• Welcome to the ShrimperZone forums.
    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which only gives you limited access.

    Existing Users:.
    Please log-in using your existing username and password. If you have any problems, please see below.

    New Users:
    Join our free community now and gain access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and free. Click here to join.

    Fans from other clubs
    We welcome and appreciate supporters from other clubs who wish to engage in sensible discussion. Please feel free to join as above but understand that this is a moderated site and those who cannot play nicely will be quickly removed.

    Assistance Required
    For help with the registration process or accessing your account, please send a note using the Contact us link in the footer, please include your account name. We can then provide you with a new password and verification to get you on the site.

Bentley's Absurd Gait

Guest
‘It’s all About the Oil’

Since I began posting on this board, you, my fellow Zoners may have noticed that I am a contrary fellow who relishes a good argument. I’m not sure if I was made this way, but I do know that there were three years of my life that were pivotal in my development as an awkward sod.

I was not exactly a mature student, but I entered the London School of Economics at the age of 21, having spent the previous three years in the Queen’s Own Royal Hussars (now the Queen’s Royal Hussars fact fans). LSE is renowned as a politically radical university, which translates as more left-wing than Mitchell Cole and Shami Chakrabarti’s love child. My own political affiliations have been described as somewhat to the right of Genghis Khan, so you can imagine that I was not really ‘in step’ with the ideological rhythm of the student body.

One of my courses was officially titled ‘The Politics of the Middle East’. I preferred to think of it as ‘Why the US and Israel are Horrid’. In retrospect, I was probably looking for trouble when I selected this course option, as I had read extracts from books penned by the Lecturer, and they really didn’t tickle my fancy as a half-American Jewish ex-soldier. In the first seminar, where I revealed myself to be the personification of all that was evil, I felt about as welcome as a Republican in Hollywood.

One of the early discussions concerned the reasons for the first Gulf War. The (almost) universal consensus was ‘Oil!’, ‘US Self-interest!’ and ‘Western Imperialism!’ I exhausted myself trying to argue the opposite point of view, citing Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait, and our responsibility to protect the sovereignty of nations from aggressive dictators. I mentioned the atrocities perpetrated by Saddam’s troops that I had personally witnessed in Kuwait, but my radical friends were unmoved. We were the bad guys because we were fighting for Oil and Western self interest.

Now, with the benefit of hindsight and wisdom aided by maturity (comparatively speaking), I realize that they were right, to a degree. We were fighting for US and Western interests, and not for any noble notion of freedom.

And so what?

Why should we not act to safeguard our interests? Is it such a terrible thing to ensure that we have access to such a vital resource? Do we really want to have a psychotic despot like Saddam sitting on top of a significant part of the World’s fuel supply?

My main gripe with the US and UK governments on the issue of justification for war in Iraq is their lack of balls. Put some fuzz on your peaches and tell it like it is. ‘We’re going over there to get that *******’s finger off the oil switch, and when we’re done with him we’re taking Iran next’. The left and radical Islam is going to hate you whatever you do. The right is peeved with your constant half truths and craving for approval from those who you can never satisfy. If you’re going to be attacked as the Great Satan, you may as well act like him.
 
I like this a lot. Are there going to be more of these?

Iraq pretty much ended my interest in politics. It wasn't just the fact that the information we were given was so clearly, so blatantly, so revoltingly false. It was the fact that every counter-argument was ignored entirely. We all knew that Saddam couldn't kill us in 45 minutes. We all knew that there obviously weren't any weapons of mass destruction. Two million people matched against military action. Two million! It only took 10,000 to stop the Poll Tax. Two million! Never has there been a clearer indication that there is no point in peaceful protest.

But, yes, you're absoluely right. If they had concentrated less on the bull**** and more on the simple, pragmatic facts, it would have been more palatable. And, knowing people, if Blair had just stood up and said, "Look, we can go to war and you can pay a quid a litre or we can wait and see how long it takes before it's five quid a litre," even The Guardian readers would have let him get on with it. After all, those Chelsea tractors don't run themselves.

