Darryl W. Perry: Just Say “No!” To War With North Korea

FPP.cc

Darryl W. Perry is a writer whose articles are published in several publications, including the monthly newspaper The Sovereign.  He is a co-host on a radio show on Liberty Radio Network. He is the owner and managing editor of Free Press Publications (FPP.cc). Perry is a co-founder and co-chairman of the New Hampshire Liberty Party, a party created in September 2012 to promote secession of the state from the federal government and individual liberty. From 2010 to July 2012, he served as the chairman of a small libertarian political party, the Boston Tea Party. He has announced that he is running for president in 2016 seeking the Libertarian Party line (http://dwp2016.org/).

 

Is war with North Korea inevitable? Some people are hinting that it can’t be avoided. CNN asked retired General James Marks to explain the military strategies likely to be used by North Korea and the United States in a conflict. Fox News has reported on the “Foal Eagle” exercises conducted by the American military in South Korea. ABC reported, “It appears North Korea is on the march toward war… [On April 3, North Korea] blocked entrance to an industrial park shared with South Korea, an industrial park that generates about $2 billion worth of revenue every year for North and South Korea.” On the same day, the North Korean government warned nuclear war could begin “today or tomorrow.” These threats by North Korea even have some in China scared.

South Korean Defense Minister Kim Kwan-Jin has confirmed that North Korea has moved a missile with “considerable range” to the east coast. Though Kim explains the missile appears to be a mid-range variety, and is likely meant for a test firing or a drill, not an actual war.

Jason Ditz from Antiwar.com reports, “North Korea doesn’t even have missiles capable of hitting the US coast, and its best functional missiles would make any US territory, even Guam, a long-shot.”

The real question is not: will Kim Jong-un attack South Korea or attempt to attack the United States of America? The real questions is: why is the defense of South Korea the responsibility of the United States military? Pat Buchanan answers the question by saying if the American military weren’t in South Korea, and if the American government weren’t part of an entangling alignment with the South Korean government, “we would not be in the middle of this crisis now… U.S. policy, seemingly frozen in the 1950s, is in need of review. We cannot indefinitely be responsible for the defense of South Korea.”

It is also important to remember that George W. Bush wanted to go to war with North Korea in 2002 saying that North Korea was part of the “axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world.”

Looking at the last ten years, and the number of deaths caused by the militaries of North Korea and the United States of America, which nation has been more of a threat to the peace of the world?


In Peace, Freedom, Love & Liberty,
Darryl W. Perry

64 thoughts on “Darryl W. Perry: Just Say “No!” To War With North Korea

  1. Very interesting

    so what do you do if the Godless heathens of North Korea launch a rocket at Guam (which is sovereign soil of the USA). And what if they kill some Americans in process? Just ignore them like South Korea did a few years back?
    The last thing China wants is for the USA or Japan to ramp it up on their doorstep. The answer is for China to make North Korea an “offer they can’t refuse”.

  2. Darryl W. Perry

    @1 – you do realize there is a difference between defensive action and preemptive action, right? You also realize there is a difference between provoking an attack, and being attacked without cause, right?

  3. paulie

    Godless heathens of North Korea

    Godless heathens has nothing to do with it. If they wanted to use God as an excuse they would have found a way.

    Just ignore them like South Korea did a few years back?

    SK got nuked?! News to me.

  4. paulie

    The answer is for China to make North Korea an “offer they can’t refuse”.

    You mean an offer sane people could not refuse?

    I wouldn’t bet on his royal highness the idiot prince Kim III doing what sane people would do.

    Not on your life, and I mean that literally for our readers in South Korea.

  5. Gene Berkman

    I have long opposed America’s war in Iraq and other interventions, and was active in the antiwar movement during the Vietnam War.

    In answer to the last question:
    “Looking at the last ten years, and the number of deaths caused by the militaries of North Korea and the United States of America, which nation has been more of a threat to the peace of the world?”

    In actual numbers, more people have died because of the policies of the North Korean government than have died even from America’s military ventures.

    It is estimated that 2 to 4 million North Koreans have died from starvation in the period since 2000. This is a result of the Songun policy – Songun means “Military First” which has devoted the resources of North Korean industry and agriculture to building up the military, and denying goods to the civilian population in order to do so.

    One does not serve the antwar cause by hyperbole that is so easily shot down.

