Future: Tense

happygrump · Dec 1, 2004

Future: Tense
The Coming World Order by Gwynne Dyer

Left-wing lunatics can easily be dismissed. Protestors can be ignored. Cause-of-the-week hippies deserve derision.

Not so with Dyer.

Canadian by birth, Dyer has lived in the UK for much of his professional life. He is one of the very few modern journalists that maintains a global view of the scheme of things, and among the fewer still that understands the potentials when systems collide.

He has a PhD in military history and Middle Eastern history.

He has served in the British, American and Canadian navies.

He has taught at the Royal Military College in Sandhurst, UK.

A prolific writer, speaker and journalist, he wrote the highly-acclaimed 13-part series War based on his book.

In short, he knows his stuff. He cannot be easily dismissed.

You can read about his new book here and herehttp://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20041126.bkchp1127/BNStory/SpecialEvents.

Ranger68 · Dec 1, 2004

An excellent book.

langeweile · Dec 1, 2004

happygrump said:
Future: Tense
The Coming World Order by Gwynne Dyer

Left-wing lunatics can easily be dismissed. Protestors can be ignored. Cause-of-the-week hippies deserve derision.

Not so with Dyer.

Canadian by birth, Dyer has lived in the UK for much of his professional life. He is one of the very few modern journalists that maintains a global view of the scheme of things, and among the fewer still that understands the potentials when systems collide.

He has a PhD in military history and Middle Eastern history.

He has served in the British, American and Canadian navies.

He has taught at the Royal Military College in Sandhurst, UK.

A prolific writer, speaker and journalist, he wrote the highly-acclaimed 13-part series War based on his book.

In short, he knows his stuff. He cannot be easily dismissed.

You can read about his new book here and herehttp://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20041126.bkchp1127/BNStory/SpecialEvents.

To think that the goal of US policy is world domination is just plain stupid and would mean culural suicide for the USA.
To imply that any POTUS would be allowed to do so is total ignorance of the US political system.
The last election has shown that "the facist Bush" only has a 3% mandate.
Any Potus that would suggest a world domination would not survive another election, period.

Ranger68 · Dec 1, 2004

Dyer doesn't propose that the US is interested in "world domination" in the sense that they want to conquer and rule every nation on the planet, just in the sense that they want to be the *foremost, unchallenged economic and military superpower*.

Why would this be cultural suicide for the USA? It has been this way since the end of WWII. It has come as a culture shock to those who are now in power that the US isn't being seen as a necessary bulwark against the perceived aggression of the Soviet Union. In short, the end of the cold war ended the need for US military might, in general.

Dyer never calls Bush a facist (sic) or even a fascist.

Before you consider what the American people would or would not consider, you should be reminded that polls have repeatedly shown that they believe Iraq and Al Qaeda are *strongly* connected, that Iraq had something to do with 9/11. This is a good example of Republican *propaganda*, and it is demonstrably false. Even in a nation with (arguably) as liberal a media as anywhere, the populace can be convinced of almost anything, unfortunately. The Republicans are the masters at this.

The current US administration is quite interested in promoting the goal of US global hegemony, period.

langeweile · Dec 1, 2004

"American military power is not limitless, and the other big powers will not stand for US military domination of the world".

Quote from link

Ranger68 · Dec 1, 2004

Okay, given the explanation I've given you - and single sentences can very easily be taken out of context - what's wrong with that statement?
The US is interested in *continuing its role* as the preeminent global military power, even in the absence of any present opposing superpower.
The other big powers ARE NOT standing for US military domination of the world, starting with Iraq, even though the majority of the US population (a dwindling majority, however, if you belief the polls) is in favour of this step.

So, what's the problem?

The US doesn't want to "dominate the world", except in the fact that it is seen and treated as the preeminent, unchallenged military and economic power. How will the citizens of the US disagree with this proposition?

Peeping Tom · Dec 1, 2004

Bah - a writer of populist rubbish is very easy to dismiss. All this crank wants to do is get a best seller. The value of a work is in its content, not number of copies sold ... I don't see too many policy makers lining up to buy this drivel ...

happygrump said:
In short, he knows his stuff. He cannot be easily dismissed.

[/B]

Ranger68 · Dec 1, 2004

Have either of you two read it?

No?

Then shaddap.

I find it much easier to dismiss the drivel in here than Dyer's well-reasoned arguments, thank you very much.

How many policy-makers do you see on a daily basis, hmm?
LOL

langeweile · Dec 1, 2004

At one point in history " Mein Kampf" was thought to be a "revealing book".

happygrump · Dec 1, 2004

Langeweile... you're much better than this. Comparing Dyer to Hitler, unfortunately, says more about you than about him. But, sadly, it's to be expected as a diversionary tactic by the desperate when arguing with Dyer's facts proves impossible.