Excellent stuff, Bentley.
 
All,

this will hopefully be a regular column, so I'm giving it the coveted 'pinned topic' status. Enjoy!
 
The Americans would of been in uproar if they (and the Brits) had not found some excuse to go into Iraq to safeguard the oil.. When have you ever known a politician to tell the truth.. Personally I think it stinks and just go's to show what a self centered world we have become.. Let's look after ourselves and sod the rest ..I have no dispute with removing a dictator like Saddam ...but it seems off to me that the US do sod all about Mugabe and the Sudan with Darfur, but there is no political or economic gain there I Guess....
 
Good read mate.....shows how with experience, age and wisdom you can see the bigger picture.

Good Work BAG
 
BAG's post is a very interesting article irrespective of your political persuasion. This post (and poster) just shows how little we know about each other on SZ. We all have, except for the few posters from other clubs, a unified love of most things SUFC but apart from that the vast majority of us know virtually nothing about people and their lives. The anonimity afforded to people on the Zone does not allow for anything personal to be seen --other than scraps of info published by the members and their friends. That's why Wiggy is either a star-struck small person worshipping lady or a 22 stone bloke with hands the size of Russia, who knows ?
Very few people fill out their profiles so perhaps we should do a "SZ Member, This is Your Life" article.
 
An interesting read miseur, and quite a nice alternative to the usual topics of discussion around here.

I did my MA last year in International Politics, and we studied Iraq to death. My class was very small, and there was one American student who was 100% Republican through and through. Naturally as you can imagine, class debates involved him justifying the war, whilst the 13 others would be humming and hahing against him. Hindsight is a wonderful thing as you say, but even with a non political background before this year (I did my degree in I.T), even i, along with most of the world, could see the the true reasons of why the venture into Iraq. One thing is for sure, the issue sparked some great debate, and i learned a lot from the arguments taking place in class from both sides of the coin.

Just as a matter of interest BAG, et al, Im starting out on the long road to PhD - and have chosen to study Macchiavelli's 'The Prince', and attempt to apply the ideas portrayed in this text to a period of British Imperialism (not decided on a particular period just yet...), so as to see how things may have been handled better or resulted differently according to Macchiavelli... I wouldn't go near Iraq as it is quite a messy issue - but has Bush for example, taken Macchiavelli's advice to an extent, in that whilst it would be nice for him if the people loved him, it is better that they fear him, by invading Iraq under any means necessary: even the false pretences that were WMD's? Even though he must have anticipated the Republican party would take a big hit as a result of extensive soldier casualties and so forth in the coming years?

Hope im making some sort of sense...Been a long week :)
 
Last edited:
Although only 17 and have far greating things to think about over politics, such as drinking and sleeping, I found this a good read BAG.

One thing that still concerns me over US politics was 911 and the conspiracy surrounding that. Whether or not it is I don't think we'll ever find out.
 
An interesting read miseur, and quite a nice alternative to the usual topics of discussion around here.

I did my MA last year in International Politics, and we studied Iraq to death. My class was very small, and there was one American student who was 100% Republican through and through. Naturally as you can imagine, class debates involved him justifying the war, whilst the 13 others would be humming and hahing against him. Hindsight is a wonderful thing as you say, but even with a non political background before this year (I did my degree in I.T), even i, along with most of the world, could see the the true reasons of why the venture into Iraq. One thing is for sure, the issue sparked some great debate, and i learned a lot from the arguments taking place in class from both sides of the coin.

Just as a matter of interest BAG, et al, Im starting out on the long road to PhD - and have chosen to study Macchiavelli's 'The Prince', and attempt to apply the ideas portrayed in this text to a period of British Imperialism (not decided on a particular period just yet...), so as to see how things may have been handled better or resulted differently according to Macchiavelli... I wouldn't go near Iraq as it is quite a messy issue - but has Bush for example, taken Macchiavelli's advice to an extent, in that whilst it would be nice for him if the people loved him, it is better that they fear him, by invading Iraq under any means necessary: even the false pretences that were WMD's? Even though he must have anticipated the Republican party would take a big hit as a result of extensive soldier casualties and so forth in the coming years?

