“…I??m glad you did bring up the Taiwanese, who are following a path not at all unlike that followed by Roh, yet are getting considerably less flak for it…”

Well, if it was up to me I’d be putting a lot more pressure on Taiwan to purchase the needed weapons. But, the difference in emphasis put on the similar ROC and ROK postures is not at all surprising, considering that there are zero total US military forces on Taiwan ever since 1979 (though before that date I think there were only some US advisors and reconnaissance acft. Pretty sure that the ROC has never had major US Army/Air Force combat formations on its soil unlike ROK).

A posture I’d like to see the US duplicate vs a vs. ROK as you well know. Should improve remarkably the clarity of the political thought process in some folks.

I don’t think there is even a US military attache in Taiwan (no “embassy” to have one if I’m not mistaken, I guess the US has an “interests” section of less than formal diplomatic status in ROC (?)).

The US military isn’t even allowed to do any staff planning for “contingencies” with the ROC military anymore! (Source, front page WSJ article on ROC -PRC potential military confrontation in 2001, after the US recon plane was forced to land on Hainan island after it was bumped by the Chinese jet (April? if I remember correctly)).

Now that’s definitely carrying it too far, you’re right to point out US administration hypocrisy with its stance towards PRC vs that towards DPRK.

But, it’s a hypocrisy they’ve shared with all their predecessors…

We are just small waves in the pond. However, even a big Tsunami arises from small waves all moving in one direction. You and I are influencing a handful of people, but when they influence others and so on and on, Watch out. Dynomite(JJ in the “Good Times”)!

I read the transcript of Pres. Rho’s conversation with people last night on MBC TV. I have to admit that his point of view(moderate and cooperative) is worth listening to. And, he did come out and declared the anti-American view to be not practical. He did explain his views well.

Maybe I was too harsh on the president. He did seem reasonable in many topics: economy, realestate, government policies, North-South relationship, regionalism, and the role of the president.

He, however, still leans too much to the left. Some of his people do as well. I wish he were more on the right.

?? ????????? ?????????? ????, “????????? ??????? ????? ?????????? ???? ????????????? ????, ??? ???? ?????? ????????? ????? ???????? ??? ??????? ??? ?? ???????? ???? ??????????????? ????????? ?????? ???????????? ????????? ?????? ??”???????? ????????.
Anti-Americanism, that all responsibility rests with the U.S. and all problems will be solved if we resist the U.S., is not practical and will fail.

? ????????? ???? “???????????? ???????????? ???????? ??????? ?????? ????????????????? ?????( ?????? ?????????????? ?????????? ???? ???????? ????????? ???? ???????????”?? ????????.
For the future of two Koreas and the security of the region, it is advantageous for Korea to cooperate with the U.S.

He finally realized that the majority of Koreans want a better relation with the U.S. He cannot gain support for his Anti-American posture any longer. So, he started to sing a different tune. He is against demolishing the MacArthur statue and now he stresses more cooperation between SK and the U.S.

After all, it’s not just U.S. lives and materiel that would be destroyed, but the homes, families, and societies of these decision-makers in Taiwan and in South Korea. I don’t think they would be doing what they’re doing if they really thought it were increasing risk of confrontation (whether they’re right or not is a different matter).

By the way, Paul, I’m glad you did bring up the Taiwanese, who are following a path not at all unlike that followed by Roh, yet are getting considerably less flak for it (maybe because they’re engaging the same threatening communist dictatorship that the U.S. is).Well, maybe it will indeed continue ??infinitely?? into the future. Let??s hope Iraq doesn??t continue to tie down US resources ??infinitely?? as well, and that the high cost of oil doesn??t lead to a US recession just as all the baby boomers begin to retire and the enormous US budget deficits and consequent national debt begins to accelerate even faster.I really hope it doesn’t turn out that way.

I don’t see the gifts and goodwill flowing from the industrial democracies leading to the regime giving access to those nations it didn’t give to its communist friends.

Of course, the Russians and Chinese were not pushing for democratic capitalist reforms.

But then again, nobody is today either…..

You brought up “Shinuiju incident” and it shows what China wants in regard to NK. China will not let NK be prosperous; China wants NK to be its servant, a satellite nation.

When Korean unification comes, this intention of China will become so very apparent. Chinese domination of Korea will equal that of Japan: cruelties, inhuman conditions, segregation, demolition of Korean culture and language, and land stealing. China had ruled Korea for thousands of years.

At any rate, I’m focusing less on the economic change than the social change. The SEZs have changed the social fabric of China and how the governing elite deals with its people. That’s something Beijing tried to keep a lid on but eventually realized it couldn’t.

Engagement, even if it is not economic projects but just tourism of Pyongyang, for example, is going to irrevocably change North Korea. A very little bit at first, then more and more. It is a very, very powerful thing.

Demonization and isolation has failed to topple the North. It’s time to kill them with kindness. Just plan on holding your nose for a while.