I think it's worth noting that this is the same institution that trained strategy expert Colin Powell. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_War_College)

Now you all bring in Powell?

Hilarious.

Why not Wesely Clark or ANY other General in the Army, Navy or Air Force?

It still doesn't fill the hole in Obama's EMPTY resume'.....well....except for his 6th Grade Social Studies class.

Actually since Patton is partly the subject matter of the thread, (and making a thread about another forum member is precident reason to trash it - which he didn't), then I'm thinking the guy can drive the conversation any direction he wants. Patton could start talking about potpourri and still be on topic.


...right. Which is why he said, "Now you all bring in Powell?".


Orating now? I mean who are you speaking to? For that matter who are you listening to?



Ahk

Just keep pushing the empty resume formula like it means something. It has never been a requirement before. None of the previous Presidents, at least as far back as Carter (according to my not very scientific search) has attended, and the National War College page on Wikipedia gives Powell as the most famous alumni. The logical reason for this is that, since Obama is young then the "inexperienced" line will stick, for purely psychological reasons, even though it has never been an issue before. It is pure marketing, and nothing else.

As for Powell, do you not think bringing him in gives some insight as to what kind of alumnus the NWC produces (i.e. an amoral war-hawk).

Gomper if you check the dates of the stories along with the fact that Turkey has now provided permission for the U.S. to deliver the humanitarian supplies, I think you'll find there is a five day difference in the original story and the current CNN one.

Where one was accurate at the time circumstances have changed.  As a result the original story is not in error. Just point that out.

I'm not sure what your issue is, but so far I think maybe it is a bit ridiculous or a lack of reading and comprehension. Argue away, but if you read all the CNN information you'll discover, the original plan was to send in warships. Not allowed. Coast guard cutter now scheduled to do the job, but the warship still lacks permission. Send in a row boat, frankly, as Rhett said to Scarlet, I really don't give a damn.  BTW, that was not an exact quote, but a paraphrase.  When you get out of the 6th grade let me know.

Well, Rhett, clearly you give a damn enough to make this thread. 

I believe you have miss read the CNN story.  There is a Coast Guard cutter (Dallas) AND a NAVY destroyer (USS McFaul) which have permission to transit into the Black Sea and will be used to send supplies.  The USS Mt. Whitney is waiting for permission.
So, yes there is a war ship that has permission to go. 

However, where did you get the idea that "the original plan was to send in warships"?  I only understood that Bush ordered the Navy to find a way to send relief supplies using naval vessels, I cannot find anywhere he insisted it had to be warships. 

The article you posted, and apparently agreed with, assumed there were no such vessels in existence that could accomplish what Bush wanted the navy to attempt, ergo Bush must be an ignorant person to have made the order.  I showed that the article was factually in error.

You reply by trying to change the goal post and bring in this idea of warships only.

So now I have replied and showed that even IF we allowed for your apparently fabricated idea that only warships were in the original plan, you would still be factually wrong.

In closing I would just like to point out that I have done all this without making snide remarks about your reading comprehension or any allusion to what grade you might be in.

Ironically, McCain and Obama from a policy standpoint seemed to be in lock step on this one.  They both called for diplomatic pressure on Russia to form a cease fire and quick withdrawal of Russian forces monitored by international observers.  Neither called for any sort of war with Russia, and you saying McCain is salivating at the thought of going to war is reacting with belligerent rhetoric and alarmism to his comments, IMHO.

Having said that, I will say that McCain's whole "Today we are all Geogians" was populist clapptrap and absolutely inane.  Again just IMHO.  I suspect we would agree on that.

What really concerns me in this is the German Chancellor calling for NATO to look at admitting Georgia into NATO.  Per the terms of the NATO treaty, an attack on one member is to be considered an attack on all.  In such a scenario if Russia were to do this to Georgia, we would be obligated by treaty to treat it as an attack on the US.  Anyone remember the treaty obligations circa 1914?