<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">Dear All:<BR>
I myself did not find Jay Lewis' comments excessive or offensive. On issues such as N.Korea, it is perfectly understandable feelings should run high, especially for those of us who call themselves Koreanists.<BR>
The discussions reminded me of what E. Said said of the British imperialist politicians in the early part of the 20th century. In his <I>Orientalism</I>, Said quotes A.J. Balfour declaring in Parliament explaining why Britain must occupy and govern Egypt:<BR>
". . . . We are in Egypt not merely for the sake of the Egyptians, though we are there for their sake; we are there also for the sake of Europe at large."<BR>
<BR>
Substitute Egypt for Iraq and N. Korea and Europe for the so-called "free world," most of us would see the striking parallels.<BR>
<BR>
I realize that most of us literature types do not have command of all the details that former CIA agents or former and present policy makers do have; nevertheless, we can see how wrong-headed the assumptions are on which the present government policies are based. That the U.S. knows better than the Iraquis and N. Koreans what's good for them and the world.<BR>
<BR>
It may be extremely difficult because of the super-power politics and intentions and the relative powerlessness of the two Koreas, yet it seems to me more of the decisions should be allowed to be made by the two Koreas, since they are the most directly involved, literally a life and death issue. Nuking N. Korean nuclear facilities might an option for the U.S. policy makers, but it is not for Koreans.<BR>
This may not be an issue that can discussed emotion-free, nor should it be. Even for academics, shouldn't there be a balance between emotion, intuition, and reason in thinking about important issues?<BR>
Kichung Kim</FONT></HTML>