K-9

I've often lamented the weakening of the "press" as the fourth rail as well. Reporting has become too much of a corporate exercise. But when you refer to journalism, to what aspect of the profession do you mean, reporting or op-ed? I ask because the link you provide is an opinion piece and it' always been the golden age of opinion writing. The golden age of reporting, in today's sound-byte world of short attention spans, is becoming more and more a thing of the past.

There was nothing all of a sudden about that deal at all. It was months of arduous negotiations. I don't wish to discuss any more revisionist history.

There were all sorts of theories about the Reagan camp, including bribing the Iranians with the promise of future arms if they would hold the hostages until after the election in order to prevent a bump for Carter. I think that's a bit of a stretch. But people really should appreciate the work that Carter did in securing their release. It aged that man over night it seemed.

I remember a lot of people giving him credit for it, but if Reagan himself took credit, I'll have to reconsider his graciousness. I just don't recall that. Is it still the accepted belief that the Iranians waited until after the swearing in to put the hostages on a plane simply to irk Carter, whom they despised?

Also forgotten is that the night of Reagan's inaugaration, hours after taking the oath of office and only hours before the Reagans were set to move in the next morning, Carter and aides were in the White House feverishly negotiating and working out the details of the hostage release from Tehran. Literally spent the entire night putting the final touches on a deal many months in the making. I always admired Reagan for having the class that allowed Carter the leeway to do that.

As I tried to explain yesterday, ISIL defines a far larger geographical area than Syria and Iraq, puts several more countries in play, and makes it an easier sell in coalition building in the region. And coalitions will defintily have to be built.

The bolded is just wrong. On every front imagineable. Your quest to blame Carter shouldn't cloud your desire to actually learn something about the history of the region. It's shameless really.

Some may think it trivial that the White House and other government agencies use the term ISIL vs. ISIS, but there's a reason for it. Chiefly, ISIL refers to a much larger geographic area than just Syria and Iraq which may be damned important to other players in the region, like Jordan, Lebanon, Israel, Egypt, and parts of Turkey. If we can convince others that the threat encompasses a much larger area than just Iraq and Syria, it will help to smooth the way for the coalition building that will need to be done moving forward.

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!!!