Comments by "Michael Mappin" (@michaelmappin1830) on "David Pakman Show"
channel.
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@rommiewilliams367popsmruff , dude, to say that there would be no free world without NATO, that's just not rational. Do you have any idea how many foreign policy experts, political scientist, international law experts, people such as Norm Chomsky, have explained over and over again that there was no need for nato in the first place and that we certainly do not need NATO now. These individuals explain that this whole concept of NATO being responsible for the free world is nothing more than ruling class and capitalist propaganda.
Putin went into Ukraine because he was forced to do so. There's numerous videos on YouTube where are the fascist elements of the Ukrainian Army openly admits they instigated the war with East Ukraine, killing over 14,000 people, hundreds of innocent children. You seen the memorial setup for those children? It is a matter of public record that the United States assisted in the coup and Ukraine back in-2014. How can you not know that that's when the war was started? Putin is putting an end to the war, he didn't start one.
You simply don't know what you're talkin about. You are reiterating propaganda disseminated by government agencies at the top of the Apex to the corporate media that control most of the information flow.
I don't mean to be rude but your comments are extremely ignorant.
2
-
2
-
@dionmcgee5610 , you don't actually believe that, do you? Russia is not targeting innocent women and children. It sounds like that same propaganda we used against Iraq. Weapons of mass destruction, throwing children out of incubators, Etc. In actuality, a lot of foreign policy experts are wondering why Putin is going in so soft. Putin could easily do to the Ukraine what the America did to Iraq. But Russia is going out of its way to avoid civilian casualties and necessary damage to civilian infrastructure.
Us intelligence and NATO intelligence agencies release information to the media and the media just reports on it as if it were facts. You have any idea how many people in the CBC and the BBC News agencies used to work for NATO? Or have connections to Nato? Anyway, I've never seen so much ridiculous propaganda in all my life. Next they're going to be saying that Putin eats live babies for breakfast. 😀
I'm not a big fan of Putin because he's a capitalist and a right winger. But from what I can tell he's a very principled individual that actually cares about the well-being innocent civilians as well as his own countrymen. One of the reasons that the West because He restored Russia along with the quality of life of its citizens instead of selling out to American capitalists.
▪ Scott Ritter https://youtu.be/OSkpIq3T-Zc
▪ Douglas Macgregor https://youtu.be/mjaO5pWmG14
▪ Douglas Macgregor & Aaron Mate
https://youtu.be/NFngc_8RiVc
When the US puppet government was in control of Russia or the quality of life was horrible! Life expectancy dropped. Resources that used to go to the people we're going to Rich American capitalists. But Putin changed all that. And now the billionaire oligarchs in the United States hate Putin. And when Master hates someone, Master uses its immediate to get all of its subjects to also hate whoever they hate. It's really quite frightening how easily they can control the public mind. Back in nineteen twenty-nine what Edward Bernays said that we were going to be able to use propaganda to turn people on and off like light switches, a lot of individuals thought he was crazy. Not anymore. 😀
I was talking to a friend of mine the other day who knows people that live in Russia.
"I live in a loft/studio apartment in a decent neighborhood and pay $850 in my city, Philadelphia. My daughter has a 3 bedroom house same city pays $1500 rent. My friend in Moscow has a whole house right outside the Kremlin pays $400."
But yeah, all you have to do is look at the public record and Declassified documents to see why the Americans and their allies hate Putin.
James Petras (the American Sociological Review, British Journal of Sociology, Social Research, and Journal of Peasant Studies).
"During the 1990’s, the US plundered Russia at will. Washington imposed a unipolar world, celebrated as the ‘New World Order’. They bombed and devastated former Russian allies like Yugoslavia and Iraq, setting up ethnically cleansed rump states like Kosovo for their huge military bases. Meanwhile, Washington reduced Russia, under the inebriate Yeltsin regime, to a backwater vassal stripped of its resources, its institutions, scientists, and research centers. In the absence of war, the Russian economy declined by 50% and life expectancy fell below that of Bangladesh. The US celebrated this ‘victory of democracy’ over a helpless, deteriorating state by welcoming the most obscene new gangster oligarchs and pillagers and laundering their bloodstained loot.
The door slammed shut on the pillage with the election of Vladimir Putin and the demise of the Yeltsin gangster-government. Russia was transformed: Putin reversed Russia’s demise: The economy recovered, living standards rose abruptly; employment in all sectors increased, and cultural, educational and scientific centers were restored. Vladimir Putin was elected and re-elected by overwhelming majorities of the Russian electorate despite huge sums of Western money going to his opponents. Russia systematically recovered many strategic sectors of the economy illegally seized by Western-backed Israeli-Russian oligarchs. Even more important, Putin restored Russian statecraft and diplomacy - formulating a strategy for an independent, democratic foreign policy and restoring Russia’s defense capability. The loss of this critical vassal state under its dipsomaniacal Boris Yeltsin shook the US EU-NATO alliance to its very core.
