Bush wants peace with N. Korea and War with Iraq.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
but if it leads to a big symbolic and quick victory in Iraq with all the booty oil it will lead to an election victory.

While I'm far from a Bushie I must admit I hope the seeminly inevitable war is quick. Iraq is certainly better off without Saddam and if the country exits conflict with minimal havoc . . . Hoorah, US military . . . and a little thumbs up for Bush. There will not be an oil booty b/c Powell stated clearly the oil of Iraq belongs to the people of Iraq. US may occupy/secure the oil fields but the proceeds will NOT pay for US war costs . . . unless of course the people of Iraq choose to make a donation.
 

masterxfob

Diamond Member
May 20, 2001
7,366
3
81
what if i want war with the commies? in my opinion, north korea is just a bunch of leaches that don't contribute anything to this world. on the other hand, the south koreans aren't that much better, but i'm korean so we're gonna have to keep a few around
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
BaliBabyDoc
I don't know if you could characterize FDR as being eager to enter the war. Saying that he recognized the absolute necessity of it would probably be closer to the truth.

Moonbeam
You look like you are still imbibing, Have a happy New Year.

BaliBabyDoc
When did NK break the treaty of 1994 and restart their quest for nuclear weapons. Was it before or after the 'Axis of Evil' speech?

Hint, I already know the answer to this one. I just want to see how you'll fit an answer into your rhetoric that you posted earlier. Thanks for playing.

BTW, rattlesnakes tend to breed baby rattlesnakes that spread. Sometimes you just have to clean the nest out. To put it into the analogy, NK is often starving since they would rather spend their capital on their military rather then food. A nuke or two being sold on the black market would give a big boost to the capital they would have to spend. They also don?t seem to care to whom they sell their missile technology.
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
To borrow one of the ATOT armchair hawk analogies . . . NK is indeed a rattlesnake. They are not explicitly out to do us harm but they are not friendly. They can't be tamed. Onced backed into a corner they have two options . . . rattle or strike. Your best bet is to toss them some Viper Kibble and back away slowly. A second option is to employ another viper to do him in; namely China or Russia.

So is it your contention that we should just allow NK to continue to develop their nukes and then extend to them the begrudged respect we give to other nuclear powers? We must immediately put a stop to NK's nuke weapons program. The choices:

1. Pre-emptive strike. Destroy the facilities. However there is sure to be (IMO) an immediate military response to the south. Most of NK 12K+ artillery systems are capable of hitting Seoul which is about 35 mi south of the DMZ so this strke would have to be a crippling blow to a good portion of NK's military. I don't think this is possible very quickly and without help.

2. Continued and harsher econoomic sanctions. I'm not sure how much farther this can be pushed and be effective but it is an option. This would also have to include stopping NK chief export - ballistic missiles. Why we let the last boat load go I still don't understand.

3. Figure out who has real influence on NK if anyone. Is it Bush's new buddy Putin? If it is then we must convince them to convince NK.... This is obviously the best option if it can be made to work.

What is happening in NK is IMO the best case yet for keeping our foot firmly planted on Saddam's neck. The situation that has developed in NK is going to cost us big time to stop them from having nukes.
 

spaceman

Lifer
Dec 4, 2000
17,602
166
106
Originally posted by: DaveSohmer
To borrow one of the ATOT armchair hawk analogies . . . NK is indeed a rattlesnake. They are not explicitly out to do us harm but they are not friendly. They can't be tamed. Onced backed into a corner they have two options . . . rattle or strike. Your best bet is to toss them some Viper Kibble and back away slowly. A second option is to employ another viper to do him in; namely China or Russia.

So is it your contention that we should just allow NK to continue to develop their nukes and then extend to them the begrudged respect we give to other nuclear powers? We must immediately put a stop to NK's nuke weapons program. The choices:

1. Pre-emptive strike. Destroy the facilities. However there is sure to be (IMO) an immediate military response to the south. Most of NK 12K+ artillery systems are capable of hitting Seoul which is about 35 mi south of the DMZ so this strke would have to be a crippling blow to a good portion of NK's military. I don't think this is possible very quickly and without help.

