K-9

I didn't mean to suggest the British were solely behind the coup that overthrew Mossadegh as it was a joint effort between the Brits and US. But the Brits conceived of the idea in the first place and had sought our involvement when Truman was president several years earlier. We'll just have to agree to disagree about certain historical events as they pertain to big oil in the Middle East, the ascendancy of the Shah in Persia (both father and son), and the role that various Western governments played in the region. I don't doubt that American refiners received Iranian oil, but there were no American companies producing on Persian soil as the Brits had the sole concession rights in Iran. On a side note, while I appreciate the attempt to educate me regarding the names of the major oil companies above, I can pretty much recite their legacies from the breakup of the Standard Oil Trust Co., the creation of the Anglo Oil Co., and Royal Dutch/Shell. If you're interested in the subject, I'd also suggest reading about the history of Russian oil starting in the Baku oil fields and the involvement of the Nobels and Rothschilds.

As I understood your argument, it was the US that bowed to oil interests and screwed the Iranian people over that resource. But it was the the British who won the Iranian oil concession in the early 1900s. US companies were never involved there. As to the CIA installing the Shah, I think it's a bit more nuanced than that. The British originally installed Mohammad Reza Shah after convincing his father to live in exile in the early 40s. While Prime Minister Mosaddegh was nominated by Parliament to be PM, it was the Shah that appointed him. We can agree that it was British big oil and Mosaddegh's nationalization of the Anglo Iranion Oil Co. that served as the catalyst for the coup. And while the CIA was directly involved, it was at the behest of and in cooperation with the British government and MI6.

When I say "ours" I mean we had him controlled and contained; that we owned him. And had for years. I didn't mean ours in the sense that it was us that propped him up in the 80s or otherwise supported his war with Iran, etc. He was the ONLY foil in that region and it was HIS brutality and sectarian beliefs that prevented what we are seeing now from happening many years before. If you think that's bullschit, I suggest you re-acquaint yourself with the history of Iraq from when the Baathist party came into power. Speaking of Iran, are you confusing them with Iraq? It was the British that raped Iran for their oil, not the US. We've been content with doing that in other countries in the region although at the utter behest and with the full support of the various governments in those countries. I don't see how we can claim the moral high ground over there either so I'm confused as to why you saw fit to include that in your response to my post. We can agree on that. Just like we can agree that Hussein was a murdering thug as I pointed out. But the devil you know is better than the devil you don't as they say. I'll just say in closing that if we hadn't started that bullschit war in the first place, the devastation we are seeing now in Syria and Iraq at the hands of ISIL wouldn't be happening. Hussein and his henchmen would have already executed everyone in that leadership. Sadly, that was utterly predictable in 2002 when the drumbeats began.

Yep. Hussein was a bastard to be sure. But he was OUR bastard because we owned and contained him and he was the only check in the entire region against the exact crap we're seeing there now. He was a ruthless murdering thug just like the current ruthless murdering thugs posing as religious leaders currently.

We all knew it back in 2002 when the drumbeat started to take hold. Colin Powell was right. Too bad he along with other cabinet members and especially the cowards in congress didn't have the integrity to do the right thing vs. what was most politically expedient at the time.

I think it's aim is to establish the caliphate in a much larger geographical area. In researching why some media outlets and government agencies refer to ISIS as ISIL,I learned that the L stands for "The Levant" which would encompass Iraq (Mesopotemia), Syria, Jordan, Isreal, Lebanon, and parts of Turkey. Maybe parts of N. Africa depending on what historical geographic definition they subscribe to. The amount of foreign fighters willing to enlist in their cause is alarming.

I just checked it out. Rush basically says Williams killed himself because leftists are always angry at something. I stopped listening to that wind bag 21 years ago and I'm not surprised by his utter lack of insight and compassion. He's sub-human and I don't mean that as a dis to lower primates. Loved Black's retort.

Same here. I can't wait until he's named captain. It's only a matter of time. And he'll have a TON of locker room cred because he'll be one of the new core that makes the team his own. And he won't be afraid to do it, either. Unlike Vanek, Roy, etc. who could hide behind the veteran leadership of Drury/Briere and then crumble when it was their turn to take the reigns. And something tells Girgs won't put up with less than 100% effort at all times. GO SABRES!!!

Back in the 70s when I worked summers building stages for stadium rock concerts, we had T-shirts printed up that read "Wild Buffalo Erection Company." They were a hot item on those tours.

It's much more effective when you put the FOX News spin on it: "Some people are wondering if Thomas Vanek was on the take when he sat out the series against the Bruins. Could he have faked an injury? Some people may think so."

Not for nothing, but we also won the AFL Championship in '65. So we haven't quite suffered as long as Cleveland. GO SABRES!!!

Muscle is always in one of three states: building, breaking down, or atrophying. Which state is a superior player in when he plays inferior competition night after night? It's not about impatience, it's about what's best for certain players. Some just aren't best served when forced to play against inferior competition. It's nice that elite prospects can sell tickets in the inferior league, though. GO SABRES!!!

Of course you are 100% spot on here. Dollar trumps what's best for the prospect, unfortunately. GO SABRES!!!

So it's more about the league and less about the developmental best interest of that handful of players that are legitimately TOO good for that level of play. It does nothing to serve them in terms of development. The vast majority of kids that need to return to juniors could still do so. But there are a few that need to go where their games can flourish. I could even argue that the competitive level of the CHL actually goes down by having players far superior for that level of play. Teams should get at least 1 or 2 exceptions to designate for AHL assignment. GO SABRES!!!

Agreed. I'm on record as thinking this agreement between the NHL and CHL is a bad rule and actually hurts some of the players it purports to protect. GO SABRES!!!

If only there were a league where a player that's too good for juniors but not quite ready for the NHL, could learn and develop his game. GO SABRES!!!

I think it was chz that first postulated Nolan was gonna be the coach to develop the young players and be a place holder until our version of Bylsma is hired. GO BILLS!!!

Is the inference here that Darcy didn't want to tie up his young star defenseman when he did, to a cap friendly deal, vs. TP making the decision? Again, I think it's a case, as is USUAL, that the hockey department needs to make sure the business side is on board with the commitment of resources. At the time, the Myers deal was hailed as good foresight by an organization looking to secure their young stars. This is a good thing. The 20/20 hindsight applied in view of Myers' struggles since then is not relevant. Just throwing that out there because it's all after the fact. GO SABRES!!!

Do you see the hockey side as a totally separate entity from the business side? One with complete autonomy from the rest of the corporation? If the hockey department needs resources to accomplish goals, do they just get them from itself? I'm honestly trying to understand your broader point here. If your expectation is that the hockey department exists in a vacuum that should just be left alone, I don't see how that's sustainable in the business model. And I'll ask one more time: what hockey decision to you feel wasn't made by the hockey department? GO SABRES!!!

What "hockey" decisions do you think have been made by non-hockey people? It's a bit of a stretch to suggest that because an owner sits in on meetings with his GM, scouts, etc. that he is making hockey decisions when all he's doing is keeping abreast of what's happening and perhaps inquiring as to what may be needed financially or organizationally to achieve hockey related goals. The exception to the rule is an owner that DOESN'T sit in on meetings with his various staffs, regardless of sport. It's unheard of. GO BILLS!!!

But could it have been done any other way? Whether ownership meddles to an unacceptable point is irrelevant in the face of realizing a core had reached it's ceiling and was well past diminishing returns. Pegula inherited a team that had been built into a Presidential Cup winner by DR and LR and it's perfectly reasonable to want to give them the chance to do it again given that past success. It didn't work. There are no shortcuts. In order for transformation and growth to occur, the team had to be dismantled. I doubt it was easy for Terry to accept this at first, given his fanboy passion for the club. But the rebuild is well underway now, so if there's any meddling going on, it's being channeled in the right direction. I don't think meddling is going on relative to the hockey decisions we've seen TM make recently. But if those decisions WERE born out of meddling by the owners, then we've got some genius hockey people disguised as owners. The Pegulas know when to insert themselves into a business process and when to let their delegates take the reigns. If that was through trial and error as meddlesome owners, then I give them credit for learning the lesson. But I doubt it was. GO SABRES!!!

I agree with this, with the exception of society being a schithole. Back in the day, relationships were built and maintained the old fashioned way as you suggest. But just because the media delivery process has changed, the idea of building relationships hasn't. If you were viewed as hostile back in the day, you were shunned in the hotel bar, just as Bucky is shunned now. GO BILLS!!!

I think that's because the Sabres have deliberately blackballed Bucky and, by association, the rest of the BN. He's on their schit list and it's must irk him to no end. GO SABRES!!!

Good insight here. I don't know whether to be comforted or frightened by the fact that sports fans everywhere are essentially the same kind of people when it comes to their teams. GO SABRES!!!

It's a BRO!