[i]Also, since YOU'RE still hammering on the issue of oil, you probably don't understand the nature of the world oil market. I'm not going to waste any more of my breaktime explaining it.
[/B]

I don't know if the YOU I put in capitals refers to anyone in particular or is an expression of general disagreement towards those who suggest that the republicans have primarily financial reasons for invasion.
I haven't a clue about oil politics, I dont' want to waste your breaktimes but does anyone have a good book/website on this subject? On the other hand, am i right in saying whatever the Americans might want to be done with the oil (sell gradually so higher prices can be fetched when oil is rarer or sold fast) is more likely to happen if they control it?

Also someone mentioned they thought the only difference between biological and nuclear weapons is only psychological. Not so. Biological agents could potentially be selective. Some people might be immunised to their effects, some might be more or less susceptible on the grounds of their race and (less feasibly) it might be the case that someone knows how to produce viruses which implant resistance genes into a "desirable" sector of the population. The Americans refused to uphold a 1972 sanction allowing inspection of its own facilities. .. Quelle surprise! Maybe they were hoping to pick up some tips from the Iraqis and wanted to take it back to their labs to make antidotes (perhaps a euthemism for improvements).
Nuclear weapons, by contrast, are DEFINITELY broad-spectrum world-****ers. Bear in mind though that whatever they might want to do to the rest of the world their shares still demand that they retain some kind of market to sell crap to.