Iran massing troops on Iraq border

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Michael

Elite member
Nov 19, 1999
5,435
234
106
Yes, Iraq's neighbours were feeling threatened. The US and the UK were flying missions over Iraq every day under UN mandate to contain the threat. You have one of the the most selective grasp of world events that I have had to deal with in a long time.

You could argue that Iraq wasn't enough of a threat to justify the USA going after them (I disagree, but at least there is something to discuss). To deny that Iraq was a threat at all is dumb.

Michael
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Michael
sandorski - Iraq needed constant montitoring and attacks since the Gulf War to keep it in check and you say it was a theat to nobody? They constantly supported terror stikes on Israel. Are you irrational?

Michael

Irrational? No, that "support" was the same "support" given by practically all Mid-East governments, that is Money to the Families of Suicide Bombers, not the Bombers themselves.

What threat was Iraq? Have they attacked anyone outside of their borders since the Gulf War? Have they threatened any of their Neighbours since then? Were Iraq's Neighbours feeling threatened?


Iraq supported terrorists by paying off the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.

Iraq tried to assisanate a former US president.

According to Putin, Iraq was planning terrorist acts against the US.

Iraq by defying the UN was under sanctions. At some time, either the sanctions would have to be lifted making Saddam a leader of that part of the world or they would have had to be continued keeping that part of the world economically disadvantaged leading to more terrorism.

There seemed to be no end to the Saddam regime. If he died, one of his sons, quite possibly worse than Saddam would have taken over.

There's more, but that's enough for me to support his removal.

Saying that Iraq was no threat is ignoring a lot.


edit/ BTW, whatever happened to those Iranian divisions MASSING on the border. Anyone heard anything about them. So many people made such a big deal about it. They must have done something.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Iraq's neighbors..

Given Iraqi economic woes and the presence of US forces enforcing UN resolutions in the area it would seem Iraq didn't have the ability to 'threaten' anyone.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,204
6,323
126
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Iraq's neighbors..

Given Iraqi economic woes and the presence of US forces enforcing UN resolutions in the area it would seem Iraq didn't have the ability to 'threaten' anyone.
What and how one perceives a threat, LR, are dependent on your state. If you are filled full of repressed traumatic memories everything looks like a threat. The evil eye that people fear is after them is nothing more than the projection of our unconscious. The unknown is the mirror in which we can see the inner content of our minds. The edge of the sea was always filled with dragons and dangerous beasts because we have all been through a terrible hell. But it is one thing to have an unconscious and understand it's actions. It's quite another when you start believing in your fears. That is irrational insanity. It's around our feelings that we create our words and rationalizations, and when we go out killing others because we are afraid we have fallen deep into sin.

Edit: By the way LR, I forgot to thank you for your kind words.
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Iraq's neighbors..

Given Iraqi economic woes and the presence of US forces enforcing UN resolutions in the area it would seem Iraq didn't have the ability to 'threaten' anyone.

Lunar, are you forgetting the millions of dollars that Saddam commanded?

How much did the 9/11 attacks cost Osama?
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,978
0
0
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Iraq's neighbors..

Given Iraqi economic woes and the presence of US forces enforcing UN resolutions in the area it would seem Iraq didn't have the ability to 'threaten' anyone.

Thats why the people of Kuwait and Israel stocked up on chemical and biological warfare protection, they surely did not feel threatened. Iraq had billions to fund any venture they wished and we have official reports from Russia they were planning terrorist acts. I am willing to bet the blankets laced with smallpox we gave to the indians were pretty cheap
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Iraq's neighbors..

Given Iraqi economic woes and the presence of US forces enforcing UN resolutions in the area it would seem Iraq didn't have the ability to 'threaten' anyone.

Lunar, are you forgetting the millions of dollars that Saddam commanded?

How much did the 9/11 attacks cost Osama?

I see your point and I suppose this is true. I think more in terms of threat being something 'thwart able' and terroristic activity in this case as being managed by a headless octopus who simply regenerates new arms and 'suckers' as the case warrants and therefore, not a threat but, a reality an ever present practically unstoppable reality.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,204
6,323
126
I find a number of things about your post troubling, etech.

Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Michael
sandorski - Iraq needed constant montitoring and attacks since the Gulf War to keep it in check and you say it was a theat to nobody? You direct the argument away from the issue. There isn't a country in the world of which we could say they are a threat to nobody. We are talking about a threat sufficiently grave and immediate as to require preemptive war-sized attack. Iraq was not an immediate threat to us at all. We learned that 15 minutes into the war. There were no WMD that could target America poised to be delivered. the excuse for the war was a fraud. They constantly supported terror stikes on Israel. American soldiers do not sign up to defend Israel and are not charged with Israel's defense. Sending American troops to defend Israel should be an impeachable offense. Are you irrational? You should maybe get your own thinking in order g=before you ask

Michael

Irrational? No, that "support" was the same "support" given by practically all Mid-East governments, that is Money to the Families of Suicide Bombers, not the Bombers themselves.

What threat was Iraq? Have they attacked anyone outside of their borders since the Gulf War? Have they threatened any of their Neighbours since then? Were Iraq's Neighbours feeling threatened?


Iraq supported terrorists by paying off the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Not a valid reason for preemptive war

Iraq tried to assisanate a former US president. Not a valid reason for preemptive war


According to Putin, Iraq was planning terrorist acts against the US. Not a valid reason for preemptive war or much of anything else.


Iraq by defying the UN was under sanctions. At some time, either the sanctions would have to be lifted making Saddam a leader of that part of the world or they would have had to be continued keeping that part of the world economically disadvantaged leading to more terrorism. Not a valid reason for preemptive war


There seemed to be no end to the Saddam regime. If he died, one of his sons, quite possibly worse than Saddam would have taken over. Not a valid reason for preemptive war


There's more, but that's enough for me to support his removal. Ah but preemptive war was not about his removal it was about non-existent WMD. Everybody supports his removal.


Saying that Iraq was no threat is ignoring a lot. That is very true. He was a threat to alot of things and nobody wishes to ignore that. But none of those threats rose to the level that they demanded preemptive war
 

moks78

Lifer
Jan 5, 2001
10,581
1
0
"Thanks again, George "Fvcking Idiot" Bush."

"Thanks for that info conjur "Fvcking Idiot" lifer."...LOL! This forum is something else...
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: Alistar7
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Iraq's neighbors..

Given Iraqi economic woes and the presence of US forces enforcing UN resolutions in the area it would seem Iraq didn't have the ability to 'threaten' anyone.

Thats why the people of Kuwait and Israel stocked up on chemical and biological warfare protection, they surely did not feel threatened. Iraq had billions to fund any venture they wished and we have official reports from Russia they were planning terrorist acts. I am willing to bet the blankets laced with smallpox we gave to the indians were pretty cheap

Well, I was referring to Iraq's neighbors.. but as you and Etech point out a threat of terror to anyone within reach could be construed as a threat to a neighbor. Especially, a border state like Kuwait and Israel is but ... what... a scud away.. And, at the same time is the truth in Moonbeam's latest post... The ghost under the bed becomes for all practical purposes a reality because we react to it as if it were real. To separate the wheat from the chaff using minds terrorized by reality becomes a difficult thing to overcome. To find that ghost and squish him becomes the only focus we enable. Maybe you're right and maybe Iraq was without more than minor effect compared to what some would hope to encourage. Putin for one has his own real issues to deal with regarding terrorism and support in this venture might motivate him to support creation of a broader and much larger ghost. One fact is certain. Saddam is not in power and terrorism seems to have escalated.. maybe different terrorists and different targets but, it seems real enough. The question is, I guess is : Which is the ghost and which is the terrorist.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Moonbeam,
I'm think I'm beginning to see the picture you're painting in the last few posts.

The folks who supported the war and also having positions of power convinced enough folks as to the existence of their ghosts by pointing to Iraq as the tomb of the undead. That all manner of undead creatures emanate from Persia. That maybe it wasn't oil or oil was a bi-product to the elimination of Saddam and his underlings. That this undertaking was irrational at best and criminal at worst. That if Saddam was still in power and us flying overhead the number of dead would be fewer by many just different folks would be dead and terrorist would still live in Afghanistan and the ghosts neatly tucked away under the beds of peaceful sleeping Iraqi.
This we'll never know... but, the ghosts of many stir the pot of turmoil and discontent both there and in the Situation Room secreted away from the risk of gooey green stuff.
 

Michael

Elite member
Nov 19, 1999
5,435
234
106
MoonTroll - I directed nothing away from the point being made. The proposition being put forth was that Iraq wasn't a threat at all, not just to the USA but to the region as well. I answered that question and it must have been in a way that caused discomfort because the typical responses all came flowing out.

As for your babble about acting on fears, I would point out that the same argument can be made on the other side - ignoring reality and doing nothing. Hitler was appeased and world leaders tried to pretend that the threat went away.

