#1
It could be said that rape has be a companion of Russian armies since immemorial times (cf the Friedland campaign where German civilians ended welcoming Napoleonic troops). It could be argued about revenge against German atrocities in Russia (but was rape common place? and were Russians so keen in avenging Russian Jews?). It could be argued about the "uncivilized" nature of most of the non-Russian elements of the Soviet Army.
However this doesn't give the whole picture. The fact is that Ilya Ehrenburg, that is Stalin's favourite poet was encouraging troops to "break German woman's racial pride" (cf Solsyenitsin's "Gulag Archipelago') and that this was being published in Soviet Union's press and broadcast in its radios.
It was he regime who encouraged rape. And those rapes were not limited to Germany. It happened in Germany's minor allies, it happenned in the Baltic States, it happened in theorycally allied countries like Czechoslovakia. In every future satellite.
But it was not merely to break their spirit. Every successful revolution requires some heinous crime at its first stages so the bystanders will have to fear the return of the "pro-order side". An example of this was the beheading of the officers in the Bastille(despite the fact they had opened its doors). My guess is that Stalin wanted Russias oldiers having something to fear in case of a war with the Anglo-Saxons.
#2
Thanks, JFM.
On a related note, today, the main french wingnut blog published an entry about the Holodomor, and the reaction from the putin-bootlickers was as expected : the official recognition of the Ukrainian genocide is a conspiracy to slander russia, russia cannot be held responsible for what the USSR did, it's a move by the USA and the EU to get traction to induce Ukraine into NATO,... one commenter even forwards a PCT about the "5 millions disenfranchised workers" supposedly "starved to death in US concentration camps" during the Great Depression... etc, etc. This would be funny, except that in the fantasies of that definite majority of comemnters (not all, but many, and from there, I'd say of french rightwingers, this is a pretty representative website), the salvation will/would come from russia militarily invading Western Europe, to rid us from the USA-induced decadence ("if we go to war against russia, I'll desert and go to the other side", that kind of stuff). Perhaps they should hide their wimmen before calling in the Mighty Russian Warriors (as opposed to the cowardly Us soldiers who can't fight)...
So, yeah, pretty funny, in a sad way, to see people who are supposedly RIGHTwing and "nationalist" to find a crutch in having russia and putin-the-blond-eyed-man-who-chased-the-jewish-oligarchs as the saviors of Europe... But, then again, this make them bedfellows with G(r)om, you've got to love the irony.
#3
What was really reviolting was forn the 60 anniversary of D-Day the French TV interviewing (old) people who told we, the French, should not forget about Red Army's role.
I rememember. The backstabbing of Poland in 1939 who enabled Germany to attack France with a battlehardened but not bloodied army (without the backstabbbing Poland could have helmd until autumn's rains would have made a nightmare of mud of Poland). I remember teh Soviet Union providing nazi war machine with everything it needed. I remember French communists sabotaging France's tanks and planes in addition of course to encouraging desertion (if you remember all that, it puts in a diiferent light De Gaulle's policy respective to communist resistance movements).
And I remember what it meant to be "liberated" by the Red Army.
The disastrously counter-productive strategy of Obama's supporters
This item was linked to in the comments section of another post today (hat tip to anonymous5089). I thought it was worthy of it's own posting and I respectfully submit it for the moderators consideration as such.
#1
Scholarly arguments and presentation and, by these merits, something completely incomprehensible by the general electorate.
Unfortunately, The Messiah's(TM) armies will insist that, should the tide break for McCain, the polls will "prove" that the election was stolen from O-Bambi. Deprived of immediate "payback" for 2000/2004, the Libs will go nuts and we'll have:
At best, a replay of hanging, dangling, hemorrhoidal chads, etc...; or
At worst, a serious and national spectacle of the Watts Riots + Days of Rage, etc...
