The Problem of Chickendoves

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
The Problem of Chickendoves
By Douglas Kern Published 02/15/2005

Any yammering propeller-headed nitwit can tell the world to make love, not war, and no one can impeach his sincerity in making that plaintive demand. By contrast, anyone who supports the war had better be a card-carrying military veteran, or else be condemned as a "chickenhawk" -- no matter how wise, eloquent, or inspiring their pro-war position might be.

The problem isn't chickenhawks -- people who support the war but never served in the military, and probably never will.

The problem is stateside armchair philosophers who oppose military action and military policy, even though they never served in the military. The problem is anti-war punditry from intellectuals who think that an IED is a contraceptive and couldn't tell the difference between bounding overwatch and watching Baywatch. The problem is intellectuals who think their education and politically-correct ideology lets them know what the military needs -- better than the military knows it.

The problem is chickendoves.

In my fleeting moments of empathy, I can muster some modicum of sympathy for the condemnation of chickenhawks. I watched the remake of All Quiet on the Western Front, the same as everyone else. I remember the grotesque contrast between the enthusiasm of the naïve pro-war schoolteachers and the bloody realities of the World War I trenches. (Pro-war schoolteachers! It sounds like science fiction.) No one smiles at the thought of fat white guys in fezzes and monocles sipping cognac while pushing little men across a map, plotting out wars where poorer, browner men die to support the fantasies of empire.

But a funny thing happened on the way to the peace vigil: the allegedly poorer, allegedly browner men support the war, and the fat guys in fezzes and monocles now inveigh against it. Military support for the war and the Bush administration is exceptionally high. It's the well-to-do in the ritzy suburbs who wring their hands, mumbling "Dulce Et Decorum Est" while listening to dreary reports about the Iraqi quagmire on NPR. To generalize: the closer and more intimate you are with the war in Iraq, the more you support it.

The chickendoves don't care. Heck, what do soldiers know? They're only battle-hardened professionals with unusually high educational achievements and hands-on experience with the occupation of Iraq. That the chickenhawks are on the same side as the real hawks is just a curious accident, one that will not prevent the chickendoves from "defending" the soldiers whose opinions they casually dismiss.

"But shouldn't the burden of proof rest upon those who call for war, instead of peace? Don't the inherent dangers of war compel us to demand that its advocates walk the talk?" In brief: no and no. War is extraordinarily bad. But a bad peace can be worse. The graveyards of the world are filled with the bodies of those who died from a hateful "peace." Given the hideous acts of oppression and injustice that spring from the lack of war, why shouldn't we hold peaceniks to the higher standard of sincerity?

When peace goes awry, soldiers are often the first ones to pay the price. When America appeared irresolute in the early eighties, who suffered: the pampered professors in their cozy collegiate nooks? Or the Marines in their barracks in Lebanon? When Islamic extremists tested America's resolve, did they explode a bomb at Harvard -- or the USS Cole? When peacemongers guess wrong, soldiers die -- not peacemongers. So when will the anti-warriors put their own necks on the line for their beliefs?

Military service would give peace-lovers a chance to prove their pacifistic mettle. You want to stop the fighting in Iraq? Want to prevent American soldiers from executing their imperialistic policies of building schools and sewers and hospitals? Stow the goofy signs, soulpatch. Forget that petition. Don't send that whiny e-mail to Fox News. I have a better way: snip off your ponytail, drop thirty pounds, and enlist. With all of those master's degrees in Folklore Studies, you'll be a shoo-in to make Officer Candidate School. In no time you'll be a Platoon Leader, responsible for the combat readiness of dozens of men. When the moment is right, and the bullets start to fly, you can order your men to stand down and Give Peace a Chance. For that brief, shining moment, you will have brought peace to the Middle East and halted the genocidal policies of George W. McHitler. Admittedly, your platoon sergeant will buttstroke you to the head at the first opportunity. After a quick court-martial, you'll spend the remainder of your adult life making big rocks into little rocks in beautiful, scenic Leavenworth, Kansas. But so what? You gotta walk the talk. If you're willing to send chickenhawks off to die in order to earn the right to support war, surely you're willing to send yourself off to incarceration and dishonor in order to earn the right to support peace.

