be counted), I expect the total is far higher. If not 100,000, then at least half that. Sadly, we'll never know for sure.
#15
Posted 09 June 2006 - 12:51 PM
maplesyrup, on Jan 13 2004, 06:41 PM, said:
I guess that Dwyer's still got a chance to be right about the Taliban.
For some reason I can't fathom, our tax dollars are used to pay for a biography of this guy on our government's web site.
I have the impression that before the Internet, nobody ever called these self-described analysts on their pronouncements. If an analyst's predictions are wildly wrong, then what's the point of the analysis?

Add Reply

MultiQuote