Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

I would like to try the Snell

I found that ball to be very nice. After it was discontinued, they had a couple of models when forced to find a new factory that had durability issues. I believe TM bought the factory that was producing them and pushed the DTC guys out and wouldn't supply them. But all that seems to be cleared up and their current ball lineup is reportedly much better. In bulk they're $32/doz, so a lot more reasonable than Titleist. 

I switched back to the Kirkland after the new V3 version was reportedly not quite as high spin as the V2. That said, I've had a couple that I've ripped back on the green with a wedge that didn't happen as much with the Snell, and I never had trouble stopping the Snell on the greens I play, so it's not like I need the extra spin. Bought 4doz Kirkland and will get through them and see what I think, and whether I want to switch to something else when I run out. 

And while Mdot will tell you that us sending arms to Ukraine is just basically trying to bleed Russia to death, I would ask, "isn't that a good thing?" Isn't that in our strategic interest? Russia has been acting at odds to our other interests in the ME and the region in general. They're also aligning with China against our interests whenever possible. A weakened Russia certainly doesn't hurt us; it most likely benefits us.

this is the only positive to the situation in Ukraine
F Putin

I have a problem with sending weapons and allowing them to be fired upon Russian soils. This greatly increases the chances that dickhead Putin goes down a path that ends everything.

A war that pits NATO (essentially, us), Australia, Philippines, Japan and SK against Russia, NK, Iran and China will not end well for anyone. And that's where it could go.

So why are we and the EU taking that chance?

Because the alternative is "let Putin do whatever he wants, and let him know we're too afraid to oppose him so he can do whatever he wants in the future too". You think if we just let him walk all over Ukraine, he's going to stop there? Especially since he'll now believe we don't have the cojones to stop him?

It's not like we sent Ukraine some arms and told them "go invade Russia". Putin started this by invading Ukraine. Letting a bully get away with it only emboldens a bully. 

much better than politics

I honestly might use it a euphemism for talking about politics

Now I do get this... To a point.

I don't think Ukraine is a vital strategic interest to the US. Which is why I would completely oppose a direct war with American soldiers getting involved. And it seems everyone on both sides of the American political divide agrees with that--as does most of Europe who is happy to send arms but not people.

But Russia invaded a sovereign nation with designs on conquering them. We're just supposed to say "yeah, that's cool" and do nothing? Maybe it's adjacent and was under Russian rule in the past, but it's not like the Ukrainians welcomed the Russian troops as liberators. They want to keep their country.

And while Mdot will tell you that us sending arms to Ukraine is just basically trying to bleed Russia to death, I would ask, "isn't that a good thing?" Isn't that in our strategic interest? Russia has been acting at odds to our other interests in the ME and the region in general. They're also aligning with China against our interests whenever possible. A weakened Russia certainly doesn't hurt us; it most likely benefits us.

I generally oppose countries trying to invade, conquer, and annex sovereign nations. I especially oppose it when it's a historic enemy of ours that we know is still continuing to act at contrary purposes to us geopolitically. And if we can throw a wrench in that for the [relatively] low cost of supplying arms, it seems to me to be a good idea. Certainly better than appeasement, which seems to be what Republicans are asking for.

If we wanted to fight WWIII over Ukrainian independence the time to do it was the late 1940's when we had an absolute monopoly on atomic weapons.  

There is a MUCH better example.  In 1945-1949 when we had an absolute monopoly on Atomic weapons we didn't even fight WWIII over Polish independence.  The supreme irony of that is that for the United Kingdom, their "casus belli" for getting involved in WWII was . . . Polish independence.  Did the United Kingdom "win" WWII?  There is a pretty strong argument that they didn't:
On September 3, 1939:

• The Royal Navy was BY FAR the most powerful navy afloat.  
• The United Kingdom was arguably the most powerful nation in the world.  There were arguments for Nazi Germany based on built-out existing weapons and for the US and/or the USSR based on potential but the UK was, at an absolute minimum, in the discussion.  
• The British Empire spanned the globe.  
• The UK declared war on Germany (it was a war of choice) over the issue of Polish Sovereignty.  

On January 1, 1946:

• The Royal Navy was the second most powerful navy afloat and it was such a distant second that the largest (the USN) was larger not only than the RN but actually larger than the RN and EVERY other navy in the world combined.  
• The UK wasn't even remotely in the conversation about "most powerful nation".  They had become a distinctly junior partner to their former colonies in the Western portion of the Alliance against Hitler and were obviously weaker than the USSR as well.  
• The British Empire still spanned the globe in theory but in practice Independence for the bulk of the dominions was imminent.  
• Poland was occupied by a foreign power and would remain so for the next 40+ years and portions of prewar Poland are STILL occupied.  

My point here is that Poland is much more plausibly a "vital strategic interest" of the United States than Ukraine and we weren't willing to fight WWIII over Polish Sovereignty when we had Millions of soldiers in Europe and an absolute monopoly on Atomic weapons.  