BTW... have you read actually Dyer's book? Or would it upset your fragile perception of the world?

langeweile · Dec 1, 2004

happygrump said:
Langeweile... you're much better than this. Comparing Dyer to Hitler, unfortunately, says more about you than about him. But, sadly, it's to be expected as a diversionary tactic by the desperate when arguing with Dyer's facts proves impossible.

BTW... have you read actually Dyer's book? Or would it upset your fragile perception of the world?

I was not comparing Dyer to Hitler!!
According to the excerpts I have read, there are a lot of forward looking statements, which have to be proven or still have to happen. I am not questioning his sincerity nor his intellect. History will tell how right he was or is.
I can't attempt to argue against him. he is obviously much more informed than I am.
My current reading stack is more about the past than the future.
Don't read more in to my line than it was meant to say.

happygrump · Dec 1, 2004

OK, fair enough. Maybe I jumped the gun on the comparison. Sorry, sincere apologies.

Ranger68 · Dec 1, 2004

langeweile said:
At one point in history " Mein Kampf" was thought to be a "revealing book".

What's the point?
I'm sure it WAS, and still IS a revealing book.
So?
The bible is a revealing book. The Quran is a revealing book. The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire is a revealing book.

LOL
What's your point, other than to slam literature? (A favourite pastime of Republicans, I'm sure. Read Fahrenheit 451 for further reference.)

Ranger68 · Dec 1, 2004

langeweile said:
I was not comparing Dyer to Hitler!!
According to the excerpts I have read, there are a lot of forward looking statements, which have to be proven or still have to happen. I am not questioning his sincerity nor his intellect. History will tell how right he was or is.
I can't attempt to argue against him. he is obviously much more informed than I am.
My current reading stack is more about the past than the future.
Don't read more in to my line than it was meant to say.

Ah, but when I espouse views that Dyer himself espouses, you can question *my* intellect. LOL

Funny, that.

langeweile · Dec 1, 2004

Well i will try to explain my point however hopeless it might be..I thought I did, but here it goes again..
Mein Kampf in it's time was thought to be a revealing book. At the time it was considred my a lot of Germans a masterpiece.
History has tought us different. Reading my kampf in hindsight will reveal the stupidity of the whole premise.
The only reason why we are able to do this is ,because we have the luxury of hindsight and history.
While his current predictions might make sense to us today, only history and hindsight will confirm his assumptions.
Again I am not shooting the messenger. I am not questioning his sincerity or intelligence. Nor do i disagreee with his assumption.( I don't have the knowledge to do this anyway), all i am saying is, that time will tell if he is right or not.

BTW I just used my kampf as an example of an missguided ideology. History is full of them.

langeweile · Dec 1, 2004

Ranger68 said:
Ah, but when I espouse views that Dyer himself espouses, you can question *my* intellect. LOL

Funny, that.

maybe it has to do with credibility? i have no idea who you are. Dyer is a public person...you are an anonymus handle on an escort review board, not a very good resume....

Drunken Master · Dec 1, 2004

langeweile said:
maybe it has to do with credibility? i have no idea who you are. Dyer is a public person...you are an anonymus handle on an escort review board, not a very good resume....

Um, well, maybe you should just listen to his opinions, rather than worrying about who he is.

langeweile · Dec 1, 2004

Drunken Master said:
Um, well, maybe you should just listen to his opinions, rather than worrying about who he is.

Don't think so. The source of an opinion or a statement is as important as it's content. Especially on the internet. The internet is a haven for wannabe's and wackos.
I did not imply that either one of you is a wacko or a wannabe!!!
For all i know DM, Ranger, BBK or any other could be all the same person???

And yes I do listen to his opinions, but I don't have to agree nor do i have to make them mine.

Ranger68 · Dec 1, 2004

langeweile said:
maybe it has to do with credibility? i have no idea who you are. Dyer is a public person...you are an anonymus handle on an escort review board, not a very good resume....

Still doesn't make you look good when you slam an opinion one person has *because of who that person is* rather than the argument.
It shows a lack of ability to critically think.

happygrump · Dec 1, 2004

Actually, langeweile has a valid point. For instance, those that come from Toronto and are hockey fans are more likely to be fans of the Leafs than if they were from Montreal. Sometimes, who one is pretty much presupposes the message.

Centerists and leftists make this logical leap with right-wing blowhards like Limbaugh and Coulter all the time.

But in this case, it doesn't wash. Dyer's background, integrity and journalistic ethos simply don't allow for a dismissal of his argument. He is too intelligent, too well-respected, too well-read and has too much background in the armed services to be dismissed as a source without credibility.

To blow off his argument as coming from some sort of biased source simply doesn't make sense.

Future: Tense

Once more into the breach

New member

Banned

New member

Banned

New member

Boil them in Oil

New member

Banned

Once more into the breach

Banned

Once more into the breach

New member

New member

Banned

Banned

*burp*

Banned

New member

Once more into the breach

burp