According to the dictionary, war is "a struggle between opposing forces for a particularend." Although this definition seems rather flexible, if we analyze thecomponents of the proposed war against Iraq, it seems it meets neither of thesecriteria.

The Bush administration has repeatedly cited arms-inspectionviolations as justification for war against Iraq. Although the U.S. has had manyconfrontations with Iraq, when it comes to the issue of arms inspection, we arenot "opposing forces." Indeed, the Iraqi government has openlyconsented to an arms-inspection.

Thus, with arms-inspection out of thepicture, it becomes obvious that the Bush administration has another motive.After the Iraqi regime is toppled, the U.S. will be able to create permanentmilitary bases in the Middle East, a region coveted for its oil. It ought to benoted that even though World War II ended almost six decades ago, we still havebases in Germany and Japan, and the same could happen in Iraq. Also, as an addedbonus, the war takes the heat off the Bush administration's attempts at fightingthe War on Terror.

As if this weren't enough, the global community isagainst this war. If the U.S. were to wage war against Iraq, we would losecrucial international support. And, of course, there is always the prospect ofthe loss of human life.

Before we delve headfirst into war, it is ofutmost importance that we consider the consequences it would bring upon the U.S.and the world. The results of war cannot been foreseen or predicted (World War Ican attest to this). What may seem like an "in-and-out" operation nowmay easily morph into something much more hideous and deadly.