>>>Yeah and how many times have you heard the same thing from North Korea? This is not something new in the Trump era -- it's been going on forever. They sound like they're coming around, then they don't.
>
>Agreed, also agree that a definition of insanity is to repeat the same thing over and over expecting a different result.
>
>However, there's also the Rule of Ryan (what if everybody did it) which is exactly what Trump is illustrating. He is not repeating the failed strategic patience of the past. Nobody has ever called Kim "Little Rocket Man" before and as a real dictator with control over local media (which actually is a sign of dictatorship) and accustomed to kid glove treatment from the adults, Kim is not used to dissent at all. When one of the usual stunts was attempted, Trump sent an extravagantly polite apology for not turning up after all- delivered on an enormous ridiculously baroque parchment that was published around the world. How do you respond to that? Kim knows Trump is quite capable of insulting him grievously before an international audience, whereas Trump has exhibited the hide of a rhinoceros and there's little Kim can do that isn't already done every day by the MSM and Hollywood. Now Kim is offered a choice: either everybody behaves with overblown rhetoric and theatrics and last minute resilements, or everybody behaves constructively. The dangled carrot is that at this moment in time, Kim can be famous for converting his nation from the most powerful and feared nuclear dragon in the galaxy, into the most fandangulous go-ahead economy the world has ever seen, all thanks to the Genius of Kim!

Trump is not some brilliant politician with a new approach -- he's a f-ing idiot who's exhibited stupidity. He doesn't have some genius plan here dude...he's just a blabbering idiot (aka -- dangerous).

>Will it work? Certainly it has more chance than strategic patience.

No it doesn't. Trump is out of his league and in case you missed it, his 'deal making' skill suck and he's shown that plenty.

>>>Kim has seen what happens to the guys without nukes -- so he ain't gonna give them up - now or ever.
>
>You're referring to Libya? Well, you canonize one of those who participated in the downfall of Qaddafi and radicalization of Libya (We came, we saw, he died) and I agree that that episode helped destabilise the Middle East for another generation AND reduces US capability at persuading despots. So there may have to be some sort of wider treaty involving more than the US. This is just part of the slide of world prestige for the US, unfortunately.

There is Qaddafi, Saddam, etc etc. We've had policies of 'regime change' in the past - he has every reason to be concerned. You think the USA would of been so quick to take out Qaddafi or Saddam if they had nukes? I'd say not. And technically we're still at war with North Korea.

>>>Can't get over the fake news thing though huh? It's funny that that news didn't become fake until we got Trump .. ya know the guy who declared the NYT the enemy of the people. load of crap as usual. It's out of the dictator 101 handbook -- attack the free press and tell so many lies people give up and think it's all fake. Don't fall for it dude.
>
>Dictators don't need to attack the free press: they use the power of the state to control it. Unlike real life where Trump can't even keep a foul-mannered CNN boor out of his residence. And you tell me not to fall for it? Ha.

Noooo.. dictators at first have to attack the free press - which is the step required to get the power to have control over it. Step one is to attack it -- you have to admit that. The free press doesn't disappear over night - it is a process -- which starts with attacking it! OMG.