Trump praises Duterte's deadly drug war in leaked transcript

So do I have a problem killing the wives and children, but that's what is happening with Duterte's blessing.

Do a search on his war on addicts and traffickers.

 

It probably is going on. ISIS isnt the first terror group to set up camp in the phillipines. Theres been other revolutionary/terror groups there for years, and Duterte is inviting to hire them as soldiers against ISIS, and then settle their disputes later. Its a creative idea, but also speaks volumes about the character, experience and ethical convictions of his forces (that there arent any). I've no doubt about the validity of any of the purported attrocities carried out by his 'troops'.

However, whats a better option? ISIS is invading his country. Head chopping, child raping, cannibals that the combined might of the US and Russia havnt been able to defeat. His country is in a tough spot, and being picky about the character of his troops or focussing on ethical discipline is not high on the strategic priority list when trying to not be overrun by the most savage, brutal, demonic forces in recent history.

Its a bad situation all around.

 

Duterte is not condoning it but condemning it saying he won't tolerate abuses. He's a long way from his forces some of which are mercenaries and ordinary citizens. He's choosing between the lesser of two evils I guess assuming the stories are true. Again, you make an extremely complex situation about one single subject.

It's getting harder and harder to listen to the incessant whining of the left who emotionally reason everything down to hate Trump and have no conception of the difficulties of living in a real world full of bad and even evil men. Go to the Philippines and pick up a weapon and fight the evil doers on all sides. Then you'll know what you're talking about assuming you live more than a day or ISIS doesn't capture you as a sex slave. That's the realities. So if you don't have a frackin' solution then you might consider sitting down and being quiet until you come up with something helpful to that country.

And I've done my duty way more than once just in case you take that route.

Of course I think you'd rather be indignant rather than actually help solve a problem.

 

Liberal, but not a progressive. Liberal, like Jefferson and Madison and other Founding Fathers who wrote the DoI and the Constitution. Liberal like those who developed common law, and the basis of freedom and liberty upon which it is framed. Due process, innocent before proven guilty. Those things that big-government-loving authoritarians like you can't stand.

 

What evidence do you have the Founders (any of them) were progressives and/or liberals?

 

I think he means Classical Liberal- limited govt, free market, private property. 'Liberal' 100 years ago was more like tea party than todays progs.

 

You mean only the landed gentry votes liberals. I get what you're saying but the Founders being described as liberal is hard for me to understand.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

liberal =\= Liberal =\= Classical Liberal

Its confusing on purpose. The progs dont like being identified too broadly.

 

IMO psychiatry/psychology is mostly a pseudo-science. Yes there is some validity to it but quite a bit of it consists of theoretical for profit inventions. Stick a label on a common human behavior and create a highly profitable psychotropic or anti-psychotropic (and often addictive and dangerous or suicidal) drug to mask the behavior. But that's a subject for a different line of discussion.

Correct. There is a vast difference between wars of aggression and defense. Unreasonable people unfortunately infest the US government and have since it was created. Wars of aggression are often waged under pretense of defense (I already noted that). "Fight them there so we won't have to fight them here" propaganda.

I never said anything about condemning a nation's ability to defend itself. But that often changes in a blink of an eye to an offensive military. Either way, it's conveniently extremely profitable for the military industrial complex and extremely costly for those who pay for it (The People) out of propaganda driven fear mongering.

Wars of aggression often morph into genocide whether I conflate the two or not. It doesn't really matter what it's called, it's meant to destroy many people and large amounts of property (see "shock and awe").

 

If you really think psychiatry is a pseudo-science then I'm at a loss for a constructive response. I don't buy into some of it either but on the whole its come a long way. How do you explain the ability to treat most schizophrenia, manic depression and affective disorders as well as development of treatment regimens for BPD, tec. Denial is a cognitive distortion and deflection is a major league defense mechanism is the best I can say.

Wars are waged as battles which boil down to execution, tactics and firepower. There will always be offensive engagements in war by necessity. Unless you want to lose. You're still conflating issues and misunderstanding basic military doctrines.

Until recently nations fought wars. And in general however well rationalized, in the end someone started it. But starting a war can be defensible at times even looking thru the prism of history. However, I agree nations enter war at times for the wrong reasons. In the end, war is a political statement.

Name the wars between nations since the 20th century that involves genocide.

 

I'm not the only one who thinks so, apparently all these psychiatrists who were interviewed also agree.



And more:

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=psychiatry+not+a+science

Perhaps you need to do a bit more research on the subject. Big Pharma and its puppet FDA have a major $$$hand$$$ in the psychiatric industry. They also do their best to try to corrupt medical science (a true science) as well.

I'm not in a position to explain what I'm not an expert on. But I can identify science from pseudo-science (fact vs theory) just on the basis of the scientific method, a universally accepted standard. Treatment for or alleviation of symptoms and cure for diseases/abnormalities are two entirely different things.

Once again, you've concluded I misunderstand because we disagree. You can argue your point and I can argue my point but unlike you, I'm not going to say you're the one who misunderstands.

If that's all war is, it would not be a problem. Unfortunately, war is death and destruction for many innocent people.

Korea, Vietnam and the current fake war on terror (involving several Middle Eastern nations) were/are all major genocidal wars. Not one of these was ever a threat to the US so they can never be called defensive.

 

Of course pharmaceutical companies make money. Probably too much at times but without them our lives would average 30-40 years not to mention the quality of life they provide.

Psychiatry used standard double blind studies etc to compare therapies. I'll admit some of the comparisons can be a bit subjective in part but if the study is large enough then much of that is washed out. Seeing a patient return from severe depression or become functional if psychotic is not pseudoscience but based on a century and more of well thought out evolving science. You admit you aren't an expert but you're willing to interject a fringe opinion with someone who is an expert. I find that behavior a tad confusing. I don't need to do any research considering training and experience.

Again, it's a judgment call I'm making based on your many comments. It's like telling me when and how to do a C section as if you know better. It's a bit annoying.

We agree. War is death and destruction for combatants and non-combatants. That is why it is horrible. The only thing worse war wise is to lose or to capitulate to naked aggression both threats and acts.

Like I said. I admire pacifists but I don't depend on them to keep the country safe.

You can have the last word.

 

I never said the psychiatric industry doesn't work. I merely said it's not a science, it's a profit making pseudo-science. It certainly does have its benefits in certain cases. Somewhat like when one goes to a psychic, receives some prediction from the crystal ball about future success, that person perhaps uses that in a positive way. I know that's a simplistic analogy but psychics also work at times. You say it's subjective so without directly agreeing with me you are in fact agreeing with me that it's not a science. True science is not subjective at any time. When a doctor diagnoses cancer, another doctor will always concur it's cancer unless a mistake is made in the diagnostic process. In math 1 + 1 always equals 2. You also claim these are "fringe opinions" but they sound 100% unanimous to me from those in the psychiatric industry. I didn't come up with any of this from thin air, regardless of my lack of expertise in the psychiatric industry. So you may find it annoying coming from a lay person but the conclusion is pretty straight forward and quite logical. It's not rocket science.

I have no problem with that assessment and regardless that I vehemently oppose war of any kind, I would always do what is necessary to protect and defend my loved ones and never capitulate as long as I'm capable of free will.

Neither would I. I also can't depend on the Military Industrial Complex to keep us safe (see 9/11 for example). They are not about keeping us safe, they are about profiteering from war and make us unsafe in the process.

That's your call. This is simply a discussion, what this forum is all about. And I might add a mostly pleasant and friendly one. If you have no interest in responding, I'm certainly ok with that, it's your prerogative.