Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: stockman_scott who wrote (152984)	2/13/2003 8:25:12 PM
From: craig crawford	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

Not all conservatives on board on Iraq dynamic.washtimes.com Ralph Z. Hallow THE WASHINGTON TIMES Published February 12, 2003 Some conservatives remain wary — and are willing to say so publicly — about President Bush's threats of war against Iraq. Most regard Mr. Bush as one of their own, and support his stated aim of forcibly disarming Saddam Hussein's regime, if necessary. But some conservative critics are philosophically opposed to using the U.S. military as a force to transform dictatorships into democracies. "It is a traditional conservative position not to want the United States to be the policeman of the world," said Rep. John J. "Jimmy" Duncan Jr., Tennessee Republican. "It is also conservative to favor smaller government that is closer to the people, rather than world government." Rep. John Hostettler, Indiana Republican, says that while Iraq is a threat, "it does not pose an imminent threat that justifies a pre-emptive military strike." He and Mr. Duncan were the only two conservative House Republicans to oppose an Oct. 8 resolution authorizing military force against Iraq. Although the resolution passed with overwhelming Republican support, including many of the most conservative House and Senate members, Mr. Hostettler says a "vote for pre-emption would also set a standard which the rest of the world would seek to hold America to, and which the rest of the world could justifiably follow." Conservative critics of the administration's Iraq policy argue that it amounts to a form of imperialism that would require an ever-larger federal government to liberate foreign countries, watch over their democratization and protect the homeland against enemies made in the process — all at the cost of Americans' personal liberties. "Neo-imperialism is never a conservative virtue, whatever the clothing or, more accurately, fig leaf," said William Bradford Reynolds, chief of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division during the Reagan administration. He predicts the pursuit of terrorism will loom large as a justification for further U.S. "intrusions" abroad if the U.S. suffers more attacks like those of September 11. While rank-and-file conservatives, by and large, embrace most of Mr. Bush's agenda, some confess to reservations about Iraq, as at a recent conservative political-action conference in Arlington. (more...)