> US and SK should have invaded and liberated the NK long time ago. They are as much part of the problem as the NK's leadership is.
I'm glad you're so high on your own morality that you're willing to condemn thousands of people that aren't you to death in starting a war. There's the possibility that economics and the changing international climate will bleed over and convince the populace to change. That's what people have been hoping for - a chance for change with a minimum of bloodshed. A chance to convince rather than force.
Yes, there's debate over whether a long-term peaceful approach or a short-term decisive strike would cause the least "suffering". I get that. But it's not as simple as the US going over to free the shit out of them. China has previously committed to at least partial protection of NK in an armed conflict. And while NK's military power is relatively anemic compared to most of the world, throwing down with China isn't exactly an attractive opportunity. Plus, there's already a lot of negative perception about US intervention in other countries. It doesn't always go well, and it's certainly rarely perceived well.
And then there's all the naive kids that would be dying because you think it's their fault for not doing something about every single thing that goes wrong on the planet. Exactly why should those kids get embroiled in a war as opposed to living their own lives? Even the ones who survive likely won't be able to integrate and function well in society afterwards. Not to mention the harsh effect on the NK and SK populace. Yeah, you can think of it as being like quickly pulling off a band-aid until you realize all the dead people and ruined lives it costs to take the shortcut.
Maybe you should try not condemning other people for ignorance when you're asking thousands to die for your naive internet opinion of global politics. If war's the solution you want, go do it yourself instead of trying to get the rest of us to do it for you.