Gwynne Dyer's Point Of View

maplesyrup · January 2, 2004

'One war cast the longest shadow, 2003 was a year defined by one war.'

http://allafrica.com/stories/200312310225.html

maplesyrup · January 12, 2004

'US looks at job creator across Pacific'

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/cgi-bin/linkrd?_lang=EN...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.'

theloniusfleabag · January 12, 2004

Dear maplesyrup,

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.

maplesyrup · January 13, 2004

Hi theloniusfleabag......last year, just before the Americans were about to go to Iraq, I had the privilege of attending one of Gwynne Dyer's lectures. He forecast that the Americans would go in and create a mess. Then after 2 years, the rest of the world would have to go in and clean up the mess.

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.republicons.org/view_article.as...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.'

Edited January 13, 2004 by maplesyrup

Stein · January 14, 2004

I've been a "fan" of Gwynne Dyer since I heard his series on War on CBC Radio's program Ideas, in 1980. "If you can't take a joke, you should not have a Defence Budget" was the line he used to introduce the series.

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.

theloniusfleabag · January 14, 2004

Dear Stein and maplesyrup,

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'.

maplesyrup · November 19, 2004

Waiting for Iraq

I was watching CPAQ today and there was Gwynne Dyer being interviewed. This latest article of his is, as usual, exceptionally on target.

Argus · November 20, 2004

Waiting for Iraq
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.

KrustyKidd · November 21, 2004

I like Dyer same as Margolis. Both present intelligent arguments that I can find flaws in but are, ivaritably based on fact however stretched to make their point. Like Chomsky, they rise well above the rant and conspiracy theories but always seem to leave out a larger picture (bet you would never hear that about Chomsky) that over the years, seems to forget that we did not start today yesterday. As we did not start yesterday two hundred years ago. There is and are milions of layer to this onion we try to peel in our discussions and nobody has a 100% reflection on the true answer or even the facts.

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.

Tawasakm · November 21, 2004

I followed the "Waiting for Iraq" link. I notice Dyer is using the same report released by the Lancet which has been pretty well discredited in another thread. So this piece of writing does not appear that insightful.

maplesyrup · November 21, 2004

A survey of 33 randomly selected Iraqi neighbourhoods conducted
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.

Argus · November 21, 2004

A survey of 33 randomly selected Iraqi neighbourhoods conducted
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

Tawasakm · November 21, 2004

Thankyou for providing that link Argus. For anyone who is interested, and to make life easier, here is the link to the actual thread:

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.

Black Dog · November 22, 2004

So, let's call it 15,000 or—allowing for deaths that the press didn't report—20,000 or 25,000, maybe 30,000 Iraqi civilians killed in a pre-emptive war waged (according to the latest rationale) on their behalf. That's a number more solidly rooted in reality than the Hopkins figure—and, given that fact, no less shocking.

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.

August1991 · June 9, 2006

I came across this old thread and quote below from a Gwynne Dyer article published in December 2003.

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.

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?

Riverwind · June 9, 2006

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.
I guess that Dwyer's still got a chance to be right about the Taliban.

The elections in Afganistan were a sham. The gov't does not control large parts of the country and would fall to the Taliban the day after international troops pulled out. What Dyer did get wrong was his prediction that the US's NATO allies would not pick up the slack as the US reduced its commitments. Canada has stepped in and this will delay the inevitable resurgance of the Taliban. Unfortunately, Canadians will eventually tire of watching their solidiers die and will give up in a few years. At that point, the Taliban will return.

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.

Dyer was one of many speakers as part of the skelton lecture series: http://www.international.gc.ca/department/...lectures-en.asp

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?

No analyst, like a MLB player can achieve 100% accuracy. Dyer has been right with some other surprising predictions.

Shady · June 11, 2006

I find that Tom Friedman of the New York Times is much more interesting and knowledgable on middle east issues.

killjoy · June 12, 2006

I have great respect for Gwen Dyer. One of the few I will still listen to. If he were here right now one of the first things he'd probably point out is that you can have a firm grasp of all the information you can possibly gather, you can have years of experience, and you can be brilliant and still turn out to be wrong (at least a little).

So much more refreshing than all the people who wish they could sound like Gwen Dyer (because he's intensely intelligent, well known and has thusly created a fashion of himself without realizing it), and yet don't really understand their own talking points.

.

killjoy · June 12, 2006

The elections in Afganistan were a sham.

Keep telling yourself that. No they weren't. More of them voted than us. There were allegations of voting irregularities (as there often are in a lot of places including here), and it's true that a large (geographically, very little by population) region was unable to participate, but that logistic problem has been worked out for next time. What so many seem not to grasp (or admit) is that even if the first administration is a little composed and rushed it doesn’t change the fact that now the framework has been set for the future. They can do whatever they wish with it. but they were investigated and it turned out to be nothing.

It's an insult to the people who worked so hard to make it happen and to the Afghans who risked their lives to participate to call them a sham. They were, in fact, probably more legitimate than most of ours are.

.

Riverwind · June 12, 2006

Keep telling yourself that. No they weren't. More of them voted than us.

Turnout does not mean much in pratical terms. People turned out in droves to vote for Saddam when he bothered to hold elections. Elections in Afghanistan will mean nothing until the warlords that run the country accept that they can be voted out of power. There is no evidence that this will happen any time soon.

killjoy · June 12, 2006

Whatever. We can argue about this on and on and the only thing we're going to do is get farther and farther away from the word 'sham'. They were not a 'sham'. That's just a 'talking point' from some website without any decent reason to call it a 'sham'. It was every bit as legitimate as any of our elections.

.

Rue · June 12, 2006

I love Gwynne Dyer. I also love Rex Murphy. Newfoundland has produced some great writers and journalists.

He has to be one of the most insightful analysts I have ever read and one would be hard pressed to find his personal biases in what he writes.

So on that point don't ever mention Mr. Dyer in the same sentence as Mr. Margolis who is a raver and ranter and makes sweeping emotional generalizations and manifests his biases in everything he writes.

if you read back Dyer's analysis he does not rave and rant and tell people how to think. He presents both sides of the equation equally and revels in the irony of all conflicts.

I think there is something in the water that makes the people from the Rock such great orators and writers.

killjoy · June 12, 2006

if you read back Dyer's analysis he does not rave and rant and tell people how to think. He presents both sides of the equation equally and revels in the irony of all conflicts.

'sactly.

Riverwind · June 12, 2006

It was every bit as legitimate as any of our elections.

In 2006 the Liberals were defeated according to the rules of our system after running a vicious and divisive campaign. The day after the election Martin started packing up his stuff in 24 Sussex and handed to keys to Harper. In Afghanistan, the regional warlords control most of the country and don't really give a damn about what the voters say. Going through the motions of democracy means nothing in such an environment. Until when that changes Afghanistan elections are a sham.

killjoy · June 12, 2006

K. Yer right Riverwind. It's useless to try and if it isn't perfect the first time you try, then quit and never try again. I'm silly to have doubted the wisdom of that. It was foolish of me to try and agrue the point with you. After all, you heard Gwen.

Afghanistan is a sham. We're just killing people over there and the taliban will always win and i'm sure when we foolish westerners get our asses kicked out of there all will be well, and the peaceful, non-terrorist inspiring/harbouring/creating Taliban will resume it's long record of serving the people so well.

"Can win. Don't try. Gotcha"

-Bart Simpson

.