AA.org's M.I.A.

Frohe Weihnachten und gesegnete Feiertage!

Merry Christmas.

Thanks for answering Worsham.
Maine? Interesting. Would have been Massachusetts then. They did go far away (almost Canada, like Marc suggested).

Guys,

––First, let me start out by saying “Unbroken” is NOT a war movie,….at least like you normally think of one.
----It IS a very powerful, inspirational movie that is extremely well done. It also has a enough WW2 action/scenes to be “interesting” to a WW2 buff. The CGI as well as the physical props were well done. I only noticed one inacuracy,…when returning to America at the end of the war there was a transport aircraft that still had the early ww2 red dot in the star and red/white rudder stripes. I guess it might have been possible but I doubt it. Anyway, it was hardly noticable (except to a historian) and didn’t detract from the movie at all. All summed up, a great movie that’s well written, acted, with great cinematography.

----My opinion,…If you want to see a well done INSPIRATIONAL movie set in the WW2 era, this is a GREAT ONE!

Tall Paul

I saw Gibson’s gillipoli and it reeked. oh god it was bad…

I saw it at your house, remember?
When they were picking on R. Kelly

LMAO one just happened a few mins ago that got me laughin :lol:

Geze: Ya, 1000 registered users but how many have actualy posted?

432 never posted

and 266 have only posted one or twice

thats 698 users of 1008 that have posted 0, 1 or 2 times!

Dezrtfish:Well, it’s a good thing you have posted once for each of them.

AahahahAHahhAhahHAHahaH!!! now that’s comedy. Well it’s funny if Dezrt is saying what I think he is. I hope he is, cuz then it’s funny.

I think most of the backing came due to two facts:
(1) the USSR needed reforms, that was obvious.
Still, they probably wanted a long term leader that could be influenced => a younger one, after the two short reigns of Andropov and what-was-his-name… Probably, the influentials wanted some change, but surely not that much that it would threaten their power-base, one of the reasons for the coup that failed due to Jelzins help for Gorbachev.
(2) The general secretary and all the other positions he fills made him the most powerful man in the USSR. Probably, whoever put Gorbachev into place, underestimated him. Pretty much the same underestimation that Hitler faced when he was appointed Chancellor, but luckily Gorbachev used that to reform positively, and i consider the new freedom of information, the right to ask wether the party is right and that the crucial reform.

So, I don’t think that there was “real” backing, i believe Gorbachev was kind of a compromise candidate, kind of a makeshift. Of course, once he was into power, you ccouldn’t remove instantly, that would have meant that the party made a mistake (which was not “allowed” before Gorbachev). And he was clever enough to stay into power, and use his popularity at the beginning (which soon, after the economy started to collapse openly, was reduced to more or less nothing) to enforece the reforms.