Time for some context, here is a excerpt from an article that includes the full quote: "Duterte made his foul-mouthed comments in response to a reporter’s question: "I am a president of a sovereign state and we have long ceased to be a colony. I do not have any master except the Filipino people, nobody but nobody. You must be respectful. Do not just throw questions. Putang ina I will swear at you in that forum," he said, using the Tagalog phrase for son of a b----. " Philippines leader Duterte expresses regret over foul-mouthed Obama comments | Fox News Personally, especially after the US Ambassador was sticking his nose into the Philippine Presidential Elections, and Obama was sticking his nose into Brexit, both trying to tell citizens of other countries what to do, I have no problem at all With President Duterte's strong language. I would paraphrase his comments as "I hope President Obama intends to have a respectful, productive meeting. If he comes demanding answers like he is superior I will call him a Son of a B1tch to his face." That is Not the same as calling him a S.O.B. and certainly isn't calling his mother a wh0re.
Duterte makes a statement. Obama cancels meeting. The Duterte administration apologizes. I'm not sure what the score is there, but it seems that Obama came out at least tied.
If I was going to get the snot kicked out of me by someone who says what they think then I'd give the occasion a pass also.. Arrogance does not fly well with pinoys as you know (or aught to know)'
It's not arrogance. It's about connecting to international systems and following international norms. For example, the Philippines would go through an immediate meltdown if it were disconnected from international financial systems. There is also global trade, financial aid, foreign investment and a long list of other things that would put a severe hurt of the Philippines if the country were to get cut off. Iran may have viewed the U.S. as arrogant but the country was deeply interested in getting sanctions removed. The Philippines does not want to go backwards. The country does not want to be isolated. And for sure the country doesn't want to go back to the stone ages. Just as individuals arguably have less free will than they think, so do countries have less sovereignty than they believe. Borders are becoming less important. You concede some of your power to global systems. For example, a recurring theme in the Philippines is foreign investment vs. foreign ownership laws. This is one example of a system of law which needs to follow international norms or risk getting left out, human rights is another. If the justice system is so slow and backed-up here, then perhaps that's what the Philippines should be focusing on. Lashing out by pointing out the flaws in the U.S. is ridiculous. Again, we are talking about international norms which the U.S. is not exempt from. No country is without its flaws but the U.S. has a well working justice system to deal with issues. And we continuously work to improve on those flaws. I'm not criticizing Duterte. He has said he doesn't condone extrajudicial killings. I believe that to be true. It's his initial language during his election campaign which probably emboldened extra-judicial killings, if that's even the case. I haven't been following the issue.
Yeah, arrogance doesn't fly...unless they are the ones being arrogant. The only way Duterte wins a debate against any US president is if the lowest common denominator gets to be the judge. Regardless of how you feel about their politics, US presidents tend to not be mental midgets and typically have very high IQ scores. Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk
I surrender..Does it occur to anyone that Duterte could win a debate because he is right. A foreign governments has no business commenting on the internal matters of this country. As for the lowest common denominator....Yes they elected my government, your governments and this governments.
Even if he would be right about anything he'd have a hard time in a debate with any US president I'm afraid (I'll take back that statement should Trump win...). Unless you consider insulting and cursing to be a helpful part of a debate of course. Any government has the right to _comment_ on what happens in other countries, especially when it comes to things the majority of mankind agrees on, like basic human rights. Things aren't going to change if nobody's pointing out what's possibly wrong. And I'm saying comment, not invade and force-change. It might be debatable if the US should be the role model when it comes to human rights in general and fighting drugs, but from what I feel even that might still be an improvement here.
The Majority of mankind agrees? Ever heard of China? North Korea? Or getting your hand cut off for petty theft in an Islamic country? Death penalty for driving under the influence in South Africa? Ever hear of what happens in Africa? What do you think human rights are like in Venezuela right now? Death penalty for drug posession for personal use in some Asian countries. There are several places where they think it would be ok to beat a confession out of you if you were subject to an investigation, fall under suspician in Italy and find out. What does the US think about human rights? Ever hear of Guantanamo Bay? What about summary execution by predator drone? I think you are not in the majority by a long stretch.