Just about every country in the world believed that Iraq had WMD before the war. The arguments in the UN were not if he had them but the best way to deal with it - a war or continued sanctions and monitoring. Given that the belief was that there were WMD - a belief shared by the previous administration so it wasn't like Bush's administration just made it up - then the justification was still there.

You, once again, are trying in your typical insulting manner to claim that you have some sort of higher insight and that you're delving to the heart of the psychological disease that drives us poor blighted souls. Screw you. You would be a Vichy French sending Jews off to be gassed because the possibility that they're not just going to an internment camp is just an irrational fear.

You can continue to blind yourself to the fact that Iraq had access to billions and had are ready made and used chemical weapons in the past. I have no problem at all seeing Iraq using that capability to make an attack o a US city. You wouldn't need a missile to do that.

Michael
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,204
6,323
126
Mi: MoonTroll - I directed nothing away from the point being made. The proposition being put forth was that Iraq wasn't a threat at all, not just to the USA but to the region as well. I answered that question and it must have been in a way that caused discomfort because the typical responses all came flowing out.

Mo: Monkael, MoonTroll here. You are right, I see not that Sandorski said Iraq wasn't a threat to anybody so you were on topic there. Your answer, however, like etech's fails to address the different ways we use the word threat. As I said, there is no country where threats cannot exist. Your application of the term means we have a legitimate right to destroy all life on earth living outside our borders. It is an irrational and fear filled definition of threat. So while on topic, I now agree, your examples do not rise to the level of threat needed to justify preemptive war.

Mi: As for your babble about acting on fears, I would point out that the same argument can be made on the other side - ignoring reality and doing nothing. Hitler was appeased and world leaders tried to pretend that the threat went away.

Mo: As for your example on my babble about fears, you might read the first part of my Sig. As for ignoring reality and doing nothing, irrational fear is ignoring reality too. The opposite of non paranoid thinking isn't having your head in the sand in some other part of the spectrum in which fear operates, fight or flight, it's seeing objectively and acting accordingly. In this case it's analyzing the level of threat and acting appropriately to that level.

Mi: Just about every country in the world believed that Iraq had WMD before the war. The arguments in the UN were not if he had them but the best way to deal with it - a war or continued sanctions and monitoring. Given that the belief was that there were WMD - a belief shared by the previous administration so it wasn't like Bush's administration just made it up - then the justification was still there.

Mo: Hehe, you fail to include a vital fact here that changes everything. The debate wasn't about war vs continued sanctions and monitoring as it had gone on before. The inspectors were back in Iraq and weren't finding anything. There were no WMD being discovered and there was growing evidence they were not there. That is why Bush was in such a rush. There was mounting evidence that his rational for war was a lie. Only after the attack and the presence of 130 thousand troop inspectors did the pleas start coming that we need more time to find the WMD. You pretend the war was about threats when it is obvious that it was about PNAC conquest now being justified as a humanitarian effort. This is the real reality, my friend.

Mi: You, once again, are trying in your typical insulting manner to claim that you have some sort of higher insight and that you're delving to the heart of the psychological disease that drives us poor blighted souls. Screw you. You would be a Vichy French sending Jews off to be gassed because the possibility that they're not just going to an internment camp is just an irrational fear.

Mo: Hehe, talk about irrational fear and insulting. Now in theory I'm a Jew killer. Are you Jewish? For some reason I get the impression you are. Part of my higher insight, I guess. Again, this sort of charge is one that I'm totally used to having seen it a million times. If you know anything at all, all you have to do is look at your own life. When anybody who knows anything gets around those who don't they always get charged with being elite. It is the nature of fools to ridicule the wise. By the way I learned all this from a Jew.

Mi: You can continue to blind yourself to the fact that Iraq had access to billions and had are ready made and used chemical weapons in the past. I have no problem at all seeing Iraq using that capability to make an attack o a US city. You wouldn't need a missile to do that.

Mo: This is true of many many countries but we aren't going to war with them. The war was not about WMD. Had Iraq used a chemical weapon on US soil they would have been obliterated. That is why we have terrorism as an enemy and not nations. The only way an enemy can survive against us today is to hide among the innocent. Only a nut case is willing to kill everybody to get to a few.

Terrorism is a disease of the soul, the feeling of worthlessness so deep that your rage creates an entitlement that you have the right to kill others. As soon as it is expresses it creates more of the exact same kind of hate, the feeling that you have a right to do anything to get even. Humanity is caught in an endless cycle of insanity and will be till the time comes when hearts become large enough to say stop, this is not what it means to love, I was not born with this hate. I do not have to feed this hate all the thoughts of my mind. The sun is warm and shining just as it was the first day.
 

DeeKnow

Platinum Member
Jan 28, 2002
2,470
0
71
Originally posted by: glenn1
Maybe since I've been out of the army things have changed (it has been six years ago since I was in), but I doubt we would have considered four Iranian battalions to be a credible military opposition force, much less an occupation force. That amount of Iranian troops wouldn't wield enough combat power to be capable of occupying anything larger than a school gymnasium, much less a country the size of Iraq. Plus we have enough projectable force on just whatever aircraft carrier that's on station in the Gulf at that time to make those four batallions combat ineffective within the space of a day or so.

you're still thinking conventional warfare...
all the american might did not help free the 52 hostages from the american embassy....
 

Michael

Elite member
Nov 19, 1999
5,435
234
106
Moonbeam - My goodness, gracious. An actual post from you with actual discussion points. I think I might faint.

I disagree with your point of view, but my flight to Singapore is leaving very soon so I don't have time to go over all of them in detail.

My main point is that Bush clearly laid out the three countries the felt were the biggest and most immediate threat - Iraq, Iran and North Korea. Of the three, Iraq was the one most backed into a corner and I would say the most likely to use a terrorist attack. Iran has long been a major sponsor of terrorism and North Korea has been spreading nuclear and missile technology. Both of those countries will need to be dealt with as well but an invasion isn't the way I think should be used right now.

As for Iraq, I fully supported and continue to support the invasion. Before the war even started I said that WMD was just one of the reasons I felt were more than good enough to invade.

Michael

ps - I would submit that the inspectors never would have returned without the very real threat of armed force and I read their reports before the war. They were clear in that they were not getting the cooperation from Iraq that resolution 1441 called for. They were also finding signs of banned weapon programs but no banned weapons. It wasn't like Iraq was cleared of all suspicion.
 
May 10, 2001
2,669
0
0
Moonbeam - My goodness, gracious. An actual post from you with actual discussion points. I think I might faint.
It?s a trap!
MoonPie has long-ago lost any understanding of the difference between an emotional appeal and a logical argument: much like the joker before him he fell into a vat of acid and was horribly twisted into something now beautifully superior to the rest of us humans.
Humanity is caught in an endless cycle of insanity and will be till the time comes when hearts become large enough to say stop, this is not what it means to love, I was not born with this hate.
/tear

Can't we all just.. Get along?
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
Moonbeam - My goodness, gracious. An actual post from you with actual discussion points. I think I might faint.
It?s a trap!
MoonPie has long-ago lost any understanding of the difference between an emotional appeal and a logical argument: much like the joker before him he fell into a vat of acid and was horribly twisted into something now beautifully superior to the rest of us humans.
Humanity is caught in an endless cycle of insanity and will be till the time comes when hearts become large enough to say stop, this is not what it means to love, I was not born with this hate.
/tear

Can't we all just.. Get along?

Right. What would Jesus do? Would he turn the other cheek? Or would he order the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians, the mass bombing and invasion of a soverign nation and the resulting military occupation replete with torture, murder and false imprisonment of hundreds if not thousands?

I would think you know the answer to that.
 

BugsBunny1078

Banned
Jan 11, 2004
910
0
0
What would Jesus do is not a valid argument.
Jesus already did what God's will was for him to do. If God had meant for him to be President and order the invasion or Iraq then that is what he would have done.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: BugsBunny1078
What would Jesus do is not a valid argument.
Jesus already did what God's will was for him to do. If God had meant for him to be President and order the invasion or Iraq then that is what he would have done.

Ummmm, I sure hope you're not equating the Dub with Jesus. That man is no Jesus. He's no Elvis either.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,220
5,798
126
Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Michael
sandorski - Iraq needed constant montitoring and attacks since the Gulf War to keep it in check and you say it was a theat to nobody? They constantly supported terror stikes on Israel. Are you irrational?

Michael

Irrational? No, that "support" was the same "support" given by practically all Mid-East governments, that is Money to the Families of Suicide Bombers, not the Bombers themselves.

What threat was Iraq? Have they attacked anyone outside of their borders since the Gulf War? Have they threatened any of their Neighbours since then? Were Iraq's Neighbours feeling threatened?


Iraq supported terrorists by paying off the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. That's not supporting terrorists, that's supporting the families whose Homes get bulldozed by Israel after a family member commits a terrorist act.

Iraq tried to assisanate a former US president.

According to Putin, Iraq was planning terrorist acts against the US.

Iraq by defying the UN was under sanctions. At some time, either the sanctions would have to be lifted making Saddam a leader of that part of the world or they would have had to be continued keeping that part of the world economically disadvantaged leading to more terrorism.

There seemed to be no end to the Saddam regime. If he died, one of his sons, quite possibly worse than Saddam would have taken over.

There's more, but that's enough for me to support his removal.

Saying that Iraq was no threat is ignoring a lot.


edit/ BTW, whatever happened to those Iranian divisions MASSING on the border. Anyone heard anything about them. So many people made such a big deal about it. They must have done something.
 

Siddhartha

Lifer
Oct 17, 1999
12,505
3
81
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: conjur
Oh boy...what fun we have to look forward to if we pull out soon.

Thanks again, George "Fvcking Idiot" Bush.

:roll: Yeah - I suppose it's now Bush's fault Iran looks to be power hungry?

They will be dealt with...unless john "fvcking appeaser" kerry gets elected.

CkG


In what way is John Kerry an appeaser? And how do you define appeaser?
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Michael
sandorski - Iraq needed constant montitoring and attacks since the Gulf War to keep it in check and you say it was a theat to nobody? They constantly supported terror stikes on Israel. Are you irrational?

Michael

Irrational? No, that "support" was the same "support" given by practically all Mid-East governments, that is Money to the Families of Suicide Bombers, not the Bombers themselves.

What threat was Iraq? Have they attacked anyone outside of their borders since the Gulf War? Have they threatened any of their Neighbours since then? Were Iraq's Neighbours feeling threatened?


Iraq supported terrorists by paying off the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. That's not supporting terrorists, that's supporting the families whose Homes get bulldozed by Israel after a family member commits a terrorist act.

Iraq tried to assisanate a former US president.

According to Putin, Iraq was planning terrorist acts against the US.

Iraq by defying the UN was under sanctions. At some time, either the sanctions would have to be lifted making Saddam a leader of that part of the world or they would have had to be continued keeping that part of the world economically disadvantaged leading to more terrorism.

There seemed to be no end to the Saddam regime. If he died, one of his sons, quite possibly worse than Saddam would have taken over.

There's more, but that's enough for me to support his removal.

Saying that Iraq was no threat is ignoring a lot.


edit/ BTW, whatever happened to those Iranian divisions MASSING on the border. Anyone heard anything about them. So many people made such a big deal about it. They must have done something.


Yes, it is, When the families of suicide bombers are paid more than families of people killed in that war it is an inducement to terrorism.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Yeah, I can hear the calls from wives and children encouraging dear ol' dad to go blow himself up so they could reap some financial benefit.
 

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
0
76
Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Michael
sandorski - Iraq needed constant montitoring and attacks since the Gulf War to keep it in check and you say it was a theat to nobody? They constantly supported terror stikes on Israel. Are you irrational?

Michael

Irrational? No, that "support" was the same "support" given by practically all Mid-East governments, that is Money to the Families of Suicide Bombers, not the Bombers themselves.

What threat was Iraq? Have they attacked anyone outside of their borders since the Gulf War? Have they threatened any of their Neighbours since then? Were Iraq's Neighbours feeling threatened?


Iraq supported terrorists by paying off the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. That's not supporting terrorists, that's supporting the families whose Homes get bulldozed by Israel after a family member commits a terrorist act.

Iraq tried to assisanate a former US president.

According to Putin, Iraq was planning terrorist acts against the US.

Iraq by defying the UN was under sanctions. At some time, either the sanctions would have to be lifted making Saddam a leader of that part of the world or they would have had to be continued keeping that part of the world economically disadvantaged leading to more terrorism.

There seemed to be no end to the Saddam regime. If he died, one of his sons, quite possibly worse than Saddam would have taken over.

There's more, but that's enough for me to support his removal.

Saying that Iraq was no threat is ignoring a lot.


edit/ BTW, whatever happened to those Iranian divisions MASSING on the border. Anyone heard anything about them. So many people made such a big deal about it. They must have done something.


Yes, it is, When the families of suicide bombers are paid more than families of people killed in that war it is an inducement to terrorism.

If "inducement to terrorism" is all it takes to start a preemptive war then the world should nuke the US asap.

See "Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation" (Former School of the Americas) for example.
 
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/    |