Military service is also an excellent sincerity check for peaceniks who have belatedly discovered the joys of protecting innocent Muslims. Many of us suspicious-minded pro-war types can't help but notice that many war protestors didn't lose much sleep over the lives of Iraqis and Iranians when Saddam Hussein was slaughtering both. And back when the kum-ba-yah set admitted to resenting our action in Afghanistan, they fretted over the fate of Afghanis whom they were more than happy to entrust to the tender ministrations of the Taliban before 9/11. And what about our defense of Muslims during our Bosnian action? If, chickendove, you've developed a strange new concern for the fate of Muslims worldwide, take notice: the one military in the entire world that has taken up arms in the last fifty years to defend Muslim life is the American military. Feel like enlisting yet? Or is your Ph.D. proof enough of how gosh darn much you care?

To be clear: the entire notion of "Chicken______" is absurd. A free society should act on the assumption that citizens can reason about military issues without personal military experience, just as they can reason about any issue without needing a doctorate degree to do so. If you can't trust citizens to reason intelligently outside of their personal fields of expertise, you've ceded political control to the experts. A strong insight into human nature gives citizens the capacity for reasonably wise decisions on all subjects. And insight into human nature doesn't require military discharge papers.

Moreover, we constantly make political demands on each other that don't affect us personally. We raise taxes that we ourselves don't pay. We pass environmental regulations that don't affect our businesses. We support novel educational policies while we send our own children to private school. So what? Do we demand that leftists form their own multinational conglomerates before protesting at WTC meetings? Do we require conservatives to date within their own sex before opposing same-sex marriages? Why have we singled out a pro-war stance as the one instance in which the mere possession of an opinion isn't good enough?

If you feel compelled to demand that pro-war advocates prove their sincerity, you'd better make the same demand of anti-war advocates, as well. Peace is too important to be left to the chickendoves.

Douglas Kern is a lawyer and frequent TCS contributor.

This sort of thinking has been put forth here a time or two - only to be ignored by the chickendoves. They seem to love to trot out the tired old "chickenhawk" label but yet don't show their own convictions like they demand from others.

Hopefully some who read this will rethink their oft-bleated "chickenhawk" routine and calls for joining up. Probably won't have much affect - but it's out there if they want some reality.

CsG



 

judasmachine

Diamond Member
Sep 15, 2002
8,515
3
81
idealogically i don't believe violence solves anything. that is not to say that i don't appreciate those who choose to stand by and commit violence on my behalf. however, i do not appreciate a leader who picks and chooses fights that don't absolutely have to be fought. this conflict was not brought to us, like the one immediately before was. this conflict was a spill over of revenge-like spirit that pervaded after said attacks. i barely believe in war, but i absolutely do not believe that pre-emptive or imperial war is worth the cost in human lives. it just serves to break up long term friendships, and kills way to many of those boys who have sworn to protect us from real threats.

to me, it's a balancing act, and the pendulum has swung in a "chickenhawks" favor, and it will swing back into a "dovehawks" favor sooner or later. but the only justifiable path is for the pendulum to sit in the middle in perfect balace.
 

Mursilis

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2001
7,756
11
81
Originally posted by: judasmachine
i absolutely do not believe that pre-emptive or imperial war is worth the cost in human lives.

This whole "pre-emptive war" thing is interesting. Why is it wrong? Now I'm not talking about Iraq specifically, but pre-emptive war in general. If you know or strongly suspect within a reasonable degree of certainty, that another country is planning an imminent and large-scale assault against your country, what's wrong with attacking them first? If someone aims a gun at me with intend to fire it, I doubt any moral philosophers would suggest I'd have to wait until I was shot before drawing my own weapon on my assailant.
 

judasmachine

Diamond Member
Sep 15, 2002
8,515
3
81
Originally posted by: Mursilis
Originally posted by: judasmachine
i absolutely do not believe that pre-emptive or imperial war is worth the cost in human lives.

This whole "pre-emptive war" thing is interesting. Why is it wrong? Now I'm not talking about Iraq specifically, but pre-emptive war in general. If you know or strongly suspect within a reasonable degree of certainty, that another country is planning an imminent and large-scale assault against your country, what's wrong with attacking them first? If someone aims a gun at me with intend to fire it, I doubt any moral philosophers would suggest I'd have to wait until I was shot before drawing my own weapon on my assailant.



you do have a point (and caught me in a compromising mood), if we had seen the japanese fleet coming towards hawaii (and some say we did) i really wouldn't have had a problem with meeting them halfway out in the ocean, and interrupting the suprise. i just don't like the practice of naming your enemies, and calling your shots. if given unrefutable proof of an imminent attack, then by all means, but like in the cold war there were several times when attacks were shown by computer failure, and bad intel, would you have launched the nukes before you were sure?

this isn't exactly a street mugging, this costs lives, thousands, and even tens of thousands lives of brave individuals who swear to protect yours and mine. all i am saying is if the doctrine is to be put into action we had better be more than damn sure.
 

fjord

Senior member
Feb 18, 2004
667
0
0
Cart before the horse.

