Now that's what I call anally retentive!

Seeing Hooker was never going to take the offensive, Lee pulled two more Divisions, those of South Carolinian RH Anderson and Georgian Lafayette McLaws from in front of Hooker and led them himself against Sedgwick in conjunction with Jubal Early. It was to be a day of frustration for Lee, as he could not prod McLaws forward and get the 3 division attack going. Sedgwick withdrew over Banks’ Ford when he lost Marye’s Heights to Early.(Early had a great battle.)
This was the cue for Hooker to call the campaign over and he withdrew over US Ford on the 5th. Casualties were high for the four day battle: 13000 for Lee and 17000 for Hooker. Lee’s proportion was too high, considering he only had 60000 to start with.
Lee and the South had bettered an army twice the size of their own and given Virginia breathing space. Lee’s next move, as it had been in 62, after a victory, was to move North.
Gettysburg awaited.
Jackson would never again be Lee’s “right arm”’ as he passed away on the 10th from complications from his amputation.
His last words were: let us cross over the river and rest in the shade of the trees.

Brain Damaged was a member I enjoyed during my early days on this site.

During the last session of our teaching workshop, participants were asked to state their personal goals for the immediate future.  One teacher vowed to update photo albums, another to lose weight.  The goal that got the most response, however, was given by a slightly out-of-shape kindergarten teacher.  “I resolve to exercise until I can complete a 20-minute workout in less than an hour.”

@El:

GI, did you catch my translation of your name(figured it wasn’t the real thing) on another thread here?

Yes, I did. :) I should really stop making stuff up in other languages when I’m still struggling with English. :lol:

@Deviant:Scripter:

Well, if you give them money, there’s a lot more things that they can do to put it to use, including “fighting terrorism” (hint,hint :wink: ). Plus, you can put stipulations on what they are/are-not allowed to do with the money.

I take it you have some problem with this whole arrangement CC? Countries ask us for things everyday, that doesn’t neccessarily mean we have to cater to them. :-?

i don’t “have a problem with this”. It’s just the ironic sad laugh that comes out when you see America funding another country (middle-east, strong Islamic ties, a population that does not appear to embrace America they way “they should”) to help them deal with terrorism. In my mind this might well be another term for “the cold war” or “Iran” in 10 years.

@Mr:

I disagree a bit here. I don’t think this war is a question of legal or illegal.
I don’t think you can sum up this war in one question at all. It is a clouded and complicated iusse.

It truly is, and everyone has different emphasises of importance on different questions on that issue.

If one is going to agrue the legality of this war than one has to say that action in Kosovo was illegal and should not have been done. The UN, as a body, did not approve it. However, the question is was it the right thing to do? I would think yes.

But the situation was different: First it was NATO going in, second the UN later de facto approved the action.

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.