]You can't solve every conflict with arms. The USA typically looses every war since '45.
A strong empire uses diplomacy as a tool for balance. Good diplomacy can have nice effects upon the enemy as well. I guess the USA can learn a bit from England and France in that respect.
Indeed better to bomb Iran. But now that USA is stuck in Iraq, this will not happen any time soon.
That means in 10 years, they'll have ICB nukes.
Maybe, it was better indeed not to attack S. Hussein, but to use him, to neutralise Iran (by instigating a 2nd Iran Iraq war e.g.)
Diplomacy has been used with N.Korea for more than a decade. Bill Clinton's administration used bilateral diplomacy and N.Korea tricked Bill's administration. Jorge's administration has been involved in "six-party diplomacy".
Diplomacy may not be a synonym for being reluctant to use force.
But the day of the two superpowers(Ussr-Usa) is over.
N-Korea is a country not to be diplomat against.
They are still at war with S-Korea&USA.
(I would have nuked them in after the fall of the Soviet union, together with the PPR China and Cuba, and Saudi-R-ape-a.
No merci for stalinist mass murderers. The population will be better of with their country bombed to the stone age, then what it is now.
But for Iran, e.g. I think it would be smarter to trigger an Iran - Iraq war II.)
I suppose N-Korea and the US are good friends since 53.
But at the other hand, the US government, is not to be trusted at all. Especially the Communists Clinton.
They did use force to destroy Serbia, and to protect MUSLIM UCK-Albanian criminals ILLEGALS!!!
look what they do to Israel.
I hate the US government. They are communist traitors. just like the EU.