Huh? I think you're very stupid but what does your stupidity have to do with Iran's unwavering determination to pursue nuclear weapons? They've been playing diplomatic games with Europeans for a few years now, they'll keep doing it even if the US decides to negotiate with them, does not matter directly or multilaterally. That btw is not on the agenda. What part of "bombing not invading" do you not understand?
Imbecilic statement, dddooo. "Diplomatic solution" does not automatically mean "direct talks." Get it? Whether or not you agree with the means by which the US is approaching the North Korean situation is meaningless. The fact remains that "diplomatic solution" does not inherently involve "direct talks." Get it? Again, please enroll in Diplomacy 101 and leave your sanctimonious remarks at the entryway. "Dear leader"? Oh dddooo, you're such a dissappointment nowadays. You used to be able to come up with the occasional good point, and now you resort to saying that anyone who disagrees with you on an issue automatically loves the President. What happened to you?
Please give me an example of a successful diplomatic solution that did not involve direct talks so that I could better understand what you, Charles Krauthammer and George W Bush have in mind. btw I am afraid you're confusing direct talks with bilateral talks, this administration is not willing to be involved in any kind (bilateral or multilateral) of negotiations with Iran.
Please show me where the definition of "diplomatic solution" is "direct talks." I am not confused about this issue at all. You are the one who has it fixed in your head that "diplomatic solution" automatically means direct talks.