In the beginning President Putin did not oppose the US-NATO military invasion of Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. It went along with the economic sanctions imposed on Iran. It even maintained its cooperation despite a US-sponsored attack by the government of Georgia against South Ossetia killing scores of Russian peacekeepers. In the wake of those destabilizing disasters, what finally led the Russian government to reverse its complicity with the West was the horrific US-financed invasion of Syria where Russian jihadis from the Caucasus were playing an important role as mercenaries, threatening to return and undermine the stability of Russia. This was quickly followed by the US-sponsored putsch in Ukraine, fomenting a civil war on Russia’s frontiers, threatening is vital naval base in Crimea and repressing millions of ethnic Russian - Ukrainian citizens in the industrialized Donbas region. These blatant aggression finally pushed Putin to challenge the expansionist policies of Washington and the EU."
Also, it's on public record regarding to what America had planned for Putin and Ukraine. There was the United States national security advisor who actually had the audacity to write a book about it 20 years ago! And then when people question him whether or not he would be fearful of public backlash, he openly admitted that there was no need to be concerned because the population is so easily controlled by the media. He pointed out that we control the media therefore we control public opinion. Adolf Hitler said the same thing!
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
He's talking about people not knowing much about political Theory which doesn't actually understand what socialism is and says that he still prefers capitalism over socialism. When workers own their own companies in factories, then they get to be their own boss. Obviously they're going to have more freedom. Obviously if workers own their own companies and factories are going to have more equality because they have equal voting power. That's a hell of a lot better than working under a dictatorship when the boss gets to the side when you have to get up in the morning, how long you have to work, when and how long you can go to the washroom, what you have to wear, what time you can eat, some capitals companies even demand that their employees keep a smile on their face at all times. Why should the richest members of society get to choose how much workers get paid and what is produced, where things are produce, what is produced, Etc. The consequence of that is that most of the wealth goes to the richest members of society and most things are now made in China and workers can no longer afford a family on a single income. But of course he supports capitalism over socialism because I suspect he's a corporate shill. He makes a lot of money from capitalist advertising. And the consequence of that is that things are more expensive, workers don't get paid as much and people have to work longer in order to pay for such advertising. But he gets the profit from that so it's understandable that he's likes to play both sides of the fence. Too bad he doesn't have any integrity. Disgusting.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Xpistos510 , there's this thing called the Freedom of Information Act. I would highly recommend that you start looking at has been Declassified and what's in the public record.
Why is Putin so popular among Russian population?
Well let's see what James Petras (the American Sociological Review, British Journal of Sociology, Social Research, and Journal of Peasant Studies) has to say about Putin.
"During the 1990’s, the US plundered Russia at will. Washington imposed a unipolar world, celebrated as the ‘New World Order’. They bombed and devastated former Russian allies like Yugoslavia and Iraq, setting up ethnically cleansed rump states like Kosovo for their huge military bases. Meanwhile, Washington reduced Russia, under the inebriate Yeltsin regime, to a backwater vassal stripped of its resources, its institutions, scientists, and research centers. In the absence of war, the Russian economy declined by 50% and life expectancy fell below that of Bangladesh. The US celebrated this ‘victory of democracy’ over a helpless, deteriorating state by welcoming the most obscene new gangster oligarchs and pillagers and laundering their bloodstained loot.
The door slammed shut on the pillage with the election of Vladimir Putin and the demise of the Yeltsin gangster-government. Russia was transformed: Putin reversed Russia’s demise: The economy recovered, living standards rose abruptly; employment in all sectors increased, and cultural, educational and scientific centers were restored. Vladimir Putin was elected and re-elected by overwhelming majorities of the Russian electorate despite huge sums of Western money going to his opponents. Russia systematically recovered many strategic sectors of the economy illegally seized by Western-backed Israeli-Russian oligarchs. Even more important, Putin restored Russian statecraft and diplomacy - formulating a strategy for an independent, democratic foreign policy and restoring Russia’s defense capability. The loss of this critical vassal state under its dipsomaniacal Boris Yeltsin shook the US EU-NATO alliance to its very core.
In the beginning President Putin did not oppose the US-NATO military invasion of Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. It went along with the economic sanctions imposed on Iran. It even maintained its cooperation despite a US-sponsored attack by the government of Georgia against South Ossetia killing scores of Russian peacekeepers. In the wake of those destabilizing disasters, what finally led the Russian government to reverse its complicity with the West was the horrific US-financed invasion of Syria where Russian jihadis from the Caucasus were playing an important role as mercenaries, threatening to return and undermine the stability of Russia. This was quickly followed by the US-sponsored putsch in Ukraine, fomenting a civil war on Russia’s frontiers, threatening is vital naval base in Crimea and repressing millions of ethnic Russian - Ukrainian citizens in the industrialized Donbas region. These blatant aggression finally pushed Putin to challenge the expansionist policies of Washington and the EU."
Putin & the Press: The Demonology School of Journalism
"The major influential western print media are engaged in a prolonged, large-scale effort to demonize Russian President Putin, his politics and persona. There is an article (or several articles) every day in which he is personally stigmatized as a dictator, authoritarian, czar, ‘former KGB operative’ and Soviet-style ruler; anything but the repeatedly elected President of Russia.…
He is accused of hijacking Russia from the ‘road to democracy’, as pursued by his grotesquely corrupt predecessor Boris Yeltsin; of directing the bloody repression of the ‘freedom loving Chechens’; of jailing innocent, independent and critical oligarchs and robber barons; of fomenting an uprising in the ‘democratic, newly pro-Western’ Ukraine and seizing control of Crimea; of backing a ‘bloody tyrant’ in Syria (elected President Bashar Assad) in a civil war against ISIS terrorists; of running the Russian economy into the ground; and of militarily threatening the Baltic and Eastern European NATO member countries.
In a word, the media have propagated an image of an ‘out-of-control autocrat’, who makes a mockery of ‘democratic’ norms and ‘Western values’, and who seeks to revive the ‘Soviet (aka Evil) Empire’.
The corollary is that ‘Western powers’, despite their peace-loving propensities and fraternal attempts to bring Russia into the democratic ‘fold’, have been ‘forced’ to now surround Russia with NATO military bases and missiles; to finance a violent coup in the Ukraine (on Russia’s frontier) and arm the Ukrainian putsch government and neo-fascist militias to ‘restore democracy’ and violently suppress ethnic Russian ‘separatists’ in Eastern Ukraine. We are told that US and EU sanctions against Russia were carefully crafted ‘diplomatic’ measures designed to punish the Moscow ‘aggressor’.
In reality, the Western media has relentlessly demonized Vladimir Putin in a campaign to further NATO military expansion and undermine the Russian economy and its national security. The goal is ultimately to force a ‘regime change’, restoring the neo-liberal elites who had pillaged Russia’s economy during the 1990’s and whose brutal economic policies led to the premature death of over 6 million Russians due to deprivation and the collapse of the healthcare system.
The Western media has backed every oligarch, gangster and fraudster who has gone on trial and been convicted during Putin’s term in office. The propagandists tell us the reason for this affinity between the Western media and the gangster-oligarchs is that these convicted felons, who claim to be ‘political dissidents’ and critics of Putin’s rule, have been dispossessed, and jailed for upholding ‘Western values’." ~
"In the biggest power grab since George Bush seized Eastern Europe and converted it into a NATO bastion confronting Russia, the Obama regime, together with the EU, financed and organized a violent putsch in the Ukraine which established a puppet regime in Kiev." ~ James Petras, 2014
1
-
@steveor4659 , oh yeah, I'm sure that Putin knows that NATO would never attack Russia from the Ukraine. It's not like they bombed Iraq, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Libya, tried to overthrow Venezuela, excetera, excetera. It's not like they were already funding fascists in the country who killed over fourteen thousand ethnic Russians in the east, along with many young children. It's not like NATO didn't already start the war in 2014 with the coup.
Yeah, you're making one hell of an argument.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@johnnyboy62parker39 , "... NATO powers have lately relied on their bogus legal doctrine of “responsibility to protect” that they invented after the fact to try to justify their aggression against Yugoslavia. No such doctrine exists in international law, but they claim the right to use it nevertheless.
It applies, according to them, when a military action is justified, though illegal, “for legitimate humanitarian reasons.’ They were warned that this false doctrine could be turned against them. Russia has not referred to it at all, but if NATO can rely on it for their wars of aggression, then surely Russia can rely on it to justify their military action to defend the Donbass, and themselves.
When one takes account of all the factors that governed the Russian decision to send its forces into Ukraine it is clear that in law they had the legal right to do so whereas the United States continues its illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq and Syria to this day and the NATO media powers and governments say nothing, because they are all complicit in those invasions.
If the United States and the NATO alliance had complied with international law in the first place as set out in the UN Charter, the world would not be in this mess. They caused this, not Russia. The responsibility is entirely theirs and they will be judged for it."
Christopher Black is an international criminal lawyer based in Toronto. He is known for a number of high-profile war crimes cases and recently published his novel Beneath the Clouds.
1
-
@rommiewilliams367popsmruff , James Petras (the American Sociological Review, British Journal of Sociology, Social Research, and Journal of Peasant Studies).
"During the 1990’s, the US plundered Russia at will. Washington imposed a unipolar world, celebrated as the ‘New World Order’. They bombed and devastated former Russian allies like Yugoslavia and Iraq, setting up ethnically cleansed rump states like Kosovo for their huge military bases. Meanwhile, Washington reduced Russia, under the inebriate Yeltsin regime, to a backwater vassal stripped of its resources, its institutions, scientists, and research centers. In the absence of war, the Russian economy declined by 50% and life expectancy fell below that of Bangladesh. The US celebrated this ‘victory of democracy’ over a helpless, deteriorating state by welcoming the most obscene new gangster oligarchs and pillagers and laundering their bloodstained loot.
The door slammed shut on the pillage with the election of Vladimir Putin and the demise of the Yeltsin gangster-government. Russia was transformed: Putin reversed Russia’s demise: The economy recovered, living standards rose abruptly; employment in all sectors increased, and cultural, educational and scientific centers were restored. Vladimir Putin was elected and re-elected by overwhelming majorities of the Russian electorate despite huge sums of Western money going to his opponents. Russia systematically recovered many strategic sectors of the economy illegally seized by Western-backed Israeli-Russian oligarchs. Even more important, Putin restored Russian statecraft and diplomacy - formulating a strategy for an independent, democratic foreign policy and restoring Russia’s defense capability. The loss of this critical vassal state under its dipsomaniacal Boris Yeltsin shook the US EU-NATO alliance to its very core.
In the beginning President Putin did not oppose the US-NATO military invasion of Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. It went along with the economic sanctions imposed on Iran. It even maintained its cooperation despite a US-sponsored attack by the government of Georgia against South Ossetia killing scores of Russian peacekeepers. In the wake of those destabilizing disasters, what finally led the Russian government to reverse its complicity with the West was the horrific US-financed invasion of Syria where Russian jihadis from the Caucasus were playing an important role as mercenaries, threatening to return and undermine the stability of Russia. This was quickly followed by the US-sponsored putsch in Ukraine, fomenting a civil war on Russia’s frontiers, threatening is vital naval base in Crimea and repressing millions of ethnic Russian - Ukrainian citizens in the industrialized Donbas region. These blatant aggression finally pushed Putin to challenge the expansionist policies of Washington and the EU."
1
-
@rommiewilliams367popsmruff , "For decades we were told that a huge military establishment was necessary to contain an expansionist world communist movement with its headquarters in Moscow (or sometimes Beijing). The US and other western capitalist nations formed the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in 1949 supposedly to serve as a bulwark against the threat of a Soviet invasion across Europe. Evidence of such a threat was never forthcoming. Still the “NATO shield” was put together, consisting of a massive build-up of military forces throughout Western Europe operating in effect under the hegemony of the US.
But after the overthrow of the Soviet Union and other Eastern European communist nations, Washington made no move to dismantle NATO. Instead of being abolished, NATO was expanded to include nations that reached across Eastern Europe right to Russia’s border. In trying to convince us that we still needed NATO, policymakers and editorialists let fly a variety of arguments.
First, we heard that NATO is a relative bargain since the US pays only 25% of its cost—as if this spoke to its purpose or political value.
Second, NATO can be used as a collective force for interventions without being stymied by a UN veto, as might happen when Washington seeks a United Nations mandate for war and invasion against some country. In other words, the US has a freer hand operating through NATO than through the United Nations. Thus when the UN Security Council (because of Russian and Chinese vetoes) refused to cooperate with the destruction of Yugoslavia, Washington just enlisted NATO.
Third, we are told by one mainstream newspaper that “NATO is committed to defending countries that share a commitment to democracy and free enterprise.”
Do we still need NATO? Actually the US public never needed NATO. The Soviet Red Army had neither the interest nor the capacity to invade Western Europe after World War II; State Department studies have admitted as much.
Does that mean NATO has been senseless or useless? Not at all; it is a valuable tool to lock the Western European countries into the US imperial system, just as it is now doing to the newly capitalized Eastern European countries.
After the overthrow of the Soviet Union and the other Eastern European communist nations, all Cold War weapons programs in the US continued in production, with new ones being added all the time, including plans to conduct war from outer space. In short time the White House and Pentagon began issuing jeremiads about a whole host of new enemies—for some unexplained reason previously overlooked—who posed a mortal threat to the US, including “dangerous rogue states” like Libya with its menacing rag-tag army of 50,000."
~ Michael Parenti
1
-
@rommiewilliams367popsmruff , NATO war crimes in Yugoslavia
"From March 24 to June 10 1999, US military forces, in coordination with a number of other NATO powers, launched round-the-dock aerial attacks against Yugoslavia, dropping 20,000 tons of bombs and killing upwards of 3,000 women, children, and men. All this was done out of humanitarian concern for Albanians in Kosovo—or so we were asked to believe. In the span of a few months, President Clinton bombed four countries: Sudan, Afghanistan, Iraq (repeatedly), and Yugoslavia (massively). At the same time, the US national security state was involved in proxy wars in Angola, Mexico (Chiapas), Colombia, and East Timor, among other places. US forces were deployed across the globe at some three hundred major overseas bases—all in the name of peace, democracy, national security, and humanitarianism." ~ Michael Parenti
https://youtu.be/YyvezvSQtq0
1
-
@masterghotihook5793 , no, not projection. Have you been listening to foreign policy experts and lawyers that specialize in international law during the last 30 years? Are you familiar with all of the documents that have been Declassified thanks to lawyers that were able to get that information thanks to the Freedom of Information Act? Why don't you check with the National Security archive.
▪ Noam Chomsky:
"In 2014, a Russia-supported government in Ukraine was forcefully removed from power by a coup supported by the U.S. and replaced by a U.S. and European-backed government. It was a development that brought closer to war the two main antagonists of the Cold War era, as Moscow regards both U.S. and European involvement in Ukraine and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s (NATO) continued eastward expansion as part of a well-orchestrated strategy to encircle Russia.
The strategy of encirclement is indeed as old as NATO itself, and this is the reason why Russian President Vladimir Putin issued recently a list of demands to the U.S. and NATO with regard to their actions in Ukraine and even parts of the former Soviet space. In the meantime, senior-level Russian officials have gone even further by warning of military response if NATO continues to ignore Moscow’s security concerns. The Russia-Ukraine conflict is a solvable problem, but one wonders if the U.S. will remain dedicated to a 'zombie policy' that could produce potentially awful consequences in the event of a diplomatic failure.
There’s more to add, of course. What happened in 2014, whatever one thinks of it, amounted to a coup with U.S. support that replaced the Russia-oriented government by a Western-oriented one. That led Russia to annex Crimea, mainly to protect its sole warm water port and naval base, and apparently with the agreement of a considerable majority of the Crimean population. There’s extensive scholarship on the complexities, particularly Richard Sakwa’s Frontline Ukraine and more recent work."
▪ "... NATO powers have lately relied on their bogus legal doctrine of “responsibility to protect” that they invented after the fact to try to justify their aggression against Yugoslavia. No such doctrine exists in international law, but they claim the right to use it nevertheless.
It applies, according to them, when a military action is justified, though illegal, “for legitimate humanitarian reasons.’ They were warned that this false doctrine could be turned against them. Russia has not referred to it at all, but if NATO can rely on it for their wars of aggression, then surely Russia can rely on it to justify their military action to defend the Donbass, and themselves.
When one takes account of all the factors that governed the Russian decision to send its forces into Ukraine it is clear that in law they had the legal right to do so whereas the United States continues its illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq and Syria to this day and the NATO media powers and governments say nothing, because they are all complicit in those invasions.
If the United States and the NATO alliance had complied with international law in the first place as set out in the UN Charter, the world would not be in this mess. They caused this, not Russia. The responsibility is entirely theirs and they will be judged for it."
Christopher Black is an international criminal lawyer based in Toronto. He is known for a number of high-profile war crimes cases and recently published his novel Beneath the Clouds.
▪ The United States formed NATO in 1949 with 11 countries in its own interest and with the aim of destroying the communist bloc. Today, NATO is engaged in creating terrorism in more than 30 countries around the world. The United States and NATO have opened shops around democracy and destroyed countless countries, large and small. They are not friends of anyone. They are bigots.
Why was NATO not dismissed in 1991 when the Warsaw Pact was disbanded? The USSR, the CIA's deep conspiracy, was broken into pieces and then those pieces were gradually incorporated into NATO, lastly Ukraine. Attempts by NATO to destroy or pressure Russia, which is surrounded by NATO, are never acceptable. A war organization called NATO should be disbanded immediately. Then the world will return to balance. Get rid of NATO and save the world nuclear annihilation.
▪ Former Top Pentagon advisor Col. Doug MacGregor on Russia Ukraine war
https://youtu.be/NFngc_8RiVc
1
-
1