  6. paulie

    “Looking at the last ten years, and the number of deaths caused by the militaries of North Korea and the United States of America, which nation has been more of a threat to the peace of the world?”

    Supposing that we ignore the civilian deaths Gene Berkman alluded to, probably the US, since NK has not been in active conflicts.

    On the other hand, the Hermit Kingdom is ruled by a batshit insane third generation monarch, newly ascended to the throne, eager to prove that he is the one in charge to his military honchos, and armed with nukes (think Duh!-bya, one generation removed). I doubt he has the missile range to hit Guam, but SK and Japan should certainly be on alert.

  7. Gene Berkman

    DP @ @ – ” You also realize there is a difference between provoking an attack, and being attacked without cause, right?”

    There is no evidence that the United States has done anything to provoke an attack by North Korea. If you have evidence on this, please present it.

    If anything, the situation on the Korean peninsula verifies the Libertarian notion that statism leads to war, and the DPRK is the most oppressive state in the world today, and the most willing to engage in vitriolic threats, even if they don’t have the forces to back their threats up with.

  8. Darryl W. Perry

    @7 – I believe running military drills near the border and keeping troops in the neighboring country and warships off the coast could be construed as provocation.

  9. johnO

    Sad thing is if Kim Jong-un bombed Seoul the next day Pyongyang will no longer exist. Millions dead. I hope this doesn’t occur too many innocent people minding their own business will die.

  10. Fact Checker

    One does not serve the antwar cause by hyperbole that is so easily shot down.

    Truth is the first casualty of antiwar.

    And if @9 is any evidence, the second casualty is moral consistency. Turns out so-called anti-warriors aren’t anti-war, they’re just anti-wars-fought-in-their-name.

  11. Gene Berkman

    DP @ 9 – we should bring the troops home from South Korea, since maintain our forces there is a burden on the U.S. taxpayer. The ROK is strong enough to defend itself.

    But our troops are there with the permission of the South Korean government, not as occupiers, and at least since Bush left office, the U.S. has not made threats against North Korea, or acted in an aggressive manner toward the North.

    For its part, the DPRK has routinely violated South Korean territory, and has often shot at South Korean troops who were on their side of the border.

    It is possible to be concerned about the situation there without accepting the North Korean viewpoint. I am not sure you have kept your balance in this.

  12. paulie

    Over-sympathy with the would be enemy is indeed a hazard of antiwar.

    Many of the people e.g. wearing Che Guevara gear or chanting “Ho Chi Minh is gonna win” wouldn’t have fared too well with Guevara or Ho in power, for example.

  13. Gene Berkman

    Let me clarify – all the evidence suggests that U.S./ROK military exercises in the area are a response to continuing threats that the DPRK has made and is making against South Korea.

    There is no evidence that the military exercises were the “provocation” that led to the recent increase in threats from the North.

  14. paulie

    But our troops are there with the permission of the South Korean government, not as occupiers, and at least since Bush left office, the U.S. has not made threats against North Korea, or acted in an aggressive manner toward the North.

    I can see how the drills and warships can be seen as aggressive by an isolated, paranoid junta.

    I can also see how their own actions and threats can be seen as aggressive by their neighbors.

    Vicious cycle.

    Let’s hope it gets defused.

  15. paulie

    @14 You may well be right as far as “who started it” but increasing tensions on both sides are a case of two tangoing at this point.

    I don’t blame the South Koreans being concerned, as well they should be.

    But why is the US still over there 60 years after the last Korean conflict?

  16. Jill Pyeatt

    I really hope it’s bluffing on all sides. However, I think North Korea is a far greater threat than Iran. It’s really hard to believe, though, that anyone in North Korea thinks they’ll actually achieve anything by bombing, but who knows?

  17. Steve M

    ah think….. we should do everything reasonable to keep this from turning into a hot war.

    Are we blameless? probably not. Certainly Vietnam and China have figured out how to co-exist with the US. Both have much higher per capita incomes then North Korea.

    Do I think that they are insane? no… that is just part of the process of demonizing ones opponents that then is used to justify a hot war.

    Do I think they could find a better approach to improving their position…. sure… but the internal politics probably cause problems.

    I think with our fly overs of the B52’s and B1 bombers we have staked our position out… If North Korea shells South Korea a measured response, probably one that takes out the guns doing the shelling will be expected.