First we have to solve the problem of blatant lies, manufacturing of evidence and an overall rampant corruption by our present government.

This is, afterall, the basis for making policy decisions--whomever actually decides. Knowingly or not, the fix is in.

Its the "corruptionLiehawks" I worry about.
 

Mursilis

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2001
7,756
11
81
Originally posted by: judasmachine
Originally posted by: Mursilis
Originally posted by: judasmachine
i absolutely do not believe that pre-emptive or imperial war is worth the cost in human lives.

This whole "pre-emptive war" thing is interesting. Why is it wrong? Now I'm not talking about Iraq specifically, but pre-emptive war in general. If you know or strongly suspect within a reasonable degree of certainty, that another country is planning an imminent and large-scale assault against your country, what's wrong with attacking them first? If someone aims a gun at me with intend to fire it, I doubt any moral philosophers would suggest I'd have to wait until I was shot before drawing my own weapon on my assailant.



you do have a point (and caught me in a compromising mood), if we had seen the japanese fleet coming towards hawaii (and some say we did) i really wouldn't have had a problem with meeting them halfway out in the ocean, and interrupting the suprise. i just don't like the practice of naming your enemies, and calling your shots. if given unrefutable proof of an imminent attack, then by all means, but like in the cold war there were several times when attacks were shown by computer failure, and bad intel, would you have launched the nukes before you were sure?

this isn't exactly a street mugging, this costs lives, lives of brave individuals who swear to protect yours and mine. all i am saying is if the docturne is to be put into action we had better be more than damn sure.

Regarding your 'incoming nukes' example, therein lies the rub - we don't always have all the answers, unlike in a neat and clean hypothetical. Would I launch the nukes? Hard to say . . . How good was the intel? How much time do we have to decide before we're defenseless? Too many variables. I'm just glad it never came to that, and I wasn't the one in charge.

Regarding Bush and Iraq, while I agree with Bush and co. that Hussein certainly had the intent to obtain WMD's and would've likely used them against the U.S., I don't believe such a strike was imminent, or at least the case hasn't been made. I don't agree with that decision.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
YAAIRO/EP
Yet Another Anti-Intellectual Republican Opinion/Editorial Page.
There is no substance there. He is forgetting who got hit on 9/11. It was New Yorkers. Do a poll of New Yorkers and see if they support the Iraq war.
And last time I checked, we are not a military dictatorship, so just because the military is eager to fight, doesn't mean the war is necessary or justified. I am glad if the military is eager to fight and in high morale. That is their job, and they are doing it well. But that is not by itself a rationale for war. And yeah, you don't need a doctorate to reason about something, but at the same time, would you want a non-doctor making life and death decisions about your health during an operation? Would you want someone designing your car who has never driven one? Then why would you want people who never served making decisions about troop levels needed to occupy a country, strategy, etc? It makes no sense. And finally, there is no excuse for bait and switching justifications for war. None.
 

PatboyX

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2001
7,024
0
0
i dont think the initial assertion is really true. i dont think people are allowed to spout off about peace and expect to be taken seriously...
the only person ive heard "making the rounds" promoting peace in the above sense is deepak chopra (going from memory on that name)
while i think few people are asked to show military "cred" in order to promote the war. it is, of course, brought up that those in power arnt necessarily experienced in war but i have not heard those as central features of the argument but merely a backdrop with which to consider the whole issue.
conversly, i see people like ollie north talking the war up and his experience makes me less inclined to want to listen to him.
then i listen to the idiot standing next to me on the bus reading the paper talking about how "MESSED UP THIS WAR IS, MAN!" and i want to smack him.
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
I'm watching Frontline -- Rumsfeld's War -- you neoCONs really don't want to go here.

And any piece that starts out,

Any yammering propeller-headed nitwit can tell the world to make love, not war, and no one can impeach his sincerity in making that plaintive demand. By contrast, anyone who supports the war had better be a card-carrying military veteran, or else be condemned as a "chickenhawk" -- no matter how wise, eloquent, or inspiring their pro-war position might be.

really isn't worthy of consideration.

 

Perknose

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 9, 1999
46,572
9,945
146
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Any yammering propeller-headed nitwit can tell the world to make love, not war, and no one can impeach his sincerity. . .
Does ANYONE see the blindingly blatant hypocrisy in this OPENING statement?




































No? Really??

Because fatally warped world view calling someone a "yammering propeller-headed nitwit" ISN'T "impeaching their sincerity" from the gitgo???

Get a mirror, get a life, get a clue, Bush Boy Bootlickers and A++ Apologists!

I guess the all too accurate term "CHICKENHAWK" really hit a nerve with you keyboard kommandos, eh? :|

 

cwjerome

Diamond Member
Sep 30, 2004
4,346
26
81
Great article. "Chickenhawks" and "keyboard commandos," lol, buncha butthurt dweebs who have low testosterone levels and feel inadequate as a result of observing people with moral courage. So they call us kindergarten names... what a hoot

Supertool: Terrorists attacked the United States of America, k? Put that into your thick skull... they attacked ME. (And if someone like me who's never served in the military can't talk about strategy, than either can all the never-served pansies who fret and tremble over our military strategies. Yeah, the only people who can debate military policy are those that served :roll: And since you've probably never served in a national office, then shut your damn trap about what the president or congress does)
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Originally posted by: cwjerome
Great article. "Chickenhawks" and "keyboard commandos," lol, buncha butthurt dweebs who have low testosterone levels and feel inadequate as a result of observing people with moral courage. So they call us kindergarten names... what a hoot

Supertool: Terrorists attacked the United States of America, k? Put that into your thick skull... they attacked ME. (And if someone like me who's never served in the military can't talk about strategy, than either can all the never-served pansies who fret and tremble over our military strategies. Yeah, the only people who can debate military policy are those that served :roll: And since you've probably never served in a national office, then shut your damn trap about what the president or congress does)

Now that's what I call a strong endorsement of free speech. :roll:

 

cwjerome

Diamond Member
Sep 30, 2004
4,346
26
81
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: cwjerome
Great article. "Chickenhawks" and "keyboard commandos," lol, buncha butthurt dweebs who have low testosterone levels and feel inadequate as a result of observing people with moral courage. So they call us kindergarten names... what a hoot

Supertool: Terrorists attacked the United States of America, k? Put that into your thick skull... they attacked ME. (And if someone like me who's never served in the military can't talk about strategy, than either can all the never-served pansies who fret and tremble over our military strategies. Yeah, the only people who can debate military policy are those that served :roll: And since you've probably never served in a national office, then shut your damn trap about what the president or congress does)

Now that's what I call a strong endorsement of free speech. :roll:


Exactly my point.

/points to supertool
 

bdude

Golden Member
Feb 9, 2004
1,645
0
76
A simplistic world view. This op-ed really isn't worth anybody's attention.
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
28,775
40,266
136
Get a mirror, get a life, get a clue, Bush Boy Bootlickers and A++ Apologists!


They can't, the pool is too shallow to fathom the trench between Iraq and Afghanistan.




Too much omote, not enough ura.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
So dickwad, er I mean Douglas, opens up with this steaming turd:

Any yammering propeller-headed nitwit can tell the world to make love, not war, and no one can impeach his sincerity in making that plaintive demand. By contrast, anyone who supports the war had better be a card-carrying military veteran, or else be condemned as a "chickenhawk" -- no matter how wise, eloquent, or inspiring their pro-war position might be.
So right off the bat he's offended everyone who opposes war by effectively calling them "idiots" .... while comparing/contrasting them to the "wise, eloquent or inspiring" pro-war crowd. Isn't this piece the very definition of elitist?

Uh, yeah. Yeah it is.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
So dickwad, er I mean Douglas, opens up with this steaming turd:

Any yammering propeller-headed nitwit can tell the world to make love, not war, and no one can impeach his sincerity in making that plaintive demand. By contrast, anyone who supports the war had better be a card-carrying military veteran, or else be condemned as a "chickenhawk" -- no matter how wise, eloquent, or inspiring their pro-war position might be.
So right off the bat he's offended everyone who opposes war by effectively calling them "idiots" .... while comparing/contrasting them to the "wise, eloquent or inspiring" pro-war crowd. Isn't this piece the very definition of elitist?

Uh, yeah. Yeah it is.

No, he starts off by saying any nitwit.... can do X,Y, or Z. Not that anyone who does X,Y, or Z is a nitwit. And then he points out what is done here many many times by leftists - saying those who support the war better sign up or have served or else be a "chickenhawk".

But hey, don't let comprehension get in your way...

CsG
 

cwjerome

Diamond Member
Sep 30, 2004
4,346
26
81
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
So dickwad, er I mean Douglas, opens up with this steaming turd:

Any yammering propeller-headed nitwit can tell the world to make love, not war, and no one can impeach his sincerity in making that plaintive demand. By contrast, anyone who supports the war had better be a card-carrying military veteran, or else be condemned as a "chickenhawk" -- no matter how wise, eloquent, or inspiring their pro-war position might be.
So right off the bat he's offended everyone who opposes war by effectively calling them "idiots" .... while comparing/contrasting them to the "wise, eloquent or inspiring" pro-war crowd. Isn't this piece the very definition of elitist?

Uh, yeah. Yeah it is.

LOL, he's so right. He pinned down some people around here to a T... and the reaction from some is the best part



 

bdude

Golden Member
Feb 9, 2004
1,645
0
76
Originally posted by: cwjerome
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
So dickwad, er I mean Douglas, opens up with this steaming turd:

Any yammering propeller-headed nitwit can tell the world to make love, not war, and no one can impeach his sincerity in making that plaintive demand. By contrast, anyone who supports the war had better be a card-carrying military veteran, or else be condemned as a "chickenhawk" -- no matter how wise, eloquent, or inspiring their pro-war position might be.
So right off the bat he's offended everyone who opposes war by effectively calling them "idiots" .... while comparing/contrasting them to the "wise, eloquent or inspiring" pro-war crowd. Isn't this piece the very definition of elitist?

Uh, yeah. Yeah it is.

LOL, he's so right. He pinned down some people around here to a T... and the reaction from some is the best part

Hmm, a reaction of disgust to a moronic op-ed piece...not surprising in the least. If this guy is looking to convert idealogues, he isn't trying hard enough.

 

bozack

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2000
7,913
12
81
Originally posted by: Perknose
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Any yammering propeller-headed nitwit can tell the world to make love, not war, and no one can impeach his sincerity. . .
Does ANYONE see the blindingly blatant hypocrisy in this OPENING statement?
No? Really??

Because fatally warped world view calling someone a "yammering propeller-headed nitwit" ISN'T "impeaching their sincerity" from the gitgo???

Get a mirror, get a life, get a clue, Bush Boy Bootlickers and A++ Apologists!

I guess the all too accurate term "CHICKENHAWK" really hit a nerve with you keyboard kommandos, eh? :|



Perk....in your quote I see no reference to the author of the article which cad quoted....you do realise that the part which one could easily surmise you attribute to Cad is in fact only something which he quoted written by someone else....so unless you are specifically referring to the author of said piece and neglected to put that in there (however I doubt it)...your response is nothing more than a pot shot, something which others might be vacationed for.









 

jackschmittusa

Diamond Member
Apr 16, 2003
5,972
1
0
Interesting how the article compares the general anti-war stance of what we used to call "peaceniks", to those in favor of THE war. Seems like an apples and oranges comparison to me. There will always be a minority of people who oppose all war on moral principals. These however, are not the people who are a thorn in the side of the current Administration. It is people like me who believe that war is a tool. A tool to be used sparingly, causiously, and judiciously. I liken war to chemotherapy; sometimes used as a last resort despite its horrible side effects when it is judged to be the lesser of 2 evils.

I served back when Viet Nam was THE war. As a firm believer of the Domino Theory at the time, I was an ardent supporter of the war. In retrospect, I suppose that some of the reason I rejected all of the anti-war arguments was that they might invaladate what I was doing. I would like to think that I am wiser now with age, and see the value of considering all valid arguments both for and against war as the occasion arises.

I do not oppose a surgical strike to foil an imminent terrorist attack. Pre-emptive war as policy is too dangerous. If a war is about to occur anyway, and the proof is beyond question, I have no problem with initiating a first strike. The Isralis did this once, were quite effective, and were absolutely right when they ascertained that they were about to be invaded.

GWB used the threat of hypothetical terrorist attacks to launch a war. He had no valid proof, and there was much evidence to the contrary. He has continued to invent new validations for the war, after the fact.

I have been against this war since it was first considered by the public at large. I am part of a large group of people not bound by a moral absolute against war who had to make a decision about whether to support it or not. Based on the facts as I saw them, I chose to oppose the war. I have yet to see anything to indicate that my decision was in error. It is people like me that Bush and co. worry about. Those of us that think for ourselves are the opponents which they fear.
 

cwjerome

Diamond Member
Sep 30, 2004
4,346
26
81
Jack, I can appreciate your position, but the author is referring to how many anti-Iraq-war people act like you have to be a card-carrying ex-military to support or debate policy and strategy. In other words, if you aren't in the military, your a "chickenhawk" for supporting military action. What a crock of dogsh!t, and he accurately calls it like it is....
 
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/    |