• Announcements

    • iacas

      GAME GOLF Ryder Cup Contest   09/22/2016

      Join our GAME GOLF Ryder Cup Challenge to win an autographed GAME GOLF, a Pebble Steel watch, and many more great prizes!
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Kapanda

I don't know if anyone is following what's happening in Syria...

16 posts in this topic

http://www.c-span.org/Events/International-Reaction-to-the-Syrian-Conflict-the-Assad-Regime/10737432295-1/

10 minutes of this video made me wonder if this woman is lying... I know there is historic precedence, but I don't understand how a supposed leader, even if he thinks he is right, can treat his people like that and still believe he ought to remain in power...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Want to get rid of this advertisement? Sign up (or log in) today! It's free!

The last time the US went in and toppled a brutal dictator's regime, the world and most of America screamed.  We won't be making that mistake twice.  I hope all we do is secretly funnel money to the government opposition in hopes of keeping this turmoil going.  As bad as the Syrian government is, if it was replaced, I'd sure the new one would be just as bad in time.  For whatever reason, that seems to be how things roll over there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could you be more specific on which dictator you have in mind? Coz my thought is you meant Qaddafi, and the World likes the fact that he's gone, in a campaign that America self-descriptively "led from behind"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by Kapanda

Could you be more specific on which dictator you have in mind? Coz my thought is you meant Qaddafi, and the World likes the fact that he's gone, in a campaign that America self-descriptively "led from behind"

I was referring to Iraq.  Technically the US did not topple Qaddafi's regime.  And why is it America's responsibility to fight every ruthless dictator?  Why can another country ante up some sack and do it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was referring to Iraq. Technically the US did not topple Qaddafi's regime. And why is it America's responsibility to fight every ruthless dictator? Why can another country ante up some sack and do it?

Contradictory?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Originally Posted by jamo

Contradictory?

Sorry about that.  Meant to say "why can't".  Typo there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by Mr3Wiggle

I was referring to Iraq.  Technically the US did not topple Qaddafi's regime.  And why is it America's responsibility to fight every ruthless dictator?  Why can another country ante up some sack and do it?

I don't mean to sound like some bleeding heart (although I probably do) but I agree completely with Mr3Wiggle.  Don't we have enough problems in America that we should be paying more attention to than we do because we're always standing up for democracy in some third world country that likely doesn't want to be democratic anyway?  Since Mubarek was ousted in Egypt the Muslim Brotherhood has been trying to take over the country.  If we go over there to intercede we'll just alienate another country's populace when we should just stay the f#"@ out of the way and let things run their course.  We're just interfering in Syria as well.  Unless someone asks for the USAs help let's just defend America rather than flex our offensive muscles worldwide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by Mr3Wiggle

And why is it America's responsibility to fight every ruthless dictator?  Why can another country ante up some sack and do it?

Perhaps a history lesson is in order.

America is historically very late to fight ruthless dictators. Hitler, for example.

Otherwise, they'll support one to get what they want.

Ever heard of Nicaragua.

Ever heard of the Iran-Conra affair?

Or fool an uneducated population into thinking that one  (Saddam) has something to do with other events like 9/11.

BTW  - there are about 3 dozen countries with troops in Afghanistan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know what needs to happen, though I am very inclined towards international action.

By the way, in situations like these, the Rwandan genocide comes to mind (though this situation is not nearly as terrible). There, the head of the UN mission, after the whole ordeal, either did - or almost did it, one of the two - commit suicide over the whole thing. He knew that, were he to get the authorisation to stop the killing, he could've easily done so.

It is well known that children are being targeted in Syria. There is no legitimacy whatsoever for the Assad regime, but no external action will only allow the killing to keep on going.

