VansOpinion - WHAT THE NATIONS' EDITORIAL BOARDS SAID

This piece was e-mailed to me and since proper attributions are given at the end of each quotation, I presume that the sources would not mind my sharing such with my readers. As our country has entered a war of liberation of the people of Iraq, it is important to sample the thoughts of a sampling of journalists around the country. This article was received in my office during the time vansopinion.com was down so the information is a bit old, but nonetheless accurate. For your information, read on.

The war that has now begun stands to end the single greatest threat to peace in the Middle East; it will help establish that rogue states will not be allowed to stockpile chemical, biological or nuclear weapons in defiance of the international community. It will also free the long-suffering Iraqi people, who have endured one of the cruelest and most murderous dictatorships of the past half-century. The days and weeks ahead may be difficult, and the costs high, both for Americans and for Iraqis. But the reward, if America and its allies can sustain their commitment, will also be great: the end of a despot who has haunted a people, and the world, far too long. (The Washington Post, 3/20/03)

Democracies are indeed slow to make war, for which we can all be grateful. But when threatened and well led, they can unite and mobilize into an astonishingly powerful force. The dedication of volunteers fighting for their way of life will always overwhelm the motivation of conscripts enlisted to die for, say, a dictator and his two sons. (The Wall Street Journal, 3/20/03)

President Bush has given the necessary orders and committed our planes, our ships and, most importantly, our servicemen and servicewomen to the task of disarming Iraq, where cruel strongman Saddam Hussein has terrorized his own people and mocked demands that he divulge and destroy his weapons of mass destruction. (The Herald-Dispatch (Huntington, WV), 3/20/03)

Despite such perils, the United States and its allies were right to reject delay or inaction as options in dealing with Iraq. Left to develop and stockpile an illegal arsenal, Saddam could have attacked his neighbors again, seized control of the Persian Gulf's oil supply, or armed international terrorists. The growing coalition in support of the United States reflects the realization that the world will be a better, safer place after Iraq's dictator and his weapons are gone. Moderate Arab countries, in particular, have much to gain from a peaceful, stable Iraq. (Orlando Sentinel, 3/20/03)

The war in Iraq is reasserting American military superiority, and our postwar commitments in Iraq and beyond should reassert our democratic ideals. (St. Petersburg Times (FL), 3/20/03)

This country does not enter Iraq with territorial ambitions. It does not seek to occupy and enslave. It seeks to protect itself and to free innocent Iraqis who have for more than two decades been subjected to the oppression and tyranny of Saddam Hussein. (Las Vegas Review-Journal, 3/20/03)

President Bush said the United States has only honorable goals for Iraq. We will show our resolve by supporting honorable goals. Anything else is not acceptable for this nation that is resolved to hold up the torch of liberty and opportunity, self determination and self government. (Palladium-Item (Richmond, IN), 3/20/03)

Iraq's dictator – a killer of ghastly proportions, friend of terrorists, threat to the security of the United States and the world – is now the pursued. He must never be allowed to threaten his citizens, his neighbors or the world again. (The Indianapolis Star, 3/20/03)

No war is without both disasters and heroism. That likely will be true this time, too. But when it ends, Iraq must be disarmed, free of Hussein's reign of terror and on its way, with the rest of the Arab world, to a future of freedom. Those are goals Americans can support. (The Kansas City Star, 3/20/03)

While war is always a dangerous undertaking, it is, in this case, the best of the bad alternatives. Twelve years of trying — and failing — to do the job peacefully testify to the uselessness of options short of force. (USA Today, 3/19/03)

Saddam's attempts to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons pose a clear and immediate terror threat to the United States. His statement days ago that he would take the war beyond Iraq's borders confirms his willingness and desire to do just such a thing. The existence of this threat makes a U.S.-led attack on Iraq just and legal, and the president is right to pursue this path at this time. (Portland Press Herald (Maine), 3/19/03)

By any reasonable measure, the U.S. has given Hussein every diplomatic opportunity to abandon his maniacal course…Given the circumstances, the president was right to abandon that fruitless course this week. And so the road to peace must start with war. (Freeport (IL) Journal-Standard, 3/19/03)

This is no Western, Jewish, anti-Muslim fight. It is a fight precipitated by the dictator of Iraq and his relentless state sponsorship of terrorism. (Baton Rouge Advocate, 3/19/03)

He wants to keep playing games - delay, obfuscate, evade - until he has accumulated a substantial arsenal. Then, his record shows, he'll use it, either for blackmail or for mass murder. He'll use it against his own people, his neighbors - or us. And no responsible American president - especially after the 9-11 attacks - can let Saddam follow this course. (The Annapolis Capital (MD), 3/19/03)

Everyone fears the horrors of war. But sometimes war is necessary to save more lives than would be lost without it. The Iraq crisis is just such a case. "Peace" with Saddam has been bloody. (Providence Journal, 3/18/03)

The truth is, the world must have the courage to use force if necessary -- and it has become necessary in this case -- to divorce the dictator, Saddam Hussein, from those weapons. (The Augusta Chronicle, 3/18/03)

In the end, we found ourselves forced to conclude that there are no good choices before us. But the worst choice would be to deny that Sept. 11 ever happened. It did happen, and it has changed forever the way this country views threats to its security. That view is reinforced by the lessons of history -- lessons that have shown, time and again, that doing nothing in the face of a growing threat is to set the stage for disaster in the future. (Albany (NY) Times-Union, 3/18/03)

"The United Nations Security Council has not lived up to its responsibilities, so we will rise to ours." With those momentous words, President Bush signaled Monday what a significant majority of Americans had already concluded on their own. The months-long drama involving the U.N. had run its course, and there was no point in trying to persuade that institution to enforce its own demands that Iraq disarm. (Rocky Mountain News (Denver, CO), 3/18/03)

Bush left no doubt that, in the end, he is acting within the legitimate parameters set forth by the United Nations itself in more than a dozen resolutions since the end of the 1991 Persian Gulf War. As he put it, correctly, "It's not a question of authority; it's a question of will." (Newsday (NY), 3/18/03)

Since World War I, only one nation has been guilty of using poison gas: Iraq. Saddam Hussein has never met a weapon he thought too barbaric to wield. To the United States and its interests, he is a direct threat and an indirect one – through his avid support of terror and his designs on his neighbors. Just ask the people of Kuwait. He cannot be contained. With Saddam in power, there can be no peace