Sheryl Crow's Humble Opinion and Search for The Truth
Posted: Sat Mar 15, 2003 2:13 am
Dear Fan Forum Members and Whomever Else This May Concern,
I realize there is an extensive debate as to the pertinence of celebrity opinion on the war. It has never been my intention, as any of you who know me or who have followed me know, to assume my opinion to be more important than others' opinions, as the media world would have you believe.
I consider myself a citizen of the world as well as a proud American. I love my country and all it has to offer. I believe in the pathos it was founded on...the right to express what one feels without loss of freedom, the right to worship, the right to vote, the right to bear arms in a respectful manner, etc. I am not un-American in my stance but simply exercising my right to free speech. Because I am in the public eye, I receive more attention than perhaps the average antiwar activist. However, I have never claimed my opinion to outweigh the opinions of others. It is my belief that the dialogue is as important as the side being defended.
I believe this war has been in the making for a long time, and I believe it is conceivable that in the long view, the outcome, whatever that may be, could heal a wound that has been festering between Muslims and Christians for centuries. It is my concern and my hope that citizens of this country will think for themselves, educate themselves, find out all there is to know about why we are considering attacking Saddam now without the support of our allies. It is my belief that there is an abundance of information that is public record that actually addresses these issues....the issues of preemptive strikes, preventive strikes, our philosophy on creating and ruling a world empire, our necessity to have a military unchallengable by any other military, our plan to keep a military operation in Iraq to protect our interests in Israel.
There are many questions that beg to be asked. Some are being asked
rhetorically by many journalists, including a great writer at the New York
Times by the name of Daniel Friedman. For example-if we are claiming that we are going into Iraq to save it's people from such an oppressive regime and such heinous human rights infractions, then why are we not addressing these situations in other Middle Eastern countries that are our allies? What is the standard? Is there a way to justify the human loss that we can expect from this war....our own as well as innocent Iraqis?
If this is a war not based on our own interests in oil, then why is it that
our government is offering tax cuts to businesses who purchase SUVs as
company cars?
(I would challenge all those who support this war, which is over three-fourths of this country, to trade in your gas guzzlers and buy a small
car or a hybrid or at least a more economical car, that way we ensure that we are never reliant on overseas oil supplies. That is the least we can do to support our soldiers who are fighting on our behalf for the freedoms we enjoy. I own a hybrid and although it is not the fanciest, most powerful
car, it gets us around. I am currently selling my BMW SUV).
I would also encourage all of you to look up the PAX Americana. This is the doctrine which has been adopted, in part, by our Security Council and is public record as the National Security Strategy, a document in which each administration outlines its approach to defending the country. It clearly states our stance on our position in the world. It was drawn up by Paul Wolfowitz, under George Bush, Sr., who is now serving under George Bush, Jr. The doctrine was leaked in 1992 but was considered to be so ridiculous and inscrutable by those who got wind of it that Pres Bush Sr. was forced to publicly repudiate it. It has since been approved and adopted by the current Bush administration, which is made up of many of the same names who served under Bush, Sr. and who have been called "Iraq hawks." The doctrine states that America will allow no military more powerful than it's own. It states that we reserve the right to not only strike preemptively but preventively....in other words, we reserve the right to strike a country to prevent it from striking us first, even without the aid or support of our allies. This basically means that the World Community we have worked so hard since World War II to establish will no longer exist under any rules of fairness. Such an approach renders international norms of self-defense--enshrined by Article 51 of the UN Charter--almost meaningless. The doctrine is based on the desire of a few to establish America as the sole World Leader, the head of an Empire, the Czar of the World, which is entitled to attack if anyone steps out of line.
These are harsh concepts and I urge you to investigate (See Links at bottom of page) Mark Danner's Oct. 9, 2002 article entitled ‘The Struggles Of Democracy And Empire’ in the NY Times, and Todd S. Purdum's NY Times article on Feb. 1, 2003 entitled ‘The Brains Behind Bush's War’, and Jay Bookman's ‘The President's Real Goal In Iraq’ in the Atlanta-Constitution: 9/29/02 and make your own conclusions.
As I've said, this is all public information. (The most informative article I have found was in a publication of Foreign Affairs Sept/Oct Volume 81, Number 5 in an article called ‘America's Imperial Ambition’ by G. John Ikenberry.)
I feel I must address the issue of my visit to Bosnia in 1996 for it seems to have many people criticizing my intentions. I went to Bosnia to entertain the American troops who had been stationed there for quite some time in our military effort to keep a presence there. The trip was presented to me through the then First Lady. Before traveling to Bosnia, I was briefed of the low morale the troops were experiencing because of the open-ended campaign there. The soldiers, men and women, were hoping to be able to return to the States in time for Christmas but instead had learned that their stay would be indefinite.
I learned more about war from my trip than I had ever known of it through history books and films. The Bosnians who were forced from their homes and villages, were unable to return without the presence of NATO troops to protect them. They had to be protected in order to return home, or what was left of their homes, and to return to their precincts to vote. The country side, which we helicoptered over, was destroyed, smoking and war-torn, leaving very little to salvage. There were landmines 3 layers deep with much looting still going on even with the presence of stray bullets and unexploded bombs.
I was honored and glad to play for the American troops, as well as NATO
troops, not out of my support for war but for my support for my country and the good people who protect the freedoms we enjoy. I would entertain the troops again, even in the exchange we may be entering into now, because I support the work our fine soldiers do.
It is more important now than ever that we align ourselves with truth. The
truth is not always clear cut. You must find it yourself and stand up for
what you believe. It is my belief that what we are entering into is bigger
than our President and his staff and Saddam Hussein. It is egotistical to think that anyone will be able to control the outcome. The mistrust for America outside our country has been brewing for a long time. And in the long view, as I have said, the strife that we may be entering is an age old one, based on the disagreements of religious peoples and the desire to control monetary interests. It is very possible that out of this strife, generations from now, that healing may begin between Christians and Muslims. It won't be solely because of two leaders. Our attacking Iraq, in an attempt at making America a safer place, has not been connected to 9-11 or to the Al Qaeda, as some want to believe. However, many believe we will see more terrorism than ever, under the guise of Jihad, if we attack the Muslim world.
Align yourselves with truth. Pray for our leaders. Pray for our enemies and for our troops and their families. Pray for the generations who come after us who will have to pay the bill for what we are about to enter. And lastly, pray for our ailing planet. She will suffer like never before if this
disagreement turns nuclear.
I respect your opinion and as I've said, these are the opinions of one
person....famous or not. I am part of a growing dialogue including peoples
from all walks of life, not just celebrities. It's important to be in the
ongoing debate in search of truth.
Sheryl Crow
March 13th 2003
Links to the Articles...if these fail to work you will find that if you just type the article title into a search engine such as Google- it comes up pretty quick...
Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations
The Struggles of Democracy and Empire by Mark Danner
The Brains Behind Bush's War by Todd S. Purdum
The President's Real Goal in Iraq by Jay Bookman
America's Imperial Ambition by G. John Ikenberry
More in depth reading...
The Bush Administration's National Security Strategy of the United States of America
Now it's my turn.
I'm glad she explained why she performed for the troops in 1996 and was relieved to hear that she supports the troops even in this upcoming war. Some of the other stuff...like the SUVs...I still found hypocritical, and the "save the environment" message was a little cheesy. :? For the record: I don't like SUVs either. But someone who bashes SUVs and at the same time owns one sounds hypocritical. I didn't read the links, though. (Short attention span...I know...I'm working on it 
)
I realize there is an extensive debate as to the pertinence of celebrity opinion on the war. It has never been my intention, as any of you who know me or who have followed me know, to assume my opinion to be more important than others' opinions, as the media world would have you believe.
I consider myself a citizen of the world as well as a proud American. I love my country and all it has to offer. I believe in the pathos it was founded on...the right to express what one feels without loss of freedom, the right to worship, the right to vote, the right to bear arms in a respectful manner, etc. I am not un-American in my stance but simply exercising my right to free speech. Because I am in the public eye, I receive more attention than perhaps the average antiwar activist. However, I have never claimed my opinion to outweigh the opinions of others. It is my belief that the dialogue is as important as the side being defended.
I believe this war has been in the making for a long time, and I believe it is conceivable that in the long view, the outcome, whatever that may be, could heal a wound that has been festering between Muslims and Christians for centuries. It is my concern and my hope that citizens of this country will think for themselves, educate themselves, find out all there is to know about why we are considering attacking Saddam now without the support of our allies. It is my belief that there is an abundance of information that is public record that actually addresses these issues....the issues of preemptive strikes, preventive strikes, our philosophy on creating and ruling a world empire, our necessity to have a military unchallengable by any other military, our plan to keep a military operation in Iraq to protect our interests in Israel.
There are many questions that beg to be asked. Some are being asked
rhetorically by many journalists, including a great writer at the New York
Times by the name of Daniel Friedman. For example-if we are claiming that we are going into Iraq to save it's people from such an oppressive regime and such heinous human rights infractions, then why are we not addressing these situations in other Middle Eastern countries that are our allies? What is the standard? Is there a way to justify the human loss that we can expect from this war....our own as well as innocent Iraqis?
If this is a war not based on our own interests in oil, then why is it that
our government is offering tax cuts to businesses who purchase SUVs as
company cars?
(I would challenge all those who support this war, which is over three-fourths of this country, to trade in your gas guzzlers and buy a small
car or a hybrid or at least a more economical car, that way we ensure that we are never reliant on overseas oil supplies. That is the least we can do to support our soldiers who are fighting on our behalf for the freedoms we enjoy. I own a hybrid and although it is not the fanciest, most powerful
car, it gets us around. I am currently selling my BMW SUV).
I would also encourage all of you to look up the PAX Americana. This is the doctrine which has been adopted, in part, by our Security Council and is public record as the National Security Strategy, a document in which each administration outlines its approach to defending the country. It clearly states our stance on our position in the world. It was drawn up by Paul Wolfowitz, under George Bush, Sr., who is now serving under George Bush, Jr. The doctrine was leaked in 1992 but was considered to be so ridiculous and inscrutable by those who got wind of it that Pres Bush Sr. was forced to publicly repudiate it. It has since been approved and adopted by the current Bush administration, which is made up of many of the same names who served under Bush, Sr. and who have been called "Iraq hawks." The doctrine states that America will allow no military more powerful than it's own. It states that we reserve the right to not only strike preemptively but preventively....in other words, we reserve the right to strike a country to prevent it from striking us first, even without the aid or support of our allies. This basically means that the World Community we have worked so hard since World War II to establish will no longer exist under any rules of fairness. Such an approach renders international norms of self-defense--enshrined by Article 51 of the UN Charter--almost meaningless. The doctrine is based on the desire of a few to establish America as the sole World Leader, the head of an Empire, the Czar of the World, which is entitled to attack if anyone steps out of line.
These are harsh concepts and I urge you to investigate (See Links at bottom of page) Mark Danner's Oct. 9, 2002 article entitled ‘The Struggles Of Democracy And Empire’ in the NY Times, and Todd S. Purdum's NY Times article on Feb. 1, 2003 entitled ‘The Brains Behind Bush's War’, and Jay Bookman's ‘The President's Real Goal In Iraq’ in the Atlanta-Constitution: 9/29/02 and make your own conclusions.
As I've said, this is all public information. (The most informative article I have found was in a publication of Foreign Affairs Sept/Oct Volume 81, Number 5 in an article called ‘America's Imperial Ambition’ by G. John Ikenberry.)
I feel I must address the issue of my visit to Bosnia in 1996 for it seems to have many people criticizing my intentions. I went to Bosnia to entertain the American troops who had been stationed there for quite some time in our military effort to keep a presence there. The trip was presented to me through the then First Lady. Before traveling to Bosnia, I was briefed of the low morale the troops were experiencing because of the open-ended campaign there. The soldiers, men and women, were hoping to be able to return to the States in time for Christmas but instead had learned that their stay would be indefinite.
I learned more about war from my trip than I had ever known of it through history books and films. The Bosnians who were forced from their homes and villages, were unable to return without the presence of NATO troops to protect them. They had to be protected in order to return home, or what was left of their homes, and to return to their precincts to vote. The country side, which we helicoptered over, was destroyed, smoking and war-torn, leaving very little to salvage. There were landmines 3 layers deep with much looting still going on even with the presence of stray bullets and unexploded bombs.
I was honored and glad to play for the American troops, as well as NATO
troops, not out of my support for war but for my support for my country and the good people who protect the freedoms we enjoy. I would entertain the troops again, even in the exchange we may be entering into now, because I support the work our fine soldiers do.
It is more important now than ever that we align ourselves with truth. The
truth is not always clear cut. You must find it yourself and stand up for
what you believe. It is my belief that what we are entering into is bigger
than our President and his staff and Saddam Hussein. It is egotistical to think that anyone will be able to control the outcome. The mistrust for America outside our country has been brewing for a long time. And in the long view, as I have said, the strife that we may be entering is an age old one, based on the disagreements of religious peoples and the desire to control monetary interests. It is very possible that out of this strife, generations from now, that healing may begin between Christians and Muslims. It won't be solely because of two leaders. Our attacking Iraq, in an attempt at making America a safer place, has not been connected to 9-11 or to the Al Qaeda, as some want to believe. However, many believe we will see more terrorism than ever, under the guise of Jihad, if we attack the Muslim world.
Align yourselves with truth. Pray for our leaders. Pray for our enemies and for our troops and their families. Pray for the generations who come after us who will have to pay the bill for what we are about to enter. And lastly, pray for our ailing planet. She will suffer like never before if this
disagreement turns nuclear.
I respect your opinion and as I've said, these are the opinions of one
person....famous or not. I am part of a growing dialogue including peoples
from all walks of life, not just celebrities. It's important to be in the
ongoing debate in search of truth.
Sheryl Crow
March 13th 2003
Links to the Articles...if these fail to work you will find that if you just type the article title into a search engine such as Google- it comes up pretty quick...
Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations
The Struggles of Democracy and Empire by Mark Danner
The Brains Behind Bush's War by Todd S. Purdum
The President's Real Goal in Iraq by Jay Bookman
America's Imperial Ambition by G. John Ikenberry
More in depth reading...
The Bush Administration's National Security Strategy of the United States of America
Now it's my turn.
I'm glad she explained why she performed for the troops in 1996 and was relieved to hear that she supports the troops even in this upcoming war. Some of the other stuff...like the SUVs...I still found hypocritical, and the "save the environment" message was a little cheesy. :? For the record: I don't like SUVs either. But someone who bashes SUVs and at the same time owns one sounds hypocritical. I didn't read the links, though. (Short attention span...I know...I'm working on it )