I think that letting Poland fall under Soviet occupation was terrible.  The Soviets literally were allies of the Nazis when they invaded Poland, the Poles suffered grievously in WWII at the hands of both the Nazis and the Communists, and they deserved to be free.  We chose not to fight over it.  I don't think that was the wrong decision.  I think it was a terrible thing that we did, but I think we realistically had to do it.  Poland was simply more important to Stalin than it was to FDR/Churchill/Truman/Atlee.  

The situation in Ukraine today is similar.  It sucks for the Ukrainians but we had a hand in kicking off this war and we should NEVER have emboldened the weasels that run that country to pick a fight they couldn't possibly win without our help.  

Next I'll move to the idea of getting the Ukrainians to fight a proxy war on our behalf.  I just think this is a massively risky gamble.  Those weapons we are giving to the Ukrainians are killing actual Russian people.  This isn't a video game, real flesh and blood people are dying.  That makes lifelong enemies and we don't need lifelong enemies.  

I've always argued that the lesson of Vietnam is that you simply can't half-ass a war.  Any war worth getting involved in is worth winning.  By extension, if it is NOT worth doing what it takes to win then it isn't worth getting involved.  Ukraine CLEARLY isn't worth doing what is necessary to win therefore, we shouldn't get involved.  

On China:
China not Russia is our modern geopolitical rival.  List of Global economies:

• $28.79 Trillion GDP, $85k/capita:  USA
• $18.54 Trillion, $13k/capita:  China
• $4.59 Trillion, $54k/capita:  Germany
• $4.11 Trillion, $33k/capita:  Japan
• $3.94 Trillion, $3k/capita:  India
• $3.50 Trillion, $51k/capita:  United Kingdom
• $3.13 Trillion, $47k/capita:  France
• $2.33 Trillion, $11k/capita:  Brazil
• $2.33 Trillion, $40k/capita:  Italy
• $2.24 Trillion, $55k/capita:  Canada

Do you see who is NOT on that list?  I'll give you a hint, they are led by a thug named Putin.  

I'm ok with bringing Poland into NATO but we should have stopped there.  Beyond that it simply isn't our neighborhood.  That sucked when we (US and UK) did it to Poland in 1945 and it sucks today too but that is how the world works.  We shouldn't get involved in something that isn't in our interests.  Also note that while Russia is NOT on that list of the 10 largest economies in the world, Germany, the UK, France, and Italy are.  All four of them are European countries MUCH closer to Ukraine and Russia than we are.  If they want to send arms to Ukraine I wouldn't stop them but I wouldn't get involved either.  Not our circus, not our monkeys.  

Beyond that, antagonizing Putin is just plain stupid.  There isn't any good reason why the Russians should be allied with the Chinese.  You commented on:

Russia has been acting at odds to our other interests in the ME and the region in general. They're also aligning with China against our interests whenever possible. A weakened Russia certainly doesn't hurt us; it most likely benefits us.

Maybe if we weren't supplying a country they are at war with they wouldn't feel the need to align closer with the Chinese on the geopolitical chess board.  In the long run we need allies against China.  China's economy is already 2/3 the size of ours despite their per capita GDP being only 15% of ours.  If their per capita GDP increases to the size of Japan's, Italy's, France's, UK's, Germany's, or Canada's they'll have a MUCH larger economy than we do.  Economics is ultimately what determines these things.  We won WWII because we built more weapons than the Germans and Japanese could destroy.  We won the cold war because we could afford to spend a lot more on weapons than the USSR could.  We surpassed Britain as the world's preeminent power because we had the bigger economy.  The same thing will happen to us as China overtakes us economically.  Then what?

• Is Taiwan a vital strategic interest of the United States?
• Is South Korea?
• Is Japan?
• Are the Philippines?
• Is Malaya?  

I DO think that lines need to be drawn.  I just think that Ukraine is clearly and obviously not inside those lines.  There are rumors of Russian subs basing in Cuba.  IMHO, we should tell Putin (quietly) that this is completely unacceptable to us.  Cuba is 90 miles from Key West and, IMHO, it IS a vital strategic interest of the United States.  We should never have backed down there in 1961.  Khrushcehv wouldn't have fought WWIII over Cuba for the same reason we shouldn't fight it over Ukraine, it isn't in his neighborhood and  isn't a vital strategic interest of Russia/USSR.  

When we tell Putin to get his subs out of Cuba, if he says "I'll get my nose out of your neighborhood if you'll get your nose out of mine" we should say "deal" and be done with it.  

I don't think the Russians are going to give up a year-round port without a fight.  Even if they did, who would it go to?  Last time that territory wasn't controlled by Moscow it was called Konigsberg and had been German for a millennia. 

I agree, but he would also love to have land access to it, which he doesn't have. Had the 3 Baltics not been admitted to NATO, he'd probably already would have taken (or tried to take) one or all of them by now - Lithuania in particular. He already basically owns Belarus anyway.