Hope im making some sort of sense...Been a long week :)

I think Dubya's motives were more pragmatic, and that he hoped the Iraq war would reinforce the 'love' of traditional Republican supporters, whilst also attracting voters stung out of apathy by 9/11. I don't think Bush wants to be feared, but he is not afraid to be loathed by those at the other end of the political spectrum. As for the casualties and opposition to the war, I firmly believe that the US strategists completely underestimated the problems they were likely to face, and some form of exit strategy will be essential for the next President, whoever it may be.

Although only 17 and have far greating things to think about over politics, such as drinking and sleeping, I found this a good read BAG.

One thing that still concerns me over US politics was 911 and the conspiracy surrounding that. Whether or not it is I don't think we'll ever find out.

As a person on the right of the political spectrum, I should be dismissive of conspiracy theories, but 9/11, like the Kennedy assassination, just throws up too many anomalies for there to be nothing going on beneath the surface. I believe the last plane was shot down by a US fighter, and I am 50/50 on whether it was a plane or a missile that hit the Pentagon. Have a look at 'The New Pearl Harbour' by David Griffin, interesting stuff.
 
‘It’s all About the Oil’

Since I began posting on this board, you, my fellow Zoners may have noticed that I am a contrary fellow who relishes a good argument. I’m not sure if I was made this way, but I do know that there were three years of my life that were pivotal in my development as an awkward sod.

I was not exactly a mature student, but I entered the London School of Economics at the age of 21, having spent the previous three years in the Queen’s Own Royal Hussars (now the Queen’s Royal Hussars fact fans). LSE is renowned as a politically radical university, which translates as more left-wing than Mitchell Cole and Shami Chakrabarti’s love child. My own political affiliations have been described as somewhat to the right of Genghis Khan, so you can imagine that I was not really ‘in step’ with the ideological rhythm of the student body.

One of my courses was officially titled ‘The Politics of the Middle East’. I preferred to think of it as ‘Why the US and Israel are Horrid’. In retrospect, I was probably looking for trouble when I selected this course option, as I had read extracts from books penned by the Lecturer, and they really didn’t tickle my fancy as a half-American Jewish ex-soldier. In the first seminar, where I revealed myself to be the personification of all that was evil, I felt about as welcome as a Republican in Hollywood.

One of the early discussions concerned the reasons for the first Gulf War. The (almost) universal consensus was ‘Oil!’, ‘US Self-interest!’ and ‘Western Imperialism!’ I exhausted myself trying to argue the opposite point of view, citing Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait, and our responsibility to protect the sovereignty of nations from aggressive dictators. I mentioned the atrocities perpetrated by Saddam’s troops that I had personally witnessed in Kuwait, but my radical friends were unmoved. We were the bad guys because we were fighting for Oil and Western self interest.

Now, with the benefit of hindsight and wisdom aided by maturity (comparatively speaking), I realize that they were right, to a degree. We were fighting for US and Western interests, and not for any noble notion of freedom.

And so what?

Why should we not act to safeguard our interests? Is it such a terrible thing to ensure that we have access to such a vital resource? Do we really want to have a psychotic despot like Saddam sitting on top of a significant part of the World’s fuel supply?

