Regardless of how bad Trump is considered to be, and how true that will turn out to be, in my opinion this is the first time that someone is actually doing something that has a chance at ending this horrible situation that we've been just sweeping under the rug for the past few decades. He put a squeeze on their only ally, China, put in meaningful sanctions that are hitting where it hurts, the elite, and is calling out their leader on his bluffing tactics that worked well (for the leader and the elite) so far.

Hundreds of thousands of people, slowly languishing in famine and unspeakable suffering, all ignored because it's an 'inconvenient problem'.

It's easy for Trump to talk, as he always does, when he doesn't face the threats that Asia does. There has always been a hard stance on NK.

The hard stance you speak of was always simple containment and ignoring, and then when their leader would start shaking sabres and making threats, he would get appeased with free food.

That was exactly my point. The problem was ignored, and at times when it couldn't be ignored, NK would bluff, and the rest of the world would appease them.

> There has always been a hard stance on NK

Can you justify that opinion? Why did it take the US to sanction a Chinese bank?

The BBC are obsessed with Trump in a way that is 180 degrees opposite of what you are suggesting.

Not really, I omitted an explicit </s> because I though the ellipsis made it obvious...

But then, I'm English so maybe I'm assume more familiarity with the BBC than the average HNer.

My error

Because obviously it wasn't so to prepare for the war in Iraq? I suggest reading the articles from 2003, I think a lot of them are still online.

Is the UK signing up for a war with NK?