#3
Another blunder: it's a felony to vote fraudulently in Ohio, and there will be prosecutions and jail time. From the NY Post:
Four well-heeled New York Democrats are under investigation by an Ohio prosecutor for setting up a temporary home in the swing state - where two have already cast their ballots - just so that their votes will be counted there. The New Yorkers and nine other members of the political action committee (PAC) Vote From Home from across the country are accused of packing themselves into a modest three-bedroom house in Columbus, waiting 30 days - and then registering, even though the Buckeye State is not their permanent residence. Under Ohio law, a person who comes to the state for "temporary purposes only," without the intention of making it the "permanent place of abode" is not considered a resident. New permanent residents must live in Ohio 30 days before registering.
Four group members, including two of the New Yorkers, have already cast ballots, and six others requested absentee ballots from the county elections board.
Franklin County, Ohio, prosecutor Ron O'Brien launched the investigation after student reporters at palestra.net, a Fox News affiliate, discovered the mass registration effort at the home in a working-class neighborhood on Brownlee Avenue.
Vote From Home is registered to the East 82nd Street brownstone of Heather Halstead, daughter of Halstead Properties founder Clark Halstead Jr. She and her husband, NYU grad Marc Gustafson, are among those under scrutiny. "I think they mistakenly believed that by residing here 30 days, they met the residency requirement for voting - and perhaps they felt that casting a vote in a battleground state would be more effective than wherever they came from," O'Brien said. He added, the investigation will look at "surrounding facts" - including whether the new voters have applied for Ohio licenses, changed their car registrations, or signed leases.
On its Web site, the PAC - which includes many Ivy Leaguers and Rhodes, Truman and Fulbright scholars - boasts of its "extensive experience with political organizing, election administration and Democratic politics."
#5
Zombie's sure got some truly worthless commenters over there. This must really have touched a nerve on the lefties because they went into incoherent, screamingly foul-mouthed, frothing rage over it.
Good for Zombie. Man, I'd just LOVE for McCain/Palin to win just to be able to hit those leftie blogs and grind it in. I'd like to make some of their heads explode and, judging from their comments, it wouldn't take much doing to send them over the edge.
We ran this yesterday but we don't mind running it again today. Krauthammer's always worth a second read.
Contrarian that I am, I'm voting for John McCain. I'm not talking about bucking the polls or the media consensus that it's over before it's over. I'm talking about bucking the rush of wet-fingered conservatives leaping to Barack Obama before they're left out in the cold without a single state dinner for the next four years.
I stand athwart the rush of conservative ship-jumpers of every stripe -- neo (Ken Adelman), moderate (Colin Powell), genetic/ironic (Christopher Buckley) and socialist/atheist (Christopher Hitchens) -- yelling "Stop!" I shall have no part of this motley crew. I will go down with the McCain ship. I'd rather lose an election than lose my bearings.
First, I'll have no truck with the phony case ginned up to rationalize voting for the most liberal and inexperienced presidential nominee in living memory. The "erratic" temperament issue, for example. As if McCain's risky and unsuccessful but in no way irrational attempt to tactically maneuver his way through the economic tsunami that came crashing down a month ago renders unfit for office a man who demonstrated the most admirable equanimity and courage in the face of unimaginable pressures as a prisoner of war, and who later steadily navigated innumerable challenges and setbacks, not the least of which was the collapse of his campaign just a year ago.
McCain the "erratic" is a cheap Obama talking point. The 40-year record testifies to McCain the stalwart.
Nor will I countenance the "dirty campaign" pretense. The double standard here is stunning. Obama ran a scurrilous Spanish-language ad falsely associating McCain with anti-Hispanic slurs. Another ad falsely claimed McCain supports "cutting Social Security benefits in half." And for months Democrats insisted that McCain sought 100 years of war in Iraq.
McCain's critics are offended that he raised the issue of William Ayers. What's astonishing is that Obama was himself not offended by William Ayers.
Moreover, the most remarkable of all tactical choices of this election season is the attack that never was. Out of extreme (and unnecessary) conscientiousness, McCain refused to raise the legitimate issue of Obama's most egregious association -- with the race-baiting Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Dirty campaigning, indeed.