My main gripe with the US and UK governments on the issue of justification for war in Iraq is their lack of balls. Put some fuzz on your peaches and tell it like it is. ‘We’re going over there to get that *******’s finger off the oil switch, and when we’re done with him we’re taking Iran next’. The left and radical Islam is going to hate you whatever you do. The right is peeved with your constant half truths and craving for approval from those who you can never satisfy. If you’re going to be attacked as the Great Satan, you may as well act like him.
Quite right B.A.G but my question to you is can the Blueboys gain promotion,that is the real concern
 
The Americans would of been in uproar if they (and the Brits) had not found some excuse to go into Iraq to safeguard the oil.. When have you ever known a politician to tell the truth.. Personally I think it stinks and just go's to show what a self centered world we have become.. Let's look after ourselves and sod the rest ..I have no dispute with removing a dictator like Saddam ...but it seems off to me that the US do sod all about Mugabe and the Sudan with Darfur, but there is no political or economic gain there I Guess....


But where is the polictical or economical gain from Afganistan? Didn't we go in there under the pretence of 'The War on Terrorism' The Taliban put the place back into the Stone Age years ago and as far as I can tell, it still is. Unless the US & UK are moving into poppy cultivation then I fail where the gain is.

As for Sudan and Mugabe, I'll say the magic word that stops them in their tracks. Africa.
 
BAG's post is a very interesting article irrespective of your political persuasion. This post (and poster) just shows how little we know about each other on SZ. We all have, except for the few posters from other clubs, a unified love of most things SUFC but apart from that the vast majority of us know virtually nothing about people and their lives. The anonimity afforded to people on the Zone does not allow for anything personal to be seen --other than scraps of info published by the members and their friends. That's why Wiggy is either a star-struck small person worshipping lady or a 22 stone bloke with hands the size of Russia, who knows ?
Very few people fill out their profiles so perhaps we should do a "SZ Member, This is Your Life" article.

Generally, I've found this to be quite an ideal situation. When you take out the tone, the volume and the body language, all that is left is the content without outside influence. In terms of the main forum, where I solely resided for my first few years, that was ideal.

As I used the pub more, it changes your outlook somewhat and obviously joining SZFC for half a season puts quite a strain on anonymity.

I actually still quite enjoy the semi-anonymity on here. I can hide the embarassing witty, charismatic, handsome reality behind an essay-writing, sarcastic nob. I dare say one or two others are trying my approach too.

Very much enjoyed the article and the real way to show appreciation is of course to responed but I've just noticed it's twenty to five and the only way I'm getting out on time is to actually do some work.
 
I never though i'd see my Guardian-reading, bleeding-heart-liberal fingers type these words, but I had a slightly similar experience to BAG (admittedly, without the 3 years in the army). During my 3rd year at uni (I'm now in my 7th, working towards a PhD which will hopefully be submitted next year), I took a course called 'Contemporary US Foreign Policy', which was obviously quite politically charged coming 2 years after 9/11.

In my situation however, it was interesting to find that it was the several American students in the class who were the strongest critics of Bush et al. Well, maybe not that interesting- i suspect the type of Yanks who want to come and study politics at a left-leaning UK campus uni are those who aren't pre-disposed towards their nation's foreign policy. I often ended up supporting US govt positions in the seminars- partially to play devil's advocate, and partially because the various rich, whiny Americans became very annoying.

The result was that I eventually wrote a final project on the US's refusal to engage with the International Criminal Court. This was something on which I was 100% sure i disagreed with the American stance, and to be honest still do. But, as with pretty much every political debate you can think of, it becomes a lot more complex the more you devote some time to it, and the project's cautious conclusion had to reflect that.

Am doing a similar thing now over the course of several years about citizenship in the UK, which is leading to some pretty interesting conclusions about multi-culturalism, 'Britishness' and the like- things that I wouldn't have expected at the start of the project. I may rant about them at some point, but for now i suppose the relatively vague conclusions of this post are that a) things have a tendency to be more complex than you'd like, and b) that an open mind is a valuable thing. hoorah.
 
Week 2 - Acceptable Prejudice

Before I launch into another tirade, I would like to thank the owners and readers of SZ for your positive feedback towards my first column, and I hope that I can provoke some more lively debate this week.

