lets keep talking to the Koreans they will keep ignoring us whilst getting on with their misiles bound to end well
Not Obama either. He achieved little in the troublesome areas of the world because everyone knew he wouldn't come good on his threats.
Sometimes worse wars start when nothing is done by the international community as we know from the C20th. There's a real need to assess how dangerous a fully nuclear-primed North Korea would to that region, particularly South Korea which Kim's grandfather had tried to invade. Junior may have the same ambitions.
China is the key to this situation, they have spent the past 20 years becoming an international player and to have their 'problem child' threatening their future as well as everyone elses is unlikely to go down too well in Beijing...
I may be an old cynic, but North Korea has been under a pretty heavy sanctions regime since 2006, aimed especially at minerals and metals, about the only things they have to trade with, and currency transfers. They haven't worked, too many countries/people are happy to trade illicitly, especially in military stuff. It was Pakistan that provided the technology to build a nuclear bomb in the first place. Diplomacy would be great. Though I struggle to imagine a man who routinely has members of his own family executed (by artillery pieces!) and arranges the assassination of his half brother in an international airport is an ideal negotiating partner. I don't know whether what Trump is doing will make any difference, or perhaps make everything worse. I know Trump himself is untrustworthy and unreliable. But I am glad he is not carrying through on his promise to return the US to isolationism (which has never been good for the rest of the world) which would just send the message to Assad that he can continue to slaughter with impunity and to Kim that nobody cares about what he does to the ordinary people of North Korea, they've had 70 years of brainwashing, starvation, imprisonment and torture anyway (and yes, I know that in reality we don't care about the people of North Korea, or we would have done something already). We are wrestling with the fundamentals of foreign policy. Do we let others to get on with whatever they want no matter how horrendous unless or until they become a direct threat in some way to ourselves - they are, after all 'sovereign states' - or do we think it's right to intervene to prevent the threat developing or to save ordinary people from suffering? Where does our own self interest sit (I refer you to the barbaric regimes in Saudi Arabia and, dare I say it, China)? I am unashamedly interventionist - I thought we did the right thing in Iraq (regardless of WMD, Saddam was a genocidal maniac) and Afghanistan, although I will be the first to admit that the execution and aftermath have been awful. Of course diplomacy, sanctions etc have to come before the threat of or use of force. But if we are not prepared to threaten or use we might as well pull up the drawbridge, put our fingers in our ears and feel all moral about it.
In a break with Prime Ministerial tradition Theresa May makes some explicitly pro Christianity comments today. Fair enough, even though I'm not a believer I do think true belief must colour your entire approach to life and should be explicit in our elected (ahem) representatives if they take it seriously. Plus good move for her Brexit credentials, as the most sure single correlation with voting Leave was being an Anglican. Wonder if Tim Farron knows that.
May says the country should unite over Brexit. Fat chance of that, but her confrontational approach has brought a rare show of unity from the EU. All 27 countries are opposed to Britain's assertion that trade talks should start before the 'divorce' terms are agreed and the rights of EU citizens are settled.