The case for McCain is straightforward. The financial crisis has made us forget, or just blindly deny, how dangerous the world out there is. We have a generations-long struggle with Islamic jihadism. An apocalyptic soon-to-be-nuclear Iran. A nuclear-armed Pakistan in danger of fragmentation. A rising Russia pushing the limits of revanchism. Plus the sure-to-come Falklands-like surprise popping out of nowhere.
Who do you want answering that phone at 3 a.m.? A man who's been cramming on these issues for the last year, who's never had to make an executive decision affecting so much as a city, let alone the world? A foreign policy novice instinctively inclined to the flabbiest, most vaporous multilateralism (e.g., the Berlin Wall came down because of "a world that stands as one"), and who refers to the most deliberate act of war since Pearl Harbor as "the tragedy of 9/11," a term more appropriate for a bus accident?
Or do you want a man who is the most prepared, most knowledgeable, most serious foreign policy thinker in the United States Senate? A man who not only has the best instincts, but has the honor and the courage to, yes, put country first, as when he carried the lonely fight for the surge that turned Iraq from catastrophic defeat into achievable strategic victory?
There's just no comparison. Obama's own running mate warned this week that Obama's youth and inexperience will invite a crisis -- indeed a crisis "generated" precisely to test him. Can you be serious about national security and vote on Nov. 4 to invite that test?
And how will he pass it? Well, how has he fared on the only two significant foreign policy tests he has faced since he's been in the Senate? The first was the surge. Obama failed spectacularly. He not only opposed it. He tried to denigrate it, stop it and, finally, deny its success.
The second test was Georgia, to which Obama responded instinctively with evenhanded moral equivalence, urging restraint on both sides. McCain did not have to consult his advisers to instantly identify the aggressor.
Today's economic crisis, like every other in our history, will in time pass. But the barbarians will still be at the gates. Whom do you want on the parapet? I'm for the guy who can tell the lion from the lamb.
Posted by: Bobby ||
10/25/2008 06:15 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I check for similar titles, but not the article. Hence this is a dupe of an article posted by Tipper. That one from IBD, mine from WaPo via Real Clear Politics.
Mods - feel free to delete this one - although *I* did post the whole article...
Posted by: Bobby ||
10/25/2008 7:00 Comments ||
Top||
#2
McCain for President
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, October 24, 2008; A19
Washingtonpost.com
Contrarian that I am, I'm voting for John McCain. I'm not talking about bucking the polls or the media consensus that it's over before it's over. I'm talking about bucking the rush of wet-fingered conservatives leaping to Barack Obama before they're left out in the cold without a single state dinner for the next four years.
I stand athwart the rush of conservative ship-jumpers of every stripe -- neo (Ken Adelman), moderate (Colin Powell), genetic/ironic (Christopher Buckley) and socialist/atheist (Christopher Hitchens) -- yelling "Stop!" I shall have no part of this motley crew. I will go down with the McCain ship. I'd rather lose an election than lose my bearings.
First, I'll have no truck with the phony case ginned up to rationalize voting for the most liberal and inexperienced presidential nominee in living memory. The "erratic" temperament issue, for example. As if McCain's risky and unsuccessful but in no way irrational attempt to tactically maneuver his way through the economic tsunami that came crashing down a month ago renders unfit for office a man who demonstrated the most admirable equanimity and courage in the face of unimaginable pressures as a prisoner of war, and who later steadily navigated innumerable challenges and setbacks, not the least of which was the collapse of his campaign just a year ago.
McCain the "erratic" is a cheap Obama talking point. The 40-year record testifies to McCain the stalwart.
Nor will I countenance the "dirty campaign" pretense. The double standard here is stunning. Obama ran a scurrilous Spanish-language ad falsely associating McCain with anti-Hispanic slurs. Another ad falsely claimed that McCain supports "cutting Social Security benefits in half." And for months Democrats insisted that McCain sought 100 years of war in Iraq.
McCain's critics are offended that he raised the issue of William Ayers. What's astonishing is that Obama was himself not offended by William Ayers.