Acceptable Prejudice

'Political Correctness' is a very soft target, and one I'm happy to leave in the capable hands of Richard Littlejohn as a general rule, but there is one part of this liberal theology that I wish to address. Liberals claim to despise prejudice, stereotypes, inequality etc etc, but their claims don't really stack up. There are plenty of people belonging to minority groups who are the subject of ridicule and contempt from the liberal 'elite', and it is my contention that most of us posting on here belong to one of those groups.

We're here because we support Southend United (or because we're Leeds supporters moaning or Doncaster/Swansea fans trying to ingratiate ourselves), and Southend is a 'home town' team. I would guess that virtually all of us have our roots close to the home of our beloved Shrimpers, wherever we may be now.

That means all the men are idiots and all the women are slags. And idiots. It's a well trodden path, but the Essex man/girl 'joke' is still around, and it's still offensive and annoying. It's also perfectly acceptable to call someone's intelligence and morality into question based on the county where they were born. When Tony Blair made an unfortunate quip about the Welsh, he was investigated for hate crimes, can you imagine the same thing happening every time some tenth rate comic aims a barb at Essex.

The same thing exists in the United States, but is spread over a wider area. I have roots in Alabama (where the skies are so blue), and that makes me a racist, an inbred, a redneck, an idiot and a fervent anti-Semite. There are people like this in Alabama, and in every state of the Union, just like there are Jews who are tight with money (this site is free isn't it?), militant Muslims and drug-dealing blacks. However, you can only apply the weaknesses of the few to the rest of the populace when the few are from Essex or the Southern States of the US.

Essex man is held responsible by the Left for the Thatcher years, whilst the men and women of Dixie are blamed for Reagan. Now both leaders are long gone (RIP Ronnie), they both score highly in opinion polls regarding approval of former premiers. However, the 'chattering classes' still hold their grudges, and whilst they set the cultural rules, both groups of people will not be forgiven.
 
the one thing i'd critique in that is to say that 'liberal elite' and 'chattering classes' are themselves cultural stereotypes. Just like jokes about Essex and rednecks, they perpetuate a myth of anyone left-leaning who's outside of the trade union movement as a slightly cringing, overly PC, champagne socialist from North London. and just like jokes about Essex and rednecks, they have some basis in truth but are thrown around a little too readily.

Your major point is correct and well made though- most people have their prejudices no matter how much they try and deny it, and all these terms have the capacity to get in the way of reasoned debate.
 
the one thing i'd critique in that is to say that 'liberal elite' and 'chattering classes' are themselves cultural stereotypes. Just like jokes about Essex and rednecks, they perpetuate a myth of anyone left-leaning who's outside of the trade union movement as a slightly cringing, overly PC, champagne socialist from North London. and just like jokes about Essex and rednecks, they have some basis in truth but are thrown around a little too readily.

Your major point is correct and well made though- most people have their prejudices no matter how much they try and deny it, and all these terms have the capacity to get in the way of reasoned debate.

Loz, I regret that you've got me 'bang to rights'. You b@stard!!!

I am editing this post just to make sure everyone knows I'm joking. Respect to Loz for calling me out on this.
 
To me , there is a subtle dividing line between banter and bigotry. Kent and Essex have some type of unwritten rivalry (a bit like Southend and Canvey) so comments to or about those from accross the ditch have an air of acceptability. but Someone from the wilds of Yorkshire making Essex girl gags just smacks of ignorance. Similarly Southerners calling everyone the other side of Watford "Northern Monkeys"

Personally, I am not a fan of insults per se. Corrections of factually incorrect comments or objecting to what someone says...fine (obviously) but random insults based on what the person looks like , where they come from etc (usually preceded and followed by a profanity) just smack of an ignorant knee jerk reaction , without having anything useful to add to the discussion.

Perhaps I am being a little oversensitive, as a Glasses wearing, left of centre, working class, Essex boy, with a Welsh Wife and a Ginger Son I have been on the end of most of them ....
 
Back
Top