Good news, the ex-Syrian Ambassador to Iraq came out saying that the regime will die in a matter of time. But time means lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by NuclearMike

I don't mean to sound like some bleeding heart (although I probably do) but I agree completely with Mr3Wiggle.  Don't we have enough problems in America that we should be paying more attention to than we do because we're always standing up for democracy in some third world country that likely doesn't want to be democratic anyway?  Since Mubarek was ousted in Egypt the Muslim Brotherhood has been trying to take over the country.  If we go over there to intercede we'll just alienate another country's populace when we should just stay the f#"@ out of the way and let things run their course.  We're just interfering in Syria as well.  Unless someone asks for the USAs help let's just defend America rather than flex our offensive muscles worldwide.

Muslim Brotherhood is democratic though. Maybe they weren't in the past, I'm not thoroughly familiar with their history, but they are now.

And external help - America's if need (likely) be - does not mean implementing external standards per se, it can simply mean the mere protection of innocent lives, a universally upheld value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by Kapanda

And external help - America's if need (likely) be - does not mean implementing external standards per se, it can simply mean the mere protection of innocent lives, a universally upheld value.

In theory I agree with you, but unfortunately protecting innocent lives always means loss of life on both sides.  I guess that just for once I'd like someone else to step in in instead of the USA to try to moderate someone else's internal conflicts.  If we consider the Middle East important it's because we're so dependent on foreign oil.  That's why we haven't stepped in in Sudan, Rwanda, or against Joseph Kony's murdering guerilla army (with a lot of members under 10 years old) in Uganda.  Most of Africa just isn't "important" enough since democratic Nigeria is its biggest oil producer.

I wish that we would protect innocent lives without there always being an ulterior motive, but that's not realistic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by NuclearMike

I guess that just for once I'd like someone else to step in in instead of the USA to try to moderate someone else's internal conflicts.

Good Lord!!!! You have got to be joking!!!!!!!!!!!!

Are you Americans brainwashed at school?????????????????

Do you seriously believe that NO other countries do this?

The U.S.A. has a poor history in this regard and you (not YOU) invent reasons to invade other countries.

Apparently about 90% of Americans think that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11!!!!

You didn't do it in World War One or Two until late  - for example, but that's a minor detail isn't it?

Just "for once" ......... this is the type of ignorant arrogance that makes so many people despise your country. Who do you think you are speaking for????

And yes  I am REALLY GRUMPY about this - the thought of uneducated people sitting around in bars and at barbecues thinking that you do things which you don't.

What are the examples you have of being the only country to step in and "moderate seomeone else's internal conflicts"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by Shorty

Perhaps a history lesson is in order.

America is historically very late to fight ruthless dictators. Hitler, for example.

Otherwise, they'll support one to get what they want.

Ever heard of Nicaragua.

Ever heard of the Iran-Conra affair?

Or fool an uneducated population into thinking that one  (Saddam) has something to do with other events like 9/11.

BTW  - there are about 3 dozen countries with troops in Afghanistan.

I'd be interested in an Afghan troop count.  Seriously.  Some countries have 10 guys there, literally.  I think outside of the US, UK, and Austrailia, every other country is there symbolicly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by Shorty

Good Lord!!!! You have got to be joking!!!!!!!!!!!!

Are you Americans brainwashed at school?????????????????

Do you seriously believe that NO other countries do this?

The U.S.A. has a poor history in this regard and you (not YOU) invent reasons to invade other countries.

Apparently about 90% of Americans think that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11!!!!

You didn't do it in World War One or Two until late  - for example, but that's a minor detail isn't it?

Just "for once"......... this is the type of ignorant arrogance that makes so many people despise your country. Who do you think you are speaking for????

And yes  I am REALLY GRUMPY about this - the thought of uneducated people sitting around in bars and at barbecues thinking that you do things which you don't.

What are the examples you have of being the only country to step in and "moderate seomeone else's internal conflicts"?

Korean War (1950–1953) Communist North Korea, supported by China, invaded non-communist South Korea. UN forces, principally made up of U.S. troops, fought successfully to protect South Korea. The Korean War was the first armed conflict in the global struggle between democracy and communism, called the cold war.

Bay of Pigs (1961) The U.S. orchestrated the invasion, an unsuccessful attempt by Cuban exiles to overthrow Fidel Castro's communist regime in Cuba.

Vietnam War (1961–1973) In 1955, communist North Vietnam invaded non-communist South Vietnam in an attempt to unify the country and impose communist rule. The United States joined the war on the side of South Vietnam in 1961, but withdrew combat troops in 1973. In 1975 North Vietnam succeeded in taking control of South Vietnam.

Dominican Republic (1965) President Lyndon Johnson sent marines and troops to quash a leftist uprising in the Dominican Republic, fearing the island nation would follow in the footsteps of Cuba and turn communist.

Lebanon (1982–1984) U.S. troops formed part of a multinational peacekeeping force to help the fragile Lebanese government maintain power.

Grenada (1983) President Reagan invaded the Caribbean nation of Grenada to overthrow its socialist government, which had close ties with Cuba.

Panama (1989) President George H.W. Bush invaded Panama and overthrew Panamanian dictator and drug-smuggler Manuel Noriega.

Gulf War (1991) Iraq invaded Kuwait, and a U.S.-led multinational force came to Kuwait's aid and expelled Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's forces.

Somalia (1993) A U.S.-led multinational force attempted to restore order to war-torn Somalia so that food could be delivered and distributed within the famine-stricken country.

Bosnia (1994–1995) During the Bosnian civil war, which began shortly after the country declared independence in 1992, the U.S. launched air strikes on Bosnia to prevent “ethnic cleansing,” primarily by Serbs against Bosnians. The U.S. became a part of NATO's peacekeeping force in the region.

Kosovo (1999) Yugoslavia's province of Kosovo erupted into violence in the spring of 1999. A U.S.-led NATO force intervened with air strikes after Slobodan Milosevic's Serbian forces uprooted the population and embarked on the ethnic cleansing of Kosovo's ethnic Albanian population.

Afghanistan (2001– ) The Taliban government harbored Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaeda terrorist group, responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States. After Afghanistan refused to turn over Bin Laden, the U.S. and UN coalition forces invaded. The Taliban government was ousted and many terrorist camps in Afghanistan were destroyed. U.S. and NATO troops remain in Afghanistan to support its fragile new government.