Moreover, the most remarkable of all tactical choices of this election season is the attack that never was. Out of extreme (and unnecessary) conscientiousness, McCain refused to raise the legitimate issue of Obama's most egregious association -- with the race-baiting Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Dirty campaigning, indeed.
The case for McCain is straightforward. The financial crisis has made us forget, or just blindly deny, how dangerous the world out there is. We have a generations-long struggle with Islamic jihadism. An apocalyptic soon-to-be-nuclear Iran. A nuclear-armed Pakistan in danger of fragmentation. A rising Russia pushing the limits of revanchism. Plus the sure-to-come Falklands-like surprise popping out of nowhere.
Who do you want answering that phone at 3 a.m.? A man who's been cramming on these issues for the past year, who's never had to make an executive decision affecting so much as a city, let alone the world? A foreign policy novice instinctively inclined to the flabbiest, most vaporous multilateralism (e.g., the Berlin Wall came down because of "a world that stands as one"), and who refers to the most deliberate act of war since Pearl Harbor as "the tragedy of 9/11," a term more appropriate for a bus accident?
Or do you want a man who is the most prepared, most knowledgeable, most serious foreign policy thinker in the United States Senate? A man who not only has the best instincts but has the honor and the courage to, yes, put country first, as when he carried the lonely fight for the surge that turned Iraq from catastrophic defeat into achievable strategic victory?
There's just no comparison. Obama's own running mate warned this week that Obama's youth and inexperience will invite a crisis -- indeed a crisis "generated" precisely to test him. Can you be serious about national security and vote on Nov. 4 to invite that test?
And how will he pass it? Well, how has he fared on the only two significant foreign policy tests he has faced since he's been in the Senate? The first was the surge. Obama failed spectacularly. He not only opposed it. He tried to denigrate it, stop it and, finally, deny its success.
The second test was Georgia, to which Obama responded instinctively with evenhanded moral equivalence, urging restraint on both sides. McCain did not have to consult his advisers to instantly identify the aggressor.
Today's economic crisis, like every other in our history, will in time pass. But the barbarians will still be at the gates. Whom do you want on the parapet? I'm for the guy who can tell the lion from the lamb.
#3
"I'd rather lose an election than lose my bearings." Perfect description of why I'm voting for McCain. Polls created by the illuminati media can say whatever they want, I know that I'm voting for the right guy at the right time. Even if he wins, the conservatives need to pick up the pieces and take their heads out of their a..
Posted by: Big Gleper4218 ||
10/25/2008 22:16 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Once the Maskirovka is exposed, either before the election or after, those many Obama supporters who retain any moral decency will realise they were taken in by fashionable groupthink, betrayed by a malign media, and played for fools by manipulating marxists. Will there be a backlash?
#5
a5089, thanks much for the links to those excellent pieces. I think they both deserve to be posted as stand-along items here, the one from zombietime in particular. In fact, I hope you don't mind if I take the liberty of doing just that.
In the words of the father of the US Navy, John Paul Jones:
A few days ago, Joe Biden was trotted out to make his monthly gaffe. Last time I think it was last time; its hard to follow without a program it was about how Hillary might have been a better VP candidate. This time he mentioned that a young President Obama was likely to be tested in his first six months. Anyway, thats what he said, before being rotated back to the Cone of Silence.
The thing I actually like about Joe Biden is that these gaffes of his are actually just the product of a man speaking his mind, and some of the time, he happens to be correct.
There have been a lot of guesses as to what shape this test might take. But what really interests me is what Sen. Biden had to say later in the same discussion, speaking off the record to Democratic-party stalwarts.
Gird your loins, he begins not good! and then it gets really interesting . . .
I promise you, you all are gonna be sitting here a year from now going, Oh my God, why are they there in the polls? Why is the polling so down? Why is this thing so tough? Were gonna have to make some incredibly tough decisions in the first two years. So Im asking you now, Im asking you now, be prepared to stick with us. Remember the faith you had at this point because youre going to have to reinforce us.
So, with the clear understanding that all that follows is the reading of tea leaves and chicken entrails What the hell was Joe Biden hinting at? What possible action would drive a President Obamas poll numbers down into the ground?
Well, some people have argued that if Iran and Israel decide to get serious and if an Obama administration did essentially nothing to defend our ally how would the vast majority of American Jews largely Democrats take that? Could that be the poll hit that Democrats need to gird their loins for?
Thats depressing. Heres something even more depressing: What if Biden is hinting that Obama would indeed get us involved militarily at Israels side or anywhere else, for that matter. In other words, if Obama were to step up and do the right thing, and put America in the middle of another war would that be what he wants to brace the base for?
Whats depressing about that? Well, in a fundamentally moral country or political party such an action should make his poll numbers shoot up. In the casually anti-Semitic, fashionably anti-American circles where Bill Ayres, Jeremiah Wright, Markos "Kos" Moulitsas, and George Soros circulate, this would be treason of the highest order.
Another theory: Recruitment is apparently falling off sharply within the last month or so. I have heard, anecdotally, that new recruits are waiting out the election, since most of them have no desire to serve in the kind of toothless military they see under a President Obama. Is Joe Biden warning us that Obama may need to reinstate the draft to make up for a sudden plunge in volunteers? Who knows? I wonder what the Obama Youth Vote would think if that comes to pass.
Finally, Ed Morrissey over at Hotair.com is wondering if this may all be preamble to something Barack Obama outlines in no uncertain terms in a video you can watch with your own eyes right here.
If youre new to these intertubes, heres the print version: He is sitting in what appears to be his senate office, and says, quite clearly, that:
I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of future combat systems. [snip] I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal, I will not develop new nuclear weapons. I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material. And I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert.
Wow.
Is Barack Obama planning a unilateral drawdown of U.S. forces? He says thats what he wants, and he sounds pretty clear about it to me.
Theres a lot to say about that, obviously, but my first thought was that if this became national policy for the United States, we can count on the press brigades that were diligently deployed to determine irregularities in Sarah Palins 4-H dues from 1981 and Joe the Plumbers failure to use American-made Teflon tape to descend on the disarmament procedure and make sure each warhead and every gram was diligently disposed of.
As far as China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea are concerned well, they will undoubtedly by moved by the high moral purpose involved not to mention the fact that its Obama whos asking! and so I dont think we need to be too concerned about compliance on their end.
So what was Joe hinting at? What was going to cause Obamas poll numbers to crater? . . . None of these speculations fill me with joy, but Ill tell you straight up that last option unilateral disarmament makes my blood run cold. When youre surrounded by armed, raging barbarians, that is not the optimal time to lay down your sword even if you dont have the will or the inclination to use it. Why, you may discover that even if you just wave it around a little, it can have a remarkable effect.
Unless youre running away when you do it, in which case it just pisses them off even more.
Posted by: Mike ||
10/25/2008 12:36 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[13 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I suspect that he was making it up out of whole cloth. I have seen nothing to indicate that Biden has any sense of what is happening in the world outside of his echo chamber.
#2
I promise you, you all are gonna be sitting here a year from now going, "Oh my God, why are they there in the polls? Why is the polling so down?
Because there is nothing there except for more governmental sprawl, more central control from Washington, an inability to govern, new and bigger cockamamie social programs and higher taxes to support all this governmental intervention and meddling in our lives?
The upside is that the honeymoon was over during the Carter years rather quickly. Even Carter's own party got fed up with him.
#3
The upside is that the honeymoon was over during the Carter years rather quickly. Even Carter's own party got fed up with him.>/i>
The downside is that in a a far less dangerous situation and, being far less nuttier and a far better American than Obama, Carter came close to lose the cold war.
#4
I still think ol' Joe can't tell us which "scenario" will happen because Zero's puppetmasters people are still negotiating with our various enemies to see which one will pay the most for the help privilege of attacking us uncontested.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
10/25/2008 21:07 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Joe, Joe, Joe...thank you! We at the consevative end of things would like to thank you for another gift. Even if the illuminati media won't cover this in great detail, as they would rather examine Palin's shoes.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