2. Continued and harsher econoomic sanctions. I'm not sure how much farther this can be pushed and be effective but it is an option. This would also have to include stopping NK chief export - ballistic missiles. Why we let the last boat load go I still don't understand.

3. Figure out who has real influence on NK if anyone. Is it Bush's new buddy Putin? If it is then we must convince them to convince NK.... This is obviously the best option if it can be made to work.

What is happening in NK is IMO the best case yet for keeping our foot firmly planted on Saddam's neck. The situation that has developed in NK is going to cost us big time to stop them from having nukes.


Pre-emptive Nuclear annihilation is an option.
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
ncircle
Pre-emptive Nuclear annihilation is an option.

China would have some very strong objections to that option besides the obvious and more overwhelming reasons to put it as a very very last resort.
 

spaceman

Lifer
Dec 4, 2000
17,602
166
106
Originally posted by: etech
ncircle
Pre-emptive Nuclear annihilation is an option.

China would have some very strong objections to that option besides the obvious and more overwhelming reasons to put it as a very very last resort.


a last resort, yes.
a viable and realistic option? maybe.


 

WinkOsmosis

Banned
Sep 18, 2002
13,990
0
0
A fire and a rattlesnake are both threats, but does that mean that you try to kill the rattlesnake with water and put out the fire with a machette? If you're going to use metaphors, take them all the way for a true comparison.
 

EndGame

Golden Member
Dec 28, 2002
1,276
0
0
Originally posted by: ncircle
Originally posted by: DaveSohmer
To borrow one of the ATOT armchair hawk analogies . . . NK is indeed a rattlesnake. They are not explicitly out to do us harm but they are not friendly. They can't be tamed. Onced backed into a corner they have two options . . . rattle or strike. Your best bet is to toss them some Viper Kibble and back away slowly. A second option is to employ another viper to do him in; namely China or Russia.

So is it your contention that we should just allow NK to continue to develop their nukes and then extend to them the begrudged respect we give to other nuclear powers? We must immediately put a stop to NK's nuke weapons program. The choices:

1. Pre-emptive strike. Destroy the facilities. However there is sure to be (IMO) an immediate military response to the south. Most of NK 12K+ artillery systems are capable of hitting Seoul which is about 35 mi south of the DMZ so this strke would have to be a crippling blow to a good portion of NK's military. I don't think this is possible very quickly and without help.

2. Continued and harsher econoomic sanctions. I'm not sure how much farther this can be pushed and be effective but it is an option. This would also have to include stopping NK chief export - ballistic missiles. Why we let the last boat load go I still don't understand.

3. Figure out who has real influence on NK if anyone. Is it Bush's new buddy Putin? If it is then we must convince them to convince NK.... This is obviously the best option if it can be made to work.

What is happening in NK is IMO the best case yet for keeping our foot firmly planted on Saddam's neck. The situation that has developed in NK is going to cost us big time to stop them from having nukes.


Pre-emptive Nuclear annihilation is an option.


Don't ya' kinda' think SK might have an objection to that?
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
Originally posted by: Jellomancer
A fire and a rattlesnake are both threats, but does that mean that you try to kill the rattlesnake with water and put out the fire with a machette? If you're going to use metaphors, take them all the way for a true comparison.


Sorry, maybe I stayed up too late last night.

Huh?
Which means, whatcha talking about Willis?
or
I don't understand to whom you are talking to or your objections to the comparisons.


Vespasian
seppuku is the more common term used now. If you are going to do it at least use the correct term. Why are you considering it?


ncircle
"a last resort, yes.
a viable and realistic option? maybe."

It's not even viable and realistic to me. I don't think it will get to that point. The effects on all of the nations of the world of the US using nukes in a preemptive manner of that sort would be devastating. No, I reject the very idea.


 

JellyBaby

Diamond Member
Apr 21, 2000
9,159
1
81
Originally posted by: Vespasian
After the Iraq issue is resolved, I think I'm going to commit hara-kiri.
But then you'd miss out on the third and final (for now) Axis of Evil show: Axis of Evil III: When Iran Attacks!
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Let the games begin . . . listen etech . . . we will never agree on much b/c every word from your mouth is gospel and every word from mine is rhetoric. If you want to talk as peers I would enjoy such an exchange . . . until then I will ignore your posts . . . right after I answer your last one

BaliBabyDoc
I don't know if you could characterize FDR as being eager to enter the war. Saying that he recognized the absolute necessity of it would probably be closer to the truth.

Semantics, maybe . . . Churchill and elites in the US military characterized FDR's attempts to enter the war as eager if not overeagerness. I can easily defer to the notion of FDR recognizing the absolute necessity to enter WWII and stop the Japanese in the Pacific. By the same token I recognize the absolute necessity to stop NK from developing and proliferating nuclear weapons. I recognize the absolute necessity to stop Saddam from developing and/or proliferating weapons of any kind. What I do not concede is Crawford, TX-, Cold War-, GOP-, Democrat-, Green Party-, Heritage Foundation-, Cato Institute-, or op-ed WSJ-mentality about chosen interventions.

Regardless, FDR wanted to go to war and was willing to make particular sacrifices to achieve that goal other than spending political capital at home. He desired the US population to DEMAND action so he would not have to explain in great detail why the US had a responsibility and dire need to enter the conflict.

Bush is no FDR. He certainly has the resolve to disarm Saddam but his temerity is self-evident. He believes he can lead the country into conflict using innuendo and plausible assumptions instead of evidence. FDR was right in principle wrong in action; but the outcome made his course a mute point. Bush may be hoping for the same but this is not 1941.

BaliBabyDoc
When did NK break the treaty of 1994 and restart their quest for nuclear weapons. Was it before or after the 'Axis of Evil' speech?

Hint, I already know the answer to this one. I just want to see how you'll fit an answer into your rhetoric that you posted earlier. Thanks for playing.
I would really have to sit down and read the whole damn thing . . . along with my evil lawyer family members . . . to accurately judge who violated the letter of the agreement, who violated the spirit of said agreement, and when did said offenses take place. Regardless, NK was clearly working on enrichment facilities throughout the 90s which violates the spirit if not the letter of the 1994 Accord. NK was NOT making more material b/c the breeder plant was shuttered. By official US admissions, fuel oil shipments were often late (days or weeks) and the two light-water reactors were at least 3 years behind schedule. Personally, I think making materials for nuclear weapons is much worse than a poor delivery record or the American tradition of not finishing large industrial projects on time.

But if you could be so kind send a reference to whatever source you've read that has reviewed the Accord in its entirety to confirm that it is only the NK's that can be considered in breech of the explicit (or implicit) terms of the 1994 Accord.

Thanks for playing
BTW, rattlesnakes tend to breed baby rattlesnakes that spread. Sometimes you just have to clean the nest out. To put it into the analogy, NK is often starving since they would rather spend their capital on their military rather then food. A nuke or two being sold on the black market would give a big boost to the capital they would have to spend. They also don?t seem to care to whom they sell their missile technology.
You know if I was going to kill a rattlesnake. I would use CO2 or an ether hood. Maybe even chill the den. But you have to do it without the beastie's awareness b/c it can strike at any moment . . . sometimes without rattling at all. Every ship short of a battlecruiser leaving NK waters will be searched. There is no way China will allow NK to move nukes via its border. NK is in the box. Let's feed them and talk to them with a soothing voice . . . small words . . . no big movements . . . while making it clear that the international market for their arms has been discontinued until they only sell naughtiness to people we like.

Bad ideas breed far more rapidly than snakes. Trust is difficult to establish and even harder to maintain but it pays great dividends. We cannot starve NK into compliance b/c they are already living at the margin. We cannot isolate NK into compliance b/c they are already self-isolated with the notable exceptions of Russia, China, and South Korea. All of those sovereigns will do what they feel is in their best interests. Bush (at least in the past 48hrs) is starting to get with the program. Working together the region will solve the NK issue.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
So is it your contention that we should just allow NK to continue to develop their nukes and then extend to them the begrudged respect we give to other nuclear powers? We must immediately put a stop to NK's nuke weapons program. The choices:

Too late Dave. We already give NK begrudged respect due to their conventional capabilities and their clear-and-(likely)present nuclear capabilities.

I agree 1 and 2 are non-starters. Option 3 is certainly my perspective. Unfortunately, Bush is his own worst enemy here. Dae-Jung is out of office b/c even his limited (borderline hawkish) Sunshine Policy was rejected by Bush admin buzzards. You can't have a dialogue when you publicly declare . . . Country 1: we have no diplomatic relations and our goal is to kill your head of state by any means necessary Country 2: we have no diplomatic relations, you have a nascent democracy but your theocratic overlord and terrorists he sponsors are reason for us to deal with you in the near future. And then Country 3: we're just going to refuse to talk to you until you straighten up and fly right. In the meantime, we will practice massive military operations less than 40 miles from your border while proclaiming your country to be evil and reserving the right to strike with nuclear weapons.

Bush's response to the October 'admission' was consistent with his ideology . . . just not very logical considering the North's history and current condition. Arguably the 1994 Accord bought the world time particularly SK and China to talk down the perpetually 'shrooming North Koreans. Bush II has not helped the dialogue. His limited public proclamations should be "Peace on the Peninsula through cooperation" "always willing to talk" and of course a real gem "could you imagine a Chernobyl-like catastrophe that close to China":Q

Let's be clear the March exercise was an attempt to intimidate NK. The cold shoulder throughout this administration was a "my way or the highway" signal. NK has nothing to lose . . . Afghanistan proved nothing to them. Iraq is equally uninformative b/c Jong Il has far more cooperation (if not an eagerness for conflict) compared to Saddam's troops.
 

MSNY

Senior member
Oct 29, 1999
474
0
0
We must immediately put a stop to NK's nuke weapons program. The choices: ect

I agree 100%. After 9/11 we must go on offense before they stick it to us. Given enough time
they WILL, NO DOUBT attack SK or us directly.

I'd rather take the chance now while there arsenal is small.
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
I agree 1 and 2 are non-starters. Option 3 is certainly my perspective. Unfortunately, Bush is his own worst enemy here. Dae-Jung is out of office b/c even his limited (borderline hawkish) Sunshine Policy was rejected by Bush admin buzzards. You can't have a dialogue when you publicly declare . . . Country 1: we have no diplomatic relations and our goal is to kill your head of state by any means necessary Country 2: we have no diplomatic relations, you have a nascent democracy but your theocratic overlord and terrorists he sponsors are reason for us to deal with you in the near future. And then Country 3: we're just going to refuse to talk to you until you straighten up and fly right. In the meantime, we will practice massive military operations less than 40 miles from your border while proclaiming your country to be evil and reserving the right to strike with nuclear weapons.

Nothing like being overly dramatic.
We agree about Iran however NK and Iraq both needed to be called out and a fire needed to be lit under the UN's ass. We can argue about the method used to do so until we are all blue in the face.

Bush's response to the October 'admission' was consistent with his ideology . . . just not very logical considering the North's history and current condition. Arguably the 1994 Accord bought the world time particularly SK and China to talk down the perpetually 'shrooming North Koreans. Bush II has not helped the dialogue. His limited public proclamations should be "Peace on the Peninsula through cooperation" "always willing to talk" and of course a real gem "could you imagine a Chernobyl-like catastrophe that close to China"

IMO the '94 accord did nothing except give the illusion that NK was behaving when really they were not. It's no secret that Bush has a certain disdain for the "striped-pants formality" of diplomacy but I think Powell and Armitage (and to some extent Rice) have more and more influence with him so the the rhetoric may be toned down from the usual Bush style.

Let's be clear the March exercise was an attempt to intimidate NK. The cold shoulder throughout this administration was a "my way or the highway" signal. NK has nothing to lose . . . Afghanistan proved nothing to them. Iraq is equally uninformative b/c Jong Il has far more cooperation (if not an eagerness for conflict) compared to Saddam's troops

Of course it was a signal. Every joint force military exercise is a signal to someone. Whether it's an exercise in Germany, Qatar or Korea they are all designed, in part, to send a very clear message.


BTW pick up a copy of Bush At War by Bob Woodward. It's pretty good and gives a lot of insight.
 

MSNY

Senior member
Oct 29, 1999
474
0
0
A bully is a bully, a terrorist is a terrorist. No matter if it's state supported or not.

When Bsh made the Axis of evil declaration he was sticking it ALL of our enemies EQUALLY.

I see absolutly no difference btw Iraq, Iran o NK. Let's be consistant and thoughtfull
on our policy with theses bastards.

Given the chance any one of them (ncluding Al queda)would not hesitate to take us out first.

Let's get them first. NK can be dealt with NOW. I'm afraid that if they possess more nukes and
evetually an ICBM they would be even less cooperative.

What makes you nondoers on NK beleive they will come around anyways ? They have lied everytime we
gave them a chance. If we wait to long the pain will get only worst.



 

Deadtrees

Platinum Member
Dec 31, 2002
2,351
0
0
Yes, North Korea has no oil what-so-ever. U.S won't gain anything from North Korea. That's the main point.
Plus, NK is right next to China, Russia, Japan not to mention SK. Russia, China, and Japan don't really care about U.S having a war against Iriq, but with NK they CARE. That's the bottom line.

NK may be crzay, but at the same time they're smart enough to know that U.S can't mess with them. That's why they can pick a fight against U.S.

Look at it now, Bush looks like such a moron because he's so obsessed to invade Iriq, altough Iriq's been saying they're innocent, and that they would even welcome CIA to inspect them. On the other hand, NK is told U.S that they're going to have more nukes, and if U.S keeps messing with them, they'll bomb U.S. It seems like Mr.Bush put himself in a box.
 

B00ne

Platinum Member
May 21, 2001
2,168
1
0
Originally posted by: SlowSS
Nobody wants a war, unless you are a dictator who hunger to expand their territory.

To say Bush wants a war like he is hungry for a war is just a ridiculous and reckless.

little reality check: he is

it was immediately clear that Iraq has no means to prevent a war. Complying to the UN resolutions is not enough anyway. Maybe Saddam could prevent the war by giving the oil fields as a "pleasedonthurtme" present to the US.


 

SlowSS

Golden Member
Nov 28, 2002
1,573
1
0
Originally posted by: B00ne
Originally posted by: SlowSS
Nobody wants a war, unless you are a dictator who hunger to expand their territory.

To say Bush wants a war like he is hungry for a war is just a ridiculous and reckless.

little reality check: he is

it was immediately clear that Iraq has no means to prevent a war.

Yes they do, be truthful about their Wmd and Nuclear programs,
stop with this cat and mouse game and fully comply with UN resolutions.

Oh, did you conveniently forgot that saddam expelled UNSCOM inspectors in 1998?

Complying to the UN resolutions is not enough anyway.

He hasn't complied with UN resolution since 1998.
Bush finally got tired of Saddam's cat and mouse game, so he turned up the heat
on UN to act alike a functional organization rather than just a figure head.
As long as Iraq is complying with UN resolutions, Bush has no choice but to leave
Iraq along.


Maybe Saddam could prevent the war by giving the oil fields as a "pleasedonthurtme" present to the US.

Maybe saddam could prevent the war by stop being tyrannical dictator
and stop killing kurds and shi'as or anyone who opposes him. And he could
comply with UN resolutions.

Oil, we could of taken their oil field in 1991, but we didn't.

I bet you probably think Bush is the tyrant, not saddam.

 

SlowSS

Golden Member
Nov 28, 2002
1,573
1
0
Originally posted by: Deadtrees

Look at it now, Bush looks like such a moron because he's so obsessed to invade Iriq, altough Iriq's been saying they're innocent, and that they would even welcome CIA to inspect them. On the other hand, NK is told U.S that they're going to have more nukes, and if U.S keeps messing with them, they'll bomb U.S. It seems like Mr.Bush put himself in a box.


If you believe Iraq is innocent........You are a very naive person.

If he was so innocent;

why did they expelled UNSCOM inspectors in 1998?

Why did he use chemical, biological weapon on his own people?

Why did he invade Kuwait?

Why is he supporting terrorist groups?

Why is he allowing his people to die due to lack of medical supplies and food
while he is building up his military force?

Yeah, he is an angel.:disgust:
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
BTW pick up a copy of Bush At War by Bob Woodward. It's pretty good and gives a lot of insight.
I don't like cheerleaders. Woodward has been cruising on reputation. I've got Peggy Noonan and Dinesh D'Souza odes to Reagan to read. I remain unconvinced of Bush's gravitas . . . he's no Yale cheerleader . . . but he won't lead the team to victory either.

Of course it was a signal. Every joint force military exercise is a signal to someone. Whether it's an exercise in Germany, Qatar or Korea they are all designed, in part, to send a very clear message.
Fine Dave, but why go through such a dramatic modification . . . which in the past had been trumpeted by NK as provocation . . . when the clear response would be . . . "look the imperialist Americans and their lap dog South Korea are massing TWICE as many troops"?!

If Bush was going to call NK to task the change in exercise makes sense. But he didn't. We puffed up and beat on our chest and then said . . . "let's go get Saddam and win the mid-term elections". What significant public policy speech has Bush made about NK in the last 9 months? NK wasn't even on the radar it was just "Axis of Evil" . . . duh.
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
I don't like cheerleaders. Woodward has been cruising on reputation. I've got Peggy Noonan and Dinesh D'Souza odes to Reagan to read. I remain unconvinced of Bush's gravitas . . . he's no Yale cheerleader . . . but he won't lead the team to victory either

It's hardly a cheerleading piece. It may not be the "take a rip at Bush" piece that you would probably prefer but it is hardly cheerleading. I still reccomend it.


Fine Dave, but why go through such a dramatic modification . . . which in the past had been trumpeted by NK as provocation . . . when the clear response would be . . . "look the imperialist Americans and their lap dog South Korea are massing TWICE as many troops"?!

If Bush was going to call NK to task the change in exercise makes sense. But he didn't. We puffed up and beat on our chest and then said . . . "let's go get Saddam and win the mid-term elections". What significant public policy speech has Bush made about NK in the last 9 months? NK wasn't even on the radar it was just "Axis of Evil" . . . duh

The response from NK would be the same no matter what we do. I also didn't realize that it was necessary to make some significant public policy speech every time we conduct a military exercise. We constantly send troops or ships places to send a message and the message is clear and it is effective especially if it provokes a response that brings facts into the daylight. The North Koreans didn't suddenly restart their weapons program because of anything Bush said, they're simply using it as an excuse to pursue an inevitable course of events.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,708
6,198
126
DS Quote:

The North Koreans didn't suddenly restart their weapons program because of anything Bush said, they're simply using it as an excuse to pursue an inevitable course of events.
-------------------------------------------------------

I thought NK was supposed to be pretty opaque and what message can you send to the inevitable?
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |