Meeting with "dangerous" foreign leaders

[Bno]

On Leo's video on structure vs content, he mentioned Donald Trump meeting with Kim Jung Un. Many people in the media criticize this, including Senator Bernie Sanders. However, I see this as a good thing since this minimizes tensions between us and North Korea. Isn't meeting with foreign leaders to minimize tensions and increase peace one of the president's jobs?

Trump has done many horrible things while in office, but starting new wars with other countries is not one of them although that's a very low bar that was set for him by former presidents George W Bush (started Iraq and Afghanistan) and Barack Obama (started Syria, Lybia, Sudan, Somalia, and Yemen). We are currently in 7 wars and the establishment government and intelligence agency wants to get into Iran and has economically and politically interfered or tried to interfere in Venezuela, Bolivia, Iran, and Ukraine.

Edited November 21, 2019 by Bno

[Nak Khid]

24 minutes ago, Bno said:

 the establishment government and intelligence agency wants to get into Iran and has economically and politically interfered or tried to interfere in Venezuela, Bolivia, Iran, and Ukraine.

Is the establishment government not Trumps ?

[Bno]

3 minutes ago, Nak Khid said:

Is the establishment government not Trumps ?

Not completely. The establishment government was there before him and still is there now. John Bolton, Mike Pompeo, Elliott Abrhams and many others wanted more aggression in Syria after the (staged) gas attacks and kept pushing for war with Iran. However, Trump chose not to exacerbate military involvement in those countries. Earlier this year, he was so close to declaring war with Iran until he spoke to Tucker Carkson of Fox News (lmao!). But he still interfered in South America, which is what the establishment wanted.

[tenta]

Yes, it can minimize tensions but there wouldn't be a war anyway, meeting with Kim Jon Un is bad because it condones what North Korea is doing to it's people, it condones the dictatorship instead of doing anything about it, if you were in North Korea you wouldn't the tensions to be reduced because that would just mean there's a lesser chance that the dictatorship will be ended

Edited November 21, 2019 by tenta

[Bno]

1 hour ago, tenta said:

Yes, it can minimize tensions but there wouldn't be a war anyway, meeting with Kim Jon Un is bad because it condones what North Korea is doing to it's people, it condones the dictatorship instead of doing anything about it, if you were in North Korea you wouldn't the tensions to be reduced because that would just mean there's a lesser chance that the dictatorship will be ended

What makes you think meeting with them would decrease the chances of ending the dictatorship? And are you also proposing that we keep tensions with them high which would also increase the chances of a nuclear war? At least by meeting with them, you are offering a different perspective and reducing the chances of nuclear war.

[Hatfort]

Between USA and North Korea, in just a few months, we had two leaders saying literally that they would turn each other countries, plus South Korea, into living Hells, to that bizarre meeting where Trump joked about Kim Jon Un's body figure. I don't know what happened off camera, but I'm glad the tension deescaleted.

Each country is in a different level, North Korea is obviously in red- blue, USA is blue - orange. World geopolitics inevitably require relations between countries with different development. That means sometimes democratic leaders have to meet with dictators. It's not like democratic countries don't use totalitarian policies either. People can vote and that's good, but that alone does not make a democracy, at least in my eyes.

[Bno]

2 hours ago, Hatfort said:

Between USA and North Korea, in just a few months, we had two leaders saying literally that they would turn each other countries, plus South Korea, into living Hells, to that bizarre meeting where Trump joked about Kim Jon Un's body figure. I don't know what happened off camera, but I'm glad the tension deescaleted.

Each country is in a different level, North Korea is obviously in red- blue, USA is blue - orange. World geopolitics inevitably require relations between countries with different development. That means sometimes democratic leaders have to meet with dictators. It's not like democratic countries don't use totalitarian policies either. People can vote and that's good, but that alone does not make a democracy, at least in my eyes.

A Princeton study came out recently that showed the US is more of an Oligarchy than a Democracy.

[tenta]

2 hours ago, Bno said:

What makes you think meeting with them would decrease the chances of ending the dictatorship? And are you also proposing that we keep tensions with them high which would also increase the chances of a nuclear war? At least by meeting with them, you are offering a different perspective and reducing the chances of nuclear war.

Because that's literally what Trump wants to do, just to meet with them and decrease tensions while the dictatorships keeps going.

[Nak Khid]

1 hour ago, Bno said:

A Princeton study came out recently that showed the US is more of an Oligarchy than a Democracy.

what are some countries more of a democracy and less of an Oligarchy according to analysis ?

[Bno]

2 hours ago, tenta said:

Because that's literally what Trump wants to do, just to meet with them and decrease tensions while the dictatorships keeps going.

And the chances of nuclear catastrophe decreases.

[Bno]

1 hour ago, Nak Khid said:

what are some countries more of a democracy and less of an Oligarchy according to analysis ?

Not sure how accurate this list is, but here's what I found through a quick search using the ecosia.org search engine:

https://www.angloinfo.com/blogs/global/angloinfo-world-expat-life/20-most-democratic-countries-in-the-world-do-you-live-there/

And here is a BBC article that has a link to the Princeton study:

https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746