    If North Korea does another test nuke or test rocket then I would just say gripe some more and then relax….

    The question is… is there a plan to bring North Korea out of its aggressive isolationist position to where it can have meaningful economic growth and become part of the world?

  18. johnO

    Kim Jong-un likes Mickey Mouse maybe we should give him entry into either Disneyworld and/or Disneyland. Take yuan (ha ha) for peace. Better than the alternative.

  19. Be Rational

    North Korea is the slave plantation belonging to the Kim family – “Kim” is the last name, not the first.

    The bluster and bombast are mostly intended to keep the people in North Korea in line – generals and other higher ups who might wish to depose or replace the Kim family vs. Kim and his loyalists; the ordinary people also are secondary targets of the propaganda show to help maintain their subservience, but they have little chance at rebellion at the present time in any case.

    The people in South Korea ignore all this noise from the north, more so than Americans, it seems, who are discussing this current “situation” – which is the same as it’s been for decades – more than those in South Korea who are going about their daily lives in total disregard to the latest in the continuing bombast from the north.

    Kim knows that if it came to war, his family business would be destroyed and he would be dead in a matter of days. He doesn’t really want a war or any significant military confrontation. He does want to keep his people in line, he does want world-wide attention and a place at the negotiating table with the big boys, and he does want a lot more free goodies from the West.

    There is no war coming. Don’t be paranoid.

  20. Gotham Crimefighter

    Don’t give him anything he wants. Teach him some respect, and put him in his place by nuking Pyongyang now. The suffering people of North Korea will welcome death as a relief from living under the yoke of the Kims.

  21. Oranje Mike

    North Korea is not a threat. Their technology is a joke. If they strike South Korea or Japan (not going to happen) then we can talk. Until then, let’s keep the New World Order pro-war propaganda off the table.

    Besides, the Korean Conflict was such a success for the cause of liberty, right? We all want to see that again, right?

  22. Darryl W. Perry

    @11 – what did I post to make you believe that I lack moral consistency in my pro-peace stance? When did I condone war?
    I oppose war regardless of who is involved!

  23. Be Rational

    @23 Don’t underestimate the ability of North Korea to do great damage. They have set up a massive artillery force along the DMZ. In the first hours, within two days, of an all-out war, tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of South Koreans would be killed in large cities, such as Seoul, close to the DMZ.

    Yes, South Korea, the US, and the ongoing UN force would be able to quickly defeat the North, but the price would be massive loss of life in the South.

    There has never been a Peace Treaty ending the Korean War, by the way, but neither side wants a renewal of all-out warfare.

  24. Erik Viker

    @28, Well, the U.S. also has proven nuclear capabilty and the weapons delivery system to do great damage. You do not see the U.S. accepting any other nation telling us how to use our military capabilities. Is that because we are so honorable and trustworthy? Because we wouldn’t ever attack a nation that was no threat to us and occupy it with destructive military force for over a decade? Aaaaaaahahahahhaaaa!

  25. Be Rational

    @29 Non Sequitur. What you wrote has nothing to do with what I wrote.

    Other than skirmishes, North Korea will not launch a war against the South, too much to lose – Mr. Kim and his ruling elite would lose their little kingdom and most of the leaders would lose their lives. South Korea and allies will not launch an all out war against the North for similar reasons – too much to lose – the guarantee of tens of thousands dead in South Korea within hours and the potential for hundreds of thousands in the first two days of fighting from conventional weapons. No nukes by either side would be used.

  26. Erik Viker

    Person hiding behind the fake name “Be Rational” @30: no, my observation does relate to what you wrote. You wrote a warning about the ability of North Korea to do great damage, and I noted that the same warning could be leveled about the U.S.A. The conclusion is that the U.S.A. lacks the moral high ground to instruct other nations about unjust use of military force without presenting as hypocritical.

  27. paulie

    I’m not so convinced that the NK idiot prince would be rational. If anyone would commit suicide by superpower it would be the idiot son of an idiot son with his hand on a nuclear trigger.

  28. Be Rational

    @31 I see that logic eludes you. Your “conclusion” does not follow anything. It is a “non sequitur” in the context and unrelated to what I wrote. Your “observation” is a statement of the well-known obvious fact that the US is a super power so that your “warning” becomes obtuse at best.

    The fact is that you were @23 wrongly and ignorantly asserting that what North Korea was doing was like “bringing a pointed stick to a gunfight.”

    This statement by you shows that you have no idea of the military capabilities of NK. There is no question that NK would kill tens of thousands in a matter of hours, potentially hundreds of thousands in the first two days, and if the US and South Korean forces failed to act with immediate, overwhelming force, the death toll for South Korea could be in the millions in short order – with no nuclear arms involved.

    My point was that the US will not attack NK because NK will do too much damage to the South. Everyone informed on the military situation knows this including the North Korean leadership. That’s why they can threaten and bluster without fear – and so they do.

    I had already mentioned that North Korea will not attack the South for the same reason. Kim and his leaders would lose their slave plantation, their comfy lifestyles and likely their lives.

    You then made your obtuse and redundant “warning” about US power followed by an unrelated comment that you labeled a “conclusion” although it was merely an assertion. A conclusion must follow a train of logical proof. You had none at all.

    Moreover, you are wrong regarding the hypothetical discussion of Unjust use of military force. The US government is an expert in this: 1) because they have thoroughly documented thousands of cases of such unjust use of force by nations and terrorists around the world against peoples around the world, and 2) because, although they won’t own it, the US government is also one of the actors engaged in such unjust use of force. So, the US government is fully qualified through observation, study and experience to instruct and expose such acts … even if it is hypocritical.

    Further, in this case, although we know it’s all bluff and bluster, the North Koreans are the ones threatening the use of unjustified force. The US, South Korea, it’s allies, and even some of North Korea’s friends are all warning North Korea NOT TO DO something rash and dangerous (no one is threatening North Korea) … of course they have been giving the North Koreans what they wanted, in part, by reacting and giving them attention. Yet, the absence of a reaction usually results in the North Koreans actually attacking and killing a number of innocent civilians or a military target of some kind. So, reacting does save innocent lives. Verbal self defense and verbal defense of others certainly seems like a justified means of defense against unwarrented attack and aggression.

    Finally, most people fail to comprehend that this situation is a continuation of a 60 year state of war that exists between the Koreas. There has never benn a peace treaty signed, the Korean war has technically never ended. The US and its UN allies have a duty to pursue a treaty and finally end this conflict. The problems and potential for military conflict and the death of innocents cannot be resolved until after a peace treaty has been concluded.

  29. Robert Capozzi

    fwiw, I do believe I heard Marc Faber say that NK is actually making these provocative statements at the behest of the Chinese. He was suggesting that do so to study how the US reacts to such provocations.

    For me, this all tells me that the US needs to extricate itself from this situation. I do, however, think this IS a job for the UN, at least in concept.

  30. Thomas

    BR @ 33,

    “My point was that the US will not attack NK because NK will do too much damage to the South.”

    Well, that’s a good point, but it may assume too much rationality on the part of the US.

    I can think of a set of incentives that might lead the US back to war on the Korean peninsula:

    1) A perceived need to “save” the DoD’s budget from “draconian cuts” (read: From only being grown by 10% instead of 18% over the next five years);

    2) A perceived need to get a 1991-like military victory on the record to wipe out a decade of quagmires, just like that 1991 victory theoretically ended the Vietnam hangover;

    3) A perception that such a victory can be achieved versus North Korea, and that moreover it need not be followed by extended US occupation, but instead by a combination of Chinese “humanitarian assistance” and South Korean “re-unification troops;”

    4) A president who wouldn’t mind a legacy record of “ending a 63-year conflict,” and a president’s party who wouldn’t mind grabbing the “strong on foreign policy” crown from its opposition.

    Not saying it WILL happen, but there are reasons why it might.

  31. Sam Kress

    Need Dennis Rodman again. Create a North Korea basketball league. LOL.

    Good one. ROFL!

    Maybe Rodman can marry Kim’s sister or niece or granddaughter and become the next God-Emperor, or the father of the next God-Emperor?

  32. Robert Capozzi

    TK 37, yes, and wouldn’t it be “nice” if BHO could shift the theater far away from the ME and south Asia and Muslims to a known nut with nukes?

    Iran looked like the “right” target for the past few years, so why not change the venue and the nut to someone who is completely unsympathetic? And one who already HAS nukes vs. someone who might be developing them?

    It’s surely not clear what the future holds, but it seems possible that megalomaniacs do think about such things.

  33. Sam Kress

    I do believe I heard Marc Faber say that NK is actually making these provocative statements at the behest of the Chinese. He was suggesting that do so to study how the US reacts to such provocations.

    Maybe. And perhaps the US is playing a similar game with China.


    For me, this all tells me that the US needs to extricate itself from this situation.

    You are correct.


    I do, however, think this IS a job for the UN, at least in concept.

    Maybe in concept, but certainly not in reality. The last thing we need is a global government; the potential for it to become tyrannical is very high.

  34. Sam Kress

    T@37 is correct. And the Chinese geritoligarchy may likewise want a war due to their own increasingly unstable hold on power, as well as the excess of young Chinese men (vis a vis women) due to the one child policy and the traditional Chinese cultural preference for boys over girls.

  35. Robert Capozzi

    SK 41, again in concept, I don’t see the UN as “global government.” I do view NK as a multi-lateral threat, and it seems reasonable to me that a multi-lateral, coordinated response seems indicated and appropriate.

    “Tyranny” is a relative thing. There’s always been some “tyranny.” The question is how much tyranny is tolerable and preferable to the alternative, at least for the foreseeable future.

  36. paulie

    in concept, I don’t see the UN as “global government.”

    It could well become one.

    “Tyranny” is a relative thing. There’s always been some “tyranny.” The question is how much tyranny is tolerable and preferable to the alternative, at least for the foreseeable future.

    A global government which is far more tyrannical than the one the US has now is a real possibility. I don’t want to ease us on the path to one, despite all the things which may make it seem like a good idea. It has a terrible record of solving such problems, and even if it didn’t, the threat it poses is greater than any problems it might solve.

  37. Be Rational

    @37 etc.

    The reason the US won’t make any attack is, as I stated, North Korea is too strong and the damage would be too great.

    The NK army is far bigger, better armed and better trained than what the US faced in Iraq, Afghanistan or would face in Iran … combined. This would be a major war that would have to be won fast to avoid deaths in South Korea in the hundreds of thousands. If the war dragged on for months the death toll would soar into the millions and destroy one of the world’s biggest economies.

    The even bigger risk looming in the background is that China would likely enter (for it’s own expansionist reasons) on the side of North Korea if the US, SK and allies couln’t overwhelm the North in a matter of days.

    The US would need a massive military buildup to successfully wage such a blitzkrieg – bigger than any ever undertaken by the US in the past.

    It’s not going to happen.

    What is going to happen is that everything will cool down again. Then later, there will be a lot of noise again. Then it will cool down again … as it has been for the last 60 years. And the US will continue to manage this situation until internal politics inside North Korea causes a change in government …

    … or until China decides it’s finally time to move in and annex part or all of North Korea, as they currently dream and plan …

    Of course, as has happened before, the North could miscalculate one of their little provocations followed by an overreaction by the South that could lead to escallation … and even then Washington would do everything it could to get the South to back down to avoid the destruction of a total war on the Korean Peninsula.

  38. Robert Capozzi

    44 P: A global government which is far more tyrannical than the one the US has now is a real possibility.

    me: Maybe. Maybe not. I don’t see a global government happening, but in concept there might be benefits. One world government would mean no military spending, for ex. Sounds kinda cool, actually.

    The Bircher/Jones set may hold the boogie man of “global government” as a cornerstone tenet, but – I dunno – it doesn”t sound all that bad to this L.

    To be clear, I don’t advocate world government, I just like to be open minded and to challenge unchallenged orthodoxies, especially when they are weak!

  39. Robert Capozzi

    more to P….

    Actually, no, I don’t see it as a “real possibility” at all. In THEORY, world government COULD be more tyrannical, or not.

    If anything, the number of states is increasing, last I checked. The trend is the other way…

  40. Thomas

    BR @ 47,

    “The NK army is far bigger, better armed and better trained than what the US faced in Iraq, Afghanistan or would face in Iran … combined.”

    In your imagination, perhaps.

    In reality, most of their tanks are T-54/55s (not even the T-72s, which the US M-1s and M-60s made short work of in 1991), most of their APCs are BTR-60s (40-50 years old), the bulk of their aircraft are either MiG-21s (circa 1955-60) or Shenyang J-5s (even older tech), and their army, while large, has an extremely high tail-to-tooth ratio (hint: They have to operate their own farms to feed themselves).

    As one defector facilitator put it:

    When asked if the North Korean army is still strong, Lt Kim answered automatically: “Yes, very strong”. The man who smuggled him out of North Korea, however, doubled up laughing at the officer’s response.

    “They are taught that they are the strongest army in the world, and the best equipped. But in reality, their equipment is what we were using in China 60 years ago!” he said.

    They have enough artillery and rocketry to put Seoul and other targets along the DMZ in a hurt locker for a couple of days, but as a military matter they would not remain a cohesive force for more than a week under attack by a modern military machine. Probably less than a week, actually.

  41. Be Rational

    “They have enough artillery and rocketry to put Seoul and other targets along the DMZ in a hurt locker for a couple of days, but as a military matter they would not remain a cohesive force for more than a week under attack by a modern military machine. Probably less than a week, actually.”

    The North Koreans may have the largest artillery and rocketry force on Earth. Enough to kill millions in the week you have allowed them in the densely populated area running from the West Sea through Incheon and Seoul where more than 20 million Koreans live in one of the world’s most heavily and most densely popluated metropolitan areas and millions more in other large, densely populated but geographically tiny cities within easy range of the DMZ.

  42. Thomas

    BR @51,

    “The North Koreans may have the largest artillery and rocketry force on Earth. Enough to kill millions in the week you have allowed them”

    Um, no. I posited that the entire North Korean military would come apart inside a week. Their DMZ-located artillery and rocketry, more like 2-3 hours.

  43. Be Rational

    I guess you missed the rocket attack on Yeonpyeong in 2010. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardment_of_Yeonpyeong

    It lasted only minutes, launching 170 rounds from a single battery on a North Korean island. The North Koreans shelled this lightly populated South Korean island killing 4 and injuring 19 South Koreans.

    The North can fire tens of thousand of rounds per minute into the densely populated major cities along the DMZ.

  44. Thomas

    @53,

    “The North can fire tens of thousand of rounds per minute into the densely populated major cities along the DMZ.”

    Yes, they can. I’m not sure where you ever got the idea that I thought otherwise.

    You seem to think that the US gives a fuck about South Korean civilians.

    I don’t think they do.

    The North can fire tens of thousands of rounds per minute into the densely populated major cities along the DMZ.

    They can do that for about 5 or 10 minutes before they have to start rationing their ammo.

    And they can continue limited attacks for 2-3 hours before all of their artillery and rocket positions along the DMZ are smoking craters.

  45. johnO

    Maybe all Kim Jong-un needs a hug. His new wife I believe has a new baby and cannot satisfy his “needs”. How about the ex-madam Kristin Davis? Or, better still, a sunshine policy of the ladies of the “Bunny Ranch” in Nevada.

  46. Be Rational

    FYI: The best transliterations the Korean names of the 3 generations of the Kim family to rule North Korea are as follows:

    Songil Kim
    Jongil Kim
    Jongeun Kim

    Koreans traditionally have only two names: a two syllable given name and a one syllable family name. Kim is the family name, so it should come last in English, just as your family name will come first when writing your name in the Korean Hangeul alphabet.

  47. Rod Stern

    I’ll go with the standard format that’s in accepted use, but I think it’s pretty well known that Kim is the family name.

  48. johnO

    @56
    I read somewhere that young Kim wants to be just like his hero Jean-Claude Van Damme. Kick-ass and get the ladies!

  49. Be Rational

    Oops, just noticed I mistyped the first Mr. Kim’s first name – transposing hangeul syllables based on Chinese charactors while transliterating is an occupational hazard:

    Ilsong Kim … ???
    Jongil Kim … ???
    Jongeun Kim … ???

  50. Thane Eichenauer

    I listened to Michael Malice, the author of Dear Reader: The Unauthorized Autobiography of Kim Jong Il, be interviewed by Tom Woods on the topic of North Korea. The episode offers an explanation of the behavior of the North Korean government. I think it is worth listening to.
    http://tomwoods.com/podcast/ep-570-how-to-respond-to-north-koreas-nuclear-bluster/

    Naturally it would be great if Tom Woods interviewed Darryl W. Perry about North Korea. Here is to hoping it happens.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *