From: owner-sheryl-crew-digest@smoe.org (sheryl-crew-digest) To: sheryl-crew-digest@smoe.org Subject: sheryl-crew-digest V6 #48 Reply-To: sheryl-crew@smoe.org Sender: owner-sheryl-crew-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-sheryl-crew-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk sheryl-crew-digest Saturday, March 22 2003 Volume 06 : Number 048 Today's Subjects: ----------------- [sheryl-crew] Re: Late News. ["Laurence Cazes" ] Re: [sheryl-crew] Re: Late News. [Harinder_GREWAL@mcds.gov.sg] Re: [sheryl-crew] Re: Late News. [RJettman@aol.com] Re: [sheryl-crew] Re: Late News. [xmystery79@aol.com] [sheryl-crew] A request/reminder [xmystery79@aol.com] Re: [sheryl-crew] My opinion - ["Anne Etienne" ] Re: [sheryl-crew] My opinion - [RJettman@aol.com] Re: [sheryl-crew] My opinion - [XMystery79@aol.com] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 18:24:46 +0100 From: "Laurence Cazes" Subject: [sheryl-crew] Re: Late News. Hi Crew, I haven't much read the list the past few weeks... just did because I asked a peep I knew when the forum would reopen and she told me it was posted by Gregg on here. > As you maybe are aware, the fan forum on Sheryl's official site is off-line > for the moment. Sheryl's last letter was quoted last night in the Drudge > Report (www.drudgereport.com) and that's where they apparently came from. The > flames and hatred got to be too much for me to handle as moderator and this > morning Interscope shut the site down. Well... I went to look up that site because I was angry at the trolls and what do I get as a pop-up? Boycott France. Oh boy, it would really suck to be them. What next? Should the French people boycott US products because they disagree with us? We don't do that (to my knowledge) - and if they were at least a little sensible, they'd understand that most of the 'French' stuff they get is how US people make a living. Anyway - sorry for this pointless mail (maybe not to some peeps there), I just had to rant ;) And I'm certainly NOT be visiting that Drudge Report website again :-P Laurence (French, obviously) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 11:15:01 +0800 From: Harinder_GREWAL@mcds.gov.sg Subject: Re: [sheryl-crew] Re: Late News. Hey Laurence, Dont worry about the anti-French backlash in the US. The French are heroes to many more people out there for sticking to your principles and respecting humanity. I for one, will choose French products if there are competing brands, just because of this boycott nonsense. cheers, harin "Laurence Cazes" fr> cc: Sent by: Subject: [sheryl-crew] Re: Late News. owner-sheryl-cre w@smoe.org 22/03/2003 01:24 AM Hi Crew, I haven't much read the list the past few weeks... just did because I asked a peep I knew when the forum would reopen and she told me it was posted by Gregg on here. > As you maybe are aware, the fan forum on Sheryl's official site is off-line > for the moment. Sheryl's last letter was quoted last night in the Drudge > Report (www.drudgereport.com) and that's where they apparently came from. The > flames and hatred got to be too much for me to handle as moderator and this > morning Interscope shut the site down. Well... I went to look up that site because I was angry at the trolls and what do I get as a pop-up? Boycott France. Oh boy, it would really suck to be them. What next? Should the French people boycott US products because they disagree with us? We don't do that (to my knowledge) - and if they were at least a little sensible, they'd understand that most of the 'French' stuff they get is how US people make a living. Anyway - sorry for this pointless mail (maybe not to some peeps there), I just had to rant ;) And I'm certainly NOT be visiting that Drudge Report website again :-P Laurence (French, obviously) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 22:53:17 EST From: RJettman@aol.com Subject: Re: [sheryl-crew] Re: Late News. In a message dated 3/21/2003 10:18:20 PM Eastern Standard Time, Harinder_GREWAL@mcds.gov.sg writes: > Hey Laurence, > > Dont worry about the anti-French backlash in the US. The French are heroes > to many more people out there for sticking to your principles and > respecting humanity. I for one, will choose French products if there are > competing brands, just because of this boycott nonsense. > > cheers, > harin > I won't. Everybody hates a tyrant, but when the time comes to actually do something about it, no one wants to do the heavy lifting. The UN indicted Saddam years ago for war crimes, and still, won't act. And here comes France, with their veto power, continuing the UN streak of ineffectual, unenforced resolutions. You guys should really keep this political crap off the list. Nothing good is going to come of it. Rick ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 23:39:11 -0500 From: xmystery79@aol.com Subject: Re: [sheryl-crew] Re: Late News. First off, I want to say that this kind of thread is okay...as long as it doesn't start turning into a flame war or a bash thread. I don't want to deal with those and neither do the majority of the people on this list. That being said, I think that this Anti-French boycott is being WAY over reported and almost fabricated by the media...I don't know one single person who is doing it and I think that it's just creating a false sense among the French that there is Anti-French sentiment in the United States. I'm not seeing it in my daily life. There might be a little of it online, but just as many of the French have reported, there isn't a lot of anti U.S rallies going on in France, much as the media might want you to believe. People in this country like their French wines, breads, and cheeses. Don't worry...I doubt the French imports in the U.S. will suffer. :) I also think that it's silly to respond with an Anti-America boycott...there are a lot of American products out there. Do you use Windows on your P.C.? The Internet was developed in the U.S...etc. It just gets impractical in my opinion to start boycotting things because of a political situation. However if someone chooses to do it, more power to them. You have more resolve than I ever would. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 23:48:56 -0500 From: xmystery79@aol.com Subject: [sheryl-crew] A request/reminder Just wanted to ask you all that if you reply to a long message, when you copy the original message only to include the parts you feel are important to your point. Otherwise, it will bounce because it's too long. Thanks. Also, just a general reminder to keep it civil. If someone says something that really upsets you, I would ask you to not flame them on the list. Write to them, explain your concern and or/ ask me to intervene. Respect the other person's point of view and be civil. That's all. Have fun. This list is for everyone to enjoy. Thanks, - -Phyllis ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 10:35:06 -0600 From: "Anne Etienne" Subject: Re: [sheryl-crew] My opinion - Ok, well... I really thik some people should get the facts before they speak. If you go after Saddam because he is a dictator and killed innocent lives, then, there remains a lot of work to be done... there are about 50 other ruthless dictatros around the world, the only problem is, they either don't have oil or they are too big a threat for the US or any other country to even begin to think about a military attack - who would go after China or N. Korea? Thus, Bush has an easy target to have citizens forget about the state of the economy and the fiasco of Afghanistan and the fact Bin Laden is still running around... Unfortunately, the only person who will trully benefit from a war is Bin Laden himself for this war will awaken muslims in a currently secular country -yes, Hussein is a secular dictator and hates Bin Laden - which will provide plenty frustated Arabs to Bin Laden... I guarantee terrorism will burst, especially against the US for it seems many European democracies ahve understood that quite possible consequence of a war on an Arab country. These stars are protesting because Bush's war on Iraq is illegitimate; on the contrary, the WWII was legitimate and grounded... I am getting my PhD in political science with an emphasis on international politics, moreover, I assistant a professor who is specialized in Middle Eastern affairs, if you want to know the fact and know more about the characteristics of Middle Eastern politics, read scholarly journal... not speeches or newspapers that remain highly normative and grounded on biases views. That was my two cents for the day. in summation, I totally support Sheryl's stand on the war issue for she seems to have done the research (I recall her quotin Foreign Affairs, and some scholars) and apparantly knows more about what she is talking about than most people in the country... It's too sad that scholars have kept relatively quite about the whole issue, it's not about fighting or not fighting the war personally, it's about protecting the right of sovereign states, promoting an international regime (i.e. police force) that would oversee and correct human rights abusers, cooperation amongst countries... Moreover, what are the motives behind this war? How legitimate are they??? Sorry for this long post, but, as you, I had kept silent... Anne - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 00:16:59 EST From: RJettman@aol.com Subject: Re: [sheryl-crew] My opinion - Keep working on that degree. You are about as uniformed as one can be. First, as far as terrorism is concerned, they hate us, and always will. When they bombed the Marine barracks in 1983, our response was nothing. The attacks continue. When the first World Trade Center attack occured in 1993, we arrested some people and that is about it. The attacks continue. When they bombed two US embasies in Africa, our response was left to local authorities, not us. The attacks continue. When the USS Cole was bombed, killing US sailors and marines, we did nothing. The attacks continue. Clearly, doing nothing is not the proper response, and taking action, may make them hate us more, but their attacks are limited to their ability to carry them out. There is no doubt, that if they could kill every American citizen today, they would. They don't need a reason. Grouping all dictators into one category and saying the US and the world for that matter should have one policy for everyone is like saying one tire will fit on all cars. Each situation is unique and has to have a tailored response. The problem with the UN is they are great at passing resolutions and talking about what should be done, but they never act. Kinda like you and your college professor. You think and write and that is about it. You don't take any meaningful action that will improve the quality of anyones life. When you and your college pals are ready to get off the sideline and get out on the front line, you let me know, ok? Because talk is cheap. Policy force to correct human rights abusers? You are kidding right? The UN has been doing that for years. And nothing else. Here is an idea for you in your think tank. Go look up all the UN resolutions regarding Cypress. And then tell me how well "policy force" works. Sheryl's "stance" is typical of entertainers. Very predictable. Rick ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 00:30:57 EST From: XMystery79@aol.com Subject: Re: [sheryl-crew] My opinion - In a message dated 3/21/2003 11:51:17 PM Eastern Standard Time, etienne_anne@hotmail.com writes: > country -yes, Hussein is a secular dictator and hates Bin Laden - which will > provide plenty frustated Arabs to Bin Laden... I guarantee terrorism will > burst, especially against the US for it seems many European democracies > ahve > understood that quite possible consequence of a war on an Arab country. > These > stars are protesting because Bush's war on Iraq is illegitimate; on the > contrary, the WWII was legitimate and grounded... I am getting my PhD in > political science with an emphasis on international politics, moreover, I > assistant a professor who is specialized in Middle Eastern affairs, if you > want to know the fact and know more about the characteristics of Middle > Eastern politics, read scholarly journal... not speeches or newspapers that > remain highly normative and grounded on biases views. That was my two cents > for the day. in Isn't that the problem though? What isn't biased...if the American broadcasts are biased in the one direction, aren't the European broadcasts biased in the other? Where is the common ground? You say that the war is illegitimate...the U.N. disagrees. The argument of the resolution was the time table. France & Germany wanted to wait till God knows when (Saddam has proven he's very capable of hiding whatever weapons he has from the U.N. inspectors). I also don't think it's been proven that France & Russia aren't opposed because of their oil contracts. It's something that needs to be considered. The deal with Iraq is that he violated a direct order from the United Nations he agreed to in 1991. I was 11 years old then, and too young to understand the Gulf War, therefore I'm picking up the info as I go pretty much. The majority of the nations in the U.N. agreed to hold Saddam Hussein responsible for not complying with the U. N (remember in the first Gulf War, which started as an act of aggression by Saddam to take over Kuwait). When nations lose wars, there are often reparations that are paid. Total disarmament was a reasonable request. It's been 12 years. How much more time does the man need? In the mean time he's gathering weapons of mass destruction. And where would these be tested? My guess is two places: Kuwait and Israel. I think 9/11 told us we can't wait any longer. As for other nations...it's true Iraq isn't the only threat to world peace. However, exhaustive diplomacy has been tried. They had a lot of "last" chances. It's a different ball game with every nation. You can't have a cookie cutter strategy and just decide that North Korea is a problem. It is a huge likelihood that if this strategy would be tried there would be mass casualties of innocent people in South Korea and/or Japan. It would be a major bloody mess and have horrific consequences for the planet if nuclear weapons came into play. You can't deal with it in the same way. That's why you need to go after rogue nations before they get the weapons of mass destruction. So the world doesn't suffer because of a power hungry dictator who didn't get his way. I also find your statement about Europe understanding why they shouldn't go to war with Arab nations interesting. I'm assuming you're refering to the terrorist acts in Europe in the 70s and 80s. If that's what you mean, it seems like you're advocating appeasement as opposed to rooting out the problem at it's core. If that's not it then I apologize. Maybe you could email me privately and let me know what you meant by that statement. - -Phyllis ------------------------------ End of sheryl-crew-digest V6 #48 ********************************