Iraq War (2003– ) The U.S. and Great Britain invaded and toppled the government of dictator Saddam Hussein. Troops remain in Iraq to combat the insurgency that formed after Hussein's defeat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[URL=http://www.infoplease.com/cgi-bin/id/A0828118] [COLOR=0066CC]Korean War (1950–1953)[/COLOR] [/URL] Communist North Korea, supported by China, invaded non-communist South Korea. UN forces, principally made up of U.S. troops, fought successfully to protect South Korea. The Korean War was the first armed conflict in the global struggle between democracy and communism, called the cold war. [URL=http://www.infoplease.com/cgi-bin/id/A0806555] [COLOR=0066CC]Bay of Pigs (1961)[/COLOR] [/URL] The U.S. orchestrated the invasion, an unsuccessful attempt by Cuban exiles to overthrow Fidel Castro's communist regime in Cuba. [URL=http://www.infoplease.com/cgi-bin/id/A0850869] [COLOR=0066CC]Vietnam War (1961–1973)[/COLOR] [/URL] In 1955, communist North Vietnam invaded non-communist South Vietnam in an attempt to unify the country and impose communist rule. The United States joined the war on the side of South Vietnam in 1961, but withdrew combat troops in 1973. In 1975 North Vietnam succeeded in taking control of South Vietnam. Dominican Republic (1965) President Lyndon Johnson sent marines and troops to quash a leftist uprising in the Dominican Republic, fearing the island nation would follow in the footsteps of Cuba and turn communist. Lebanon (1982–1984) U.S. troops formed part of a multinational peacekeeping force to help the fragile Lebanese government maintain power. Grenada (1983) President Reagan invaded the Caribbean nation of Grenada to overthrow its socialist government, which had close ties with Cuba. Panama (1989) President George H.W. Bush invaded Panama and overthrew Panamanian dictator and drug-smuggler Manuel Noriega. [URL=http://www.infoplease.com/cgi-bin/id/A0838511] [COLOR=0066CC]Gulf War (1991)[/COLOR] [/URL] Iraq invaded Kuwait, and a U.S.-led multinational force came to Kuwait's aid and expelled Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's forces. Somalia (1993) A U.S.-led multinational force attempted to restore order to war-torn Somalia so that food could be delivered and distributed within the famine-stricken country. [URL=http://www.infoplease.com/cgi-bin/id/A0107349] [COLOR=0066CC]Bosnia (1994–1995)[/COLOR] [/URL] During the Bosnian civil war, which began shortly after the country declared independence in 1992, the U.S. launched air strikes on Bosnia to prevent “ethnic cleansing,” primarily by Serbs against Bosnians. The U.S. became a part of NATO's peacekeeping force in the region. [URL=http://www.infoplease.com/cgi-bin/id/SPOT-KOSOVO1] [COLOR=0066CC]Kosovo (1999)[/COLOR] [/URL] Yugoslavia's province of Kosovo erupted into violence in the spring of 1999. A U.S.-led NATO force intervened with air strikes after Slobodan Milosevic's Serbian forces uprooted the population and embarked on the ethnic cleansing of Kosovo's ethnic Albanian population. [URL=http://www.infoplease.com/cgi-bin/id/SPOT-AFGHANISTAN] [COLOR=0066CC]Afghanistan (2001– )[/COLOR] [/URL] The Taliban government harbored Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaeda terrorist group, responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States. After Afghanistan refused to turn over Bin Laden, the U.S. and UN coalition forces invaded. The Taliban government was ousted and many terrorist camps in Afghanistan were destroyed. U.S. and NATO troops remain in Afghanistan to support its fragile new government. [URL=http://www.infoplease.com/cgi-bin/id/SPOT-IRAQTIMELINE2] [COLOR=0066CC]Iraq War (2003– )[/COLOR] [/URL] The U.S. and Great Britain invaded and toppled the government of dictator Saddam Hussein. Troops remain in Iraq to combat the insurgency that formed after Hussein's defeat.

But where are the examples of the U.S.A single handedly doing what NuclearMike claims they do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by Shorty

But where are the examples of the U.S.A single handedly doing what NuclaerMike claims they do?

No one really does it single-handedly any more.  For political reasons.  I'm just saying, over the last 50+ years, the US has more than shouldered it's duty to the international community.  Let someone else deal with it.  The US can bury it's head in the sand like the French.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0



  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • 2016 TST Partners

    GAME Golf
    PING Golf
    Lowest Score Wins
  • Posts

    • I like it. Especially compared to nearly all past US Ryder Cup kits. Actually before I dish out too much praise, do they have a huge Stars and Stripes flag emblazoned on the back?
    • I would say it depends on what club you're talking about. For drivers I would say that the best performing drivers of all time have been made within the last five years. Aerodynamics, material science, and the proliferation of launch monitors and data driven design have resulted in improvements across the board in distance and forgiveness as of late. I know that I personally saw a decent improvement on my G10 when I switched to a G30, in that I gained between 10 and 15 yards without sacrificing accuracy. This is on the high end of what aerodynamics can provide though, simply because higher swing speeds receive a greater benefit from decreased drag. Depending on the individual you may not see much difference so long as the driver itself was made within the last ten years or so. For irons I would be inclined to say that the main difference in the irons of yesteryear and the irons of today is forgiveness. The irons made today are much easier to hit than previous irons, simply because they aren't as drastically punishing on mis-hits as the old blades. The PING Eye2 irons seemed to be the first "widespread" GI iron that sparked the trend towards irons that were easier for the layman to hit. That being said, I found my s55 irons (their "blade" from several years ago) to be more forgiving than the Eye2's. Based on that and observations from other clubs I have hit I would say the average golfer would be best suited by irons made within the last 10 to 15 years that are in good condition with sharp grooves. If you play muscleback irons though, there's pretty much zero difference between modern "true" musclebacks and those of yore, though the current muscle-cavity irons (like the iBlade and MP-15) will likely be at least a bit easier to hit than the older blades while maintaining a similar style.  Wedges are the only thing that I would argue the "latest and greatest" provides a tangible benefit for. The reasoning for this is entirely different however, in that it's based solely off the condition of the grooves in older wedges. As wedges grow old, and get used, the grooves wear to the point that there becomes a noticeable performance difference - especially when playing out of the rough. For this reason alone do I say that the average golfer (assuming they golf at least once a week during the golfing season) is best suited by wedges no older than two or three years old.  Putters are the odd man out here. I don't think it matters in the slightest when your putter was manufactured, so long as you keep a reasonable grip on it so that it doesn't slip out of your hands. I personally am a fan of the newer milled putters for the feel they provide, but it doesn't mean I couldn't probably putt nearly as well with an original Anser putter in the same style. I think the average golfer is best suited by whatever putter style and features allow them to consistently roll the ball along their target line, with no age requirement. In summary, considering the advancement of technology, I would feel comfortable putting these "maximum age caps" on equipment for the average weekend golfer to get the most out of his/her game: Drivers: ~10 years old or newer Irons: ~15 years old or newer Wedges: ~3 years old or newer Putter: Whatever works best for you That being said, you may still enjoy the game with any kind of equipment out there. I just think that equipment that follows these guidelines will let the average weekend golfer get about as much as they can out of their game without necessarily breaking the bank. Like @iacas said, you may find incremental improvements by purchasing the R1 over an old G5 but the question then becomes whether or not this improvement is worth the price difference. This question can only be answered by the person buying the club. It can't be denied, however, that a driver from the 1960's will be severely outclassed by the G5 and the R1, making either of them a much better choice than the 1960's driver. Interestingly enough, I have had the desire to go the opposite way for a while now. I bought the s55's my last go around, and I'm thinking that my next set of irons will be a more "traditional" muscleback iron (since the s55 is mostly a CB), along the likes of the MP-4 irons by Mizuno. I hit the ball consistently enough that I don't care about the lack of forgiveness, and I believe that the wonderful look and feel of those irons, along with the little bit of extra vertical control (can thin it slightly to make punch shots even easier) would offset whatever I lose in forgiveness. I know that I would most certainly never go to an iron like the AP2, the G, or the M2. The chunky look of the club (along with the offset) gets into my head nowadays and makes me feel uncomfortable standing over the ball in a manner similar to how I used to be intimidated by the look of blades at address. I would gain forgiveness, but at the price of distance and trajectory control - an unacceptable trade for me considering I value distance and trajectory control much more highly than forgiveness.
    • My newest clubs are pretty old. Maybe 2006? I don't really remember. The other day, just for the heck of it,  I played using my old Bazooka Iron Woods. (2i-LW) Shot my normal score. Those Ironwoods are probably 15-16 years old. I don't think at this stage of my life, that a new set would make that much difference. 
    • My irons are from 1978, driver and woods from 2004 (same G5 as you)....at my current playing level, I don't feel like my clubs are holding my scores back. I will be updating my wedges to something designed this century in the near future but I'll probably regrip and keep playing my grandfather's old Eye irons a couple more years. There's something to be said about being familiar with your equipment too. The control you talk about with your driver comes from hitting a lot of balls with it and getting to know how it responds to different things. That's tough to give up considering that it could take weeks to develop that relationship with a new driver...at least that helps me cure the new toy bug and keep the wallet closed. :)
    • Hah, I was thinking the same thing when I saw that pic go up on the landing page.
  • TST Blog Entries

  • Images

  • Today's Birthdays

    1. mahariji_slice
      mahariji_slice
      (35 years old)
  • Blog Entries