Either you did or you didn't, i believe it was in a conv. with Odon, guess we'll have to wait till he signs on and see if he remembers the particulars "can't remember, either he or i quoted it in our post, so it wouldn't get deleted" btw, i'm only 50% sure it was you..i know it was said, pretty sure it was you. I know when i heard it ,it shocked me ,,why i thought it was you.
18% is a major player? Perhaps, but not a huge percentage overall. And the Saudis haven't held that position long. When I checked earlier this year Saudi was down the list, Canada, Mexico and South American Countries provided the bulk of our oil. Should we be proud that the country that provided the pilots that created the chaos on 09/11 provide us with oil and hold us hostage still? And we've given them the go ahead on nuclear development?
Plan on sending me to Guantanemo without a hearing or proof? But you're throwing it out there as fact? Your type of person scares me.
Provide a link. I've said a lot on this board. I can't remember it all. But I would never stoop to accusing someone without providing documentation. 100% sure, then you must have documentation, please, provide a link.
I couldn't find one, but i was sure it was you that said it, that's why i asked you ." i know for a fact it was said' all you had to do was answer my original question with a yes or no an not try to be so vague. Update: It WASN"T Gardener who said"it" ,it was Elijah. I was only 50% sure it was you until i got a PM confirming my suspicion from aka "peckerhead" "i'll leave that person anonymous, since it was in private" ,btw thx alot "peckerhead" I apologize Gardener,
I did say show me the charts from earlier this year. Yes, past the top 3-4 the average is about 3-5% which is about 3 times less than the top 3, right?. "They" did not provide the pilots. The pilots came from there. I've said that point more times than I have hot dinners. Care to share some source for "us" giving them the go ahead for nuclear development (credible evidence). p.s. It was you who made that comment. I remember things like that.
Elijah did say that. But, gardener did make a similar comment a while back. I think we (me and you) just got our wires crossed. I'll edeavour to find it. Or apologise myself if I can't.
It makes absolutely no difference which country we import the oil from. If we import less saudi oil someone else imports more. we still pay the same money for the same amount of oil, and saudi still gets the same money for exporting the same oil.
Really? So if the US decided to stop buying any oil from the Saudis, other countries could pick up the slack? It would then be down to other countries to switch suppliers or quantities (to maintain Saudi oil equilibrium) , would they be able to do that? To be honest with you though gardener has another agenda here than how much oil the US buys off the Saudi's, I think. What that is I do not know. In anycase gardener: US Energy Information Administration (it's all there) Knock yourself out.
Yes, if we buy less from A, then we must be buying more oil from B, so whoever used to buy from B now needs to buy from A. Of course there's actually A to Z but its still just musical chairs, it makes no difference in the end. There is some relationship between buyers and sellers - pipelines, cost of shipping, type of crude (e.g. Venezuela always threatens to cut off our oil, but few other countries can refine it, so they'd have a hard time selling it anywhere else) can impact trading patterns, but this is only in the short term. As an example, suppose you are Germany, which buys its oil from Russia. One day Saudi Arabia decides to refuse to sell oil to America. Germany and the USA are equally impacted by this, because the world price of oil shoots up the same for everyone - its a globally traded commodity with one price for everybody (more or less) and as the US scrambles to secure alternative suppliers, prices rise for all suppliers and all buyers. Anyway, back to Gardenergate.
I am not sure if your classify Democracy Now as credible: http://www.democracynow.org/2008/5/20/as_us_threatens_iran_over_enriching
Oh right. I had visions of nuclear weapons. Did not appreciate you meant the same as: Ahmadinejad: Nation must control nuclear fuel Published: 09.26.08, 07:48 Iran needs the ability to produce nuclear fuel because it cannot rely on other nations to supply enriched uranium to the Islamic regime's planned reactors, the Iranian president said Thursday. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - speaking to a gathering of selected journalists - also contended that Washington does not have the will to launch a military strike on Iran over its nuclear ambitions. "We're not concerned at all that a confrontation will occur," said Ahmadinejad, who is in New York for the UN General Assembly. (AP) He turned our offer down. The Saudis accepted it. The better outcome I think.
Yes I made that statement, pointing out that many times Blacks are used as Uncle Toms by politicians. But I think your original comment/question was: Full text of my reply: And I don't see Obama mentioned in the thread.
Your reply makes no sense. I made no mention of nuclear weapons. I stated that we have promised to equip the Saudis with the same capabilities Iran is seeking to develop: nuclear power facilities. If Iran can misuse this technology the potential is there for the Saudis to also misuse it. And since it was Saudi nationals that manned the planes that attacked our nation I would think there should be some caution in granting them the same capabilities.
That was not my question it was Cadruzer's. We were both a bit foggy who said what. I think we cleared up who used that other term. I said: "But, gardener did make a similar comment a while back" Was it similar...well perhaps not. But you have proved you are willing to use other racial slurs I'd not put it past you to use the original bone of contention. I never said you mentioned Obama. I think the point was/is your making a big deal about "haz" while coming out with things like "Uncle Tom" and using words like n*gger. You don't see any contradiction here? Obviously not.
I know you didn't : Oh right. I had visions of nuclear weapons. Did not appreciate you meant the same as... Well originaly you didn't you were a bit vague. I can appreciate what you mean now. It is far more prudent for us to provide them with material than for them to produce it themselves. Do we need another weapons grade enriched uranium producing facility ? Nope. Especially in Iran. The potential is there, yes. Which scenario would you prefer: Both to produce enriched uranium, unchecked...? Or to have it provided for them under supervision...?
Seems you need a crutch too. Should have I just let this pass? Can't do it, sorry about your luck. Whats this, Old School? I remembered, that's all that matters. Enough Proof? My Type ? rather be MY TYPE than YOUR TYPE anyday. LMFAO, Is this Your defense ? Your credibility tank is on E ,